Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00077, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00077    Hearing Date: March 13, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

This is an action to domesticate a foreign judgment arising from post-bankruptcy litigation between the parties.  Plaintiffs Alan Chang Wah Tang and Hou Chung Man (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are the trustees of the bankruptcy estate belonging to defendant Lee Siu Fung, Siegfried (“Defendant”).  Defendant’s surname is Lee and Siegfried is his adopted name.   From June 2020 to February 2021, Defendant was ordered by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance (the “Hong Kong High Court”) to pay three sets of legal costs, totaling $6.08m HK plus interest (the “Hong Kong Judgments”).  As of January 1, 2023, the sums payable and owed by Defendant is approximately $9.02m HK. 

On February 10, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to quash service of summons.  A proof of service filed on January 18, 2023, states that Defendant was served by personal service on Monday, January 16, 2023 in Pasadena, California.  The person who served the papers is Robert Ascorra, a registered California process server. 

Filing a proof of service by a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper.  (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; Evid. Code, § 647 [“The return of a process server registered pursuant to . . . the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return”].)  Defendant successfully rebuts this presumption by declaring that he was not served with the summons and complaint and comparing the description of the individual served as described by the process server with that of his own.  The proof of service describes the individual served as : “46-50/Weight 121-140 lbs/Hair: Black/Sex:male/Height: 5’1-5’6.”  Defendant’s driver’s license reflects that Defendant is 6 feet tall and weighs 155 pounds.  Defendant further declares that he is turning 65 years old in less than 2 months.  (Fung Decl., ¶ 3.) 

Defendant also successfully rebuts the presumption of proper service by explaining that he lives in a house at the end of a private gated drive.  (Fung Decl., ¶ 4.)  He also has another private gate at the end of his own driveway.  (Ibid.)  Both gates require electronic security codes to open.  (Ibid.)  He declares that the gate to his home was not open on the night of January 16, 2023 after 7:00 p.m.  (Ibid.)  He further declares that on the evening of January 16, 2023, he did not: (1) provide the entry code for his own private gate to anyone or (2) open the gate to his home for anyone.  (Ibid.)  He states that he found the summons and complaint in his mailbox on Sunday morning and provides a photo showing that his mailbox is outside the communal gate.  (Fung Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. C.)  

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Fung’s declaration is not credible because defense counsel confirmed receipt of the summons and complaint in an email dated Friday, January 20, 2023.  (Opp. Casal Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)  When a defendant challenges jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash “...the burden falls on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia the fact required for effective service.”  (Floveyer International Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 793-794 [citing Coulston v. Cooper (1996) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.)  This email – which is the only piece of evidence submitted by Plaintiffs – does not prove that Defendant was personally served, only that at some point, the summons and complaint were transmitted to Defendant’s attorneys. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is GRANTED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.

Dated this 13th day of March 2023