Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV02687, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02687    Hearing Date: July 29, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. INTRODUCTION

On January 22, 2021, plaintiff Susan Ly (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Candytopia, LLC (“Candytopia”) and Does 1 to 20 (“Defendants”).  Plaintiff alleges that on August 22, 2019, she sustained injuries at Defendants’ exhibition in Dallas, Texas, when she stood on an elevated platform and, upon Defendants’ employees’ suggestion and encouragement, jumped into an artificial “marshmallow pit.”  

On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint naming Youtopia Entertainment, LLC (“Youtopia”) as Doe 1 and ZH Productions, Inc. (“ZH”) as Doe 2.  ZH has since been dismissed from the action.

On May 18, 2022, Youtopia filed this motion to quash service of summons claiming that this court lacks personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on July 18, 2022.  Youtopia filed a reply brief on July 22, 2022.

1. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to quash is the appropriate procedural device to challenge the use of Code of Civil Procedure section 474 to amend the complaint and add a Doe defendant.  “If the terms of section 474 have not been complied with, the purported defendant has not been named as such in the complaint.  A service upon one not named in a complaint does not confer jurisdiction to proceed upon the complaint against him, and a motion to quash is proper.”  (McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 368, 375 [internal quotations omitted]; Optical Surplus, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 776, 782–783 [motion to quash should be granted when party is wrongly served as Doe defendant].)

1. DISCUSSION

   Youtopia argues it was not properly named in the Complaint as a fictitious defendant because: (1) it did not exist at the time of Plaintiff’s injuries or at the time the action was filed, and (2) Plaintiff’s Complaint also lacks any allegations of successor liability.  As evidence, Youtopia submits a declaration from the chief executive officer of Youtopia, John Goodman (“Goodman”), who is also the chief executive officer of Candytopia.  (Goodman Decl., ¶ 2.)  Goodman declares that Youtopia filed its certificate of formation as a limited liability company with the Delaware Secretary of State on February 15, 2021.  (Goodman Decl., Ex. A.)  Youtopia then purchased the assets of Candytopia from Candytopia’s secured creditor, Osix Corporation (“Osix”) on February 20, 2021.  (Goodman Decl., ¶ 5.)  Youtopia did not assume Candytopia’s debts.  (Ibid.) 

   Plaintiff does not dispute that Youtopia is a newly formed entity and argues that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Youtopia because Youtopia is Candytopia’s successor and has assumed Candytopia’s liabilities.  Code of Civil Procedure section 474 allows a plaintiff who is ignorant of a defendant's identity to designate the defendant in a complaint by a fictitious name (typically, as a “Doe”), and to amend the pleading to state the defendant's true name when the plaintiff subsequently discovers it.  When a defendant is properly named under section 474, the amendment relates back to the filing date of the original complaint.  (Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 176.)  Plaintiff contends Youtopia is a mere continuation of the business conducted by Candytopia and was formed by the same people that owned and operated Candytopia for the purposes of escaping Candytopia’s liabilities.  (Opp., 2:6-10.)  However, the theory of successor liability upon which Plaintiff seeks to hold Youtopia liable is not alleged in the complaint.  As currently pleaded, Youtopia is improperly named as a Doe defendant.  Code of Civil Procedure section 474 allows a plaintiff who is ignorant of a defendant's identity to designate the defendant in a complaint by a fictitious name (typically, as a “Doe”), and to amend the pleading to state the defendant's true name when the plaintiff subsequently discovers it.  (Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 176.)  Here, Youtopia cannot be named as a defendant by a fictitious name where the alleged tortious conduct was committed on August 22, 2019, before Youtopia even existed. 

2. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Youtopia’s motion to quash service of summons based on the lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.  Because Plaintiff’s theory of liability against Youtopia is premised on successor liability, Plaintiff’s request to continue the hearing to permit jurisdictional discovery as to Youtopia’s minimum contacts is DENIED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.