Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02812, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02812    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On December 5, 2023, plaintiff County of Los Angeles (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory relief relating to property located at 2261 N. Lincoln Avenue in Altadena, California (the “Property”). The Complaint named C.R. Legal, Sr., House of Prayer International, and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interests in the property adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud on Plaintiff’s title to the Property (“Unknown Persons”).

On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application requesting an order authorizing service by publication on “Unknown Persons.” The application was granted on March 14, 2024. Plaintiff proceeded to publish copies of the summons and complaint in the L.A. Times on March 21, March 28, April 4, and April 11, 2024. A copy of the summons and complaint was also posted at the property. On April 3, 2024, Mooya Assasepa (“Defendant”) filed this motion to quash service of summons. Defendant argues that service of the summons and complaint must be quashed because Plaintiff did not personally serve them.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 provides the exclusive procedure for challenging personal jurisdiction at the outset. (Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 337, 342.) Although the defendant is the moving party, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to defeat the motion by establishing that jurisdictional grounds exist. (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.)

Service by publication is one of the methods for serving a summons and is strictly construed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50; County of Riverside v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 443, 450.) To serve by publication, the plaintiff must exercise “reasonable diligence to locate a person in order to give him notice before resorting to the fictional notice afforded by publication.”  (Donel, Inc. v. Badalian (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 327, 332.) Service by publication should be used only as a last resort. (Watts v. Crawford (1995) 10 Cal.4th 743, 749, fn. 5.) If the defendant’s address is ascertainable, then some other method of service must be used. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s counsel, Erin A. Shields, declares that her firm ordered a litigation guarantee with respect to the Property from Lawyer’s Title Company, but the guarantee did not name anyone other than C.R. Legal, Sr. and House of Prayer International who might assert an interest in the Property. (Shields Decl. ¶¶ 1-5.) Shields also declares that she spoke to counsel for House of Prayer International and the process server spoke with C.R. Legal, Sr., but neither of them spoke of any other person who might claim an interest in the Property. Therefore, the service by publication on Defendant as an “Unknown Defendant” was effective because Defendant’s address was not ascertainable in any other fashion and Plaintiff was not required to personally serve Defendant.

In light of the foregoing, the motion to quash is DENIED. Because the instant motion is only a motion to quash, the Court does not address Defendant’s argument that the “Declaration of Land Patent” published in the Pasadena Weekly in March 2011 defeats Plaintiff’s claims to title. 

Dated this 2nd day of May, 2024

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.