On 10/11/2019 ALL ACCESS CAPITAL, LLC filed a Property - Commercial Eviction lawsuit against YANIV EVAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GAIL KILLEFER. The case status is Other.
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ALL ACCESS CAPITAL LLC
PMC HOLDINGS LLC
EVAN YANIV DBA POWERPLANT
POWERPLANT VINTAGE MOTORCYCLES LLC
STIMPERT DANIEL PAUL
PITTLUCK IAN JOSEPH
SCHORR ZACHARY D.
6/4/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal
4/23/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 04/23/2020
3/20/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 03/20/2020
2/4/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
10/11/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
10/16/2019: Notice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) - Notice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) (Yaniv Evan )
10/24/2019: Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case
10/24/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 10/24/2019
10/29/2019: Objection (name extension) - Objection to Notice of Related Cases
11/7/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF DANIEL P. STIMPERT
11/12/2019: Reply (name extension) - Reply DEFENDANT YANIV EVANS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OF PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
11/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)
11/22/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
11/26/2019: Answer - Answer
12/12/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEFENDANTS PMC HOLDINGS LLC. AND POWEPLANT VINTAGE CYCLES, LLC. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OF PLAINTIFFS VERIFI
12/16/2019: Answer - Answer
12/16/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Unavailability of Counsel
12/19/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 12/19/2019
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 07/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 31 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 06/19/2020Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: All Access Capital, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Yaniv Evan (Defendant); PMC Holdings, LLC (Defendant); Powerplant Vintage Motorcycles LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Complaint filed by All Access Capital, LLC on 10/11/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by All Access Capital, LLC as to the entire actionRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 07/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 31Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Court Order)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 04/23/2020; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 06/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 31 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 07/28/2020 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 06/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 31Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Court Order)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 03/20/2020; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 11/19/2019 at 01:30 PM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 97Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Quash Service of Summons; Filed by: All Access Capital, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer mailed 10/16/2019Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Civil Clerk's OfficeRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Gail Killefer in Department 97 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: All Access Capital, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Yaniv Evan (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: All Access Capital, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Yaniv Evan (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: All Access Capital, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Yaniv Evan (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketProperty Owner/Landlord Only Hearing Notice; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 19STUD09915 Hearing Date: November 21, 2019 Dept: 31
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS DENIED.
On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff All Access Capital, LLC filed the instant unlawful detainer action against Defendant Yaniv Evan dba Powerplant.
Defendant moves to quash service of the summons and verified unlawful detainer complaint filed on October 11, 2019.
“A motion to quash service is the proper method for determining whether the court has acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendant through service of the five-day unlawful detainer summons. [Citation.] If the underlying complaint fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer, then use of the five-day summons is improper and the defendant is entitled to an order quashing service as a matter of law. [Citation.]” (Delta Imports, Inc v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, 1035.) “A motion to quash service is the only method by which the defendant can test whether the complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer and, thereby, supports a five-day summons.” (Id. at 1036.) “Strict compliance with the specifically prescribed notice conditions is a prerequisite to invoking the summary procedures of unlawful detainer [citation].” (Parsons v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 6.)
“The complaint in an unlawful detainer action must set forth the facts on which the plaintiff seeks to recover. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1166.)” (Id.) “[O]n a motion to quash, jurisdictional facts are generally proven by consideration of competent evidence beyond the complaint. (See Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 338 [“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 facts requisite to an effective service.' ”]; Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 892.)” (Borsuk v. Superior Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4.)
“A motion to quash challenges service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. The jurisdictional facts must be proved by competent evidence at the hearing on the motion to quash. This generally requires affidavits or declarations by competent witnesses. A properly verified complaint may be treated as a declaration for this purpose [citations]. Although Delta Imports, Inc., speaks in terms of using a motion to quash to test whether the complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer, a motion to quash is not the same as a demurrer. What is being challenged are the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, namely the service of a proper notice to quit.” (Parsons, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th Supp. at 7.)
Defendant moves to quash service of the summons and verified unlawful detainer complaint filed on October 11, 2019. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements to invoke the summary procedures of an unlawful detainer action and thus service of the summons must be quashed. Defendant asserts that it paid its rent of $5,400 on or prior to October 1, 2019, pursuant to a 5-year lease, but was served with a defective Five Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit (the “Notice”) on or about October 2, 2019, alleging an outstanding balance of $10,164. (Evan Decl., Exh. D.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Notice is based upon a fictional month-to-month lease at a rate of $15,564 per month. Defendant argues that because no such lease exists, the Notice is entirely defective and invalid. Defendant asserts that the Notice thus cannot be used to terminate the lease and a defective notice that fails to terminate the kind of tenancy in existence cannot support a five-day summons for unlawful detainer action.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant does not complain of irregularities in the manner of the service of the summons nor the Verified Complaint. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant also does not argue that the summons is incomplete, improperly completed, or that any papers were omitted from the process served. Plaintiff contends that Defendant takes issue with the allegations contained within the Complaint. Plaintiff argues that the Verified Complaint in Unlawful Detainer properly alleges a written agreement between the parties that expired and converted to a month to month. (Complaint ¶ 6.) Plaintiff asserts that the motion to quash, based solely on the merits of the allegations contained within the Verified Complaint, is inappropriate. Plaintiff contends that if Defendant has a defense to the action, he is welcome to file an answer, offer affirmative defenses, conduct expedited discovery, and then have those defenses adjudicated at trial.
In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has presented no evidence whatsoever to dispute the evidence set forth by Defendant or his business partner supporting its contention that the lease at issue is not the one alleged in the Complaint.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to set forth a proper basis for quashing the summons at issue here. While Defendant argues that caselaw holds that a defective notice is grounds for quashing service of summons, the caselaw Defendant cites to deals with defective notices based on the type of notice required. Here, Defendant argues that the Notice is defective because it is based upon a “fictional” month-to-month lease. Such an argument goes to the merits of the case at hand and not to service or notice issues and is therefore inappropriate for determination at this point in the litigation.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons is DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases