Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02743, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02743    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 22, 2023, plaintiff Estela Medina (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Richard Sakamoto (“Defendant”), individually and as trustee of the Richard Sakamoto Living Trust. Plaintiff alleges she was seriously injured on November 27, 2021, at Defendant’s premises located at 2254 Royal Oaks Drive, Duarte (“Property”), when she “c[a]me into contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition.”

Two proofs of service of summons were filed on November 12, 2024, reflecting service on Defendant by substituted service. The complaint and summons were left at the Property with an occupant identified as Isa “V.”

On January 14, 2025, Defendant filed this motion to quash service.

The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.’” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person being served, substitute service may be effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s “dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address . . . in the presence of . . . a person apparently in charge . . . and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail . . . to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) Where service was by a registered process server, Evidence Code section 647 applies to accord a presumption as to the facts stated in the proof of service. (Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1425-1427.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that has not been personally served because the “Isa V.” is not related to him, is not a member of his household, and could not have moved onto his property with his consent. Defendant’s neighbor, Mirna Morales, declares that she has been on friendly terms with Defendant since 1997 (minus a brief two-year period between 2020 and 2022). (Morales Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4.) Ms. Morales states that Defendant is blind and has been blind since birth; he is also 80-years old and has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. (Morales Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5-6.) Since his diagnosis, Defendant has required assistance with his daily needs and finances. (Morales Decl., ¶ 6.) Ms. Morales states that she does not know who “Isa V” is and that Defendant does not have any relatives or acquaintances with that name, nor does she know anyone matching the proof of service’s description of her who lives at the Property. (Morales Decl., ¶ 8.) Ms. Morales further explains that at some point, between 2020 and 2022, Plaintiff became Defendant’s caretaker and moved into the Property, where she currently lives; meaning that Plaintiff was residing at the Property with Defendant at the time she allegedly sustained her injury. (Morales Decl., ¶ 7.)

While a person with whom the papers are left need not be a member of the family, “[s]ervice must be made upon a person whose ‘relationship with the person to be served makes it more likely than not that they will deliver process to the named party.’” (Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393.) Here, Defendant has provided evidence that there the person served lacks a “close connection” with Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, Judicial Council Comment.)

Plaintiff did not file an opposition brief and does not rebut any of Defendant’s arguments. Therefore, she fails to meet her burden and show valid service. (See Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440.)

IV.        CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is GRANTED. The case management conference set for April 29, 2025 is CONTINUED to May 29, 2025, and the Court sets an OSC re: Failure to File Proof of Service for the same day.  

Dated this 24th day of March 2025

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.