Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23BBCV00494, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00494    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     April 26, 2023                         TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         SRM STUDIO CITY, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, v. MEGNA HOLDINGS, INC., dba JINKY’S CAFÉ and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23BBCV00494

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Megna Holdings, Inc

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff SRM Studio City, LLC

SERVICE:                              Filed March 27, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed April 7, 2023

REPLY:                                   No reply filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant moves to quash the service of summons.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff SRM Studio City, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) unlawful detainer claim against Defendant Megna Holdings, Inc (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges it entered into a five-year lease with Defendant for property located at 4000 Colfax Avenue, Studio City, County of Los Angeles, California (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff filed this complaint on March 2, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion to quash is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “(a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: [¶] (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. [¶] (2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. [¶] (3) To dismiss the action pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 583.110) of Title 8.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves to quash the service of summons.

             “When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’ ” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

            Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s service of summons was defective because it was neither served on the agent for service of process pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10, subdivision (a), nor on an officer as listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10, subdivision (b). Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s attempt to serve the summons by substituted service is defective.

            In opposition, Plaintiff provides that it attempted to serve Defendant’s agent for service of process, Mahmud Ulkarim (“Ulkarim”), at the location listed on the Secretary of State’s website. (Giberson Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff provides that after several attempts, its process server spoke to Jayce Umana, who explained she was Ulkarim’s assistant. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff provides that its process server left the documents with Umana and mailed the documents to Ulkarim’s listed address (Ibid.)

            “In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40, or 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 415.20, subd. (a).)

            Plaintiff’s amended proof of substituted service provides that the documents were left with an individual at the residence listed for Defendant’s agent for service of process on March 22, 2023. It also provides that the documents were mailed to the same address by first-class mail on the same day. Lastly, Plaintiff provides a declaration of diligence where its process server provides that he attempted to serve Defendant at the listed address five times in total, with the final attempt on March 22, 2023. Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (a).

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to quash is DENIED.

            Moving Party to provide notice.

Dated:   April 26, 2023                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court