This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/20/2021 at 02:20:22 (UTC).

EVOCON ENGINEERING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MASON PARI, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/15/2019 EVOCON ENGINEERING, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against MASON PARI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9521

  • Filing Date:

    10/15/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

EVOCON ENGINEERING INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants

ROYA PARI AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE MASON AND ROYA PARI 2004 TRUST DATED MARCH 16 2004

MASON PARI AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE MASON AND ROYA PARI 2004 TRUST DATED MARCH 16 2004

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GOLDING JONATHAN FREDERICK

Defendant Attorney

OMRANI SEPEHR

 

Court Documents

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

2/22/2021: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

2/23/2021: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

3/8/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

10/14/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Jo Ann Garcia

12/30/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Jo Ann Garcia

Reply (name extension) - Reply TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/5/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

4/17/2020: Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Motion to Quash Service of Summons) of 08/10/2020

8/10/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Motion to Quash Service of Summons) of 08/10/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

8/10/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing

8/20/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing

Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit of Due Diligence

3/23/2020: Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit of Due Diligence

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/23/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint - Complaint

10/15/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

10/15/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/15/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/15/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/15/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/11/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 07/22/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/11/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Evocon Engineering, Inc., a California corporation on 10/15/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Evocon Engineering, Inc., a California corporation as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketAddress for Jonathan Frederick Golding (Attorney) null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 07/22/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 02/23/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 02/23/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 03/18/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 02/23/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: Status Date changed from 02/22/2021 to 02/22/2021; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 03/18/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 03/23/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Evocon Engineering, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: ROYA PARI, an individual and as Trustee of the Mason and Roya Pari 2004 Trust dated March 16, 2004 (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 03/20/2020; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • DocketAffidavit of Due Diligence; Filed by: Evocon Engineering, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Evocon Engineering, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: MASON PARI, an individual and as Trustee of the Mason and Roya Pari 2004 Trust dated March 16, 2004 (Defendant); ROYA PARI, an individual and as Trustee of the Mason and Roya Pari 2004 Trust dated March 16, 2004 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Evocon Engineering, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: MASON PARI, an individual and as Trustee of the Mason and Roya Pari 2004 Trust dated March 16, 2004 (Defendant); ROYA PARI, an individual and as Trustee of the Mason and Roya Pari 2004 Trust dated March 16, 2004 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Evocon Engineering, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: MASON PARI, an individual and as Trustee of the Mason and Roya Pari 2004 Trust dated March 16, 2004 (Defendant); ROYA PARI, an individual and as Trustee of the Mason and Roya Pari 2004 Trust dated March 16, 2004 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC09521    Hearing Date: January 14, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Thu., January 14, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME Evocon Engineering, Inc. v. Pari, et al. COMPL. FILED: 10-15-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC09521 DISC. C/O: 03-14-21

NOTICE:   OK MOTION C/O: 03-29-21

TRIAL DATE: 04-13-21

PROCEEDINGS    MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Mason Pari, individually and as trustee, and Roya Pari, individually and as trustee

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Evocon Engineering, Inc.

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED. However, Defendants’ request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 is DENIED.

SERVICE

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on December 30, 2020 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: Filed on January 5, 2021 [   ] Late [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff Evocon Engineering, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien, breach of contract, and quantum meruit against Defendants Mason Pari (“Mason”) and Roya Pari (“Roya”), individually and as trustees of the Mason and Roya Pari 2004 Trust dated March 16, 2004 (collectively, “Defendants”).

On April 17, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on December 30, 2020, and Defendants filed a Reply on January 5, 2021.

  1. Legal Standard

“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: To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1), emphasis added.)  A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3).)

 (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) A proof of service containing a declaration from a registered process server invokes a presumption of valid service. (See American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; see also Evid. Code § 647.) This presumption is rebuttable. (See id.) The party seeking to defeat service of process must present sufficient evidence to show that the service did not take place as stated. (See Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1428; cf. People v. Chavez (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1483 [“If some fact be presumed, the opponent of that fact bears the burden of producing or going forward with evidence sufficient to overcome or rebut the presumed fact.”].) Merely denying service took place without more is insufficient to overcome the presumption.  (See Yadegar, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at 1428.)

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Motion is timely.

Plaintiff filed proofs of service purporting to show that Defendant Mason was personally served on March 20, 2020 at 428 S. Barranca St., West Covina, CA 91791 (the “West Covina Address”) (3/23/20 Proofs of Service.) The proofs of service also show Defendant Roya was substitute-served at the West Covina Address by leaving a copy of the Summons and Complaint with Defendant Mason that same day. (Id.) Cathy Jo Garcia, a registered process server, effectuated service. (Id.) Thus, the proofs of service are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of valid service pursuant to California Evidence Code section 647.

Defendants argue Defendant Mason was not properly personally served and thus service as to himself and on behalf of Defendant Roya was defective and must be quashed. (Mot., p. 6:25-28.) Defendants provide their declarations stating that Defendant Mason partially owns the property located at the West Covina Address, that they have never resided at the West Covina address, and that they have resided at 245 S. Canon Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (the “Beverly Hills Address”) since about the year 2000. (Mot., Roya Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4, 5.) They also state they don’t receive mail at the West Covina address. (Id.) The proofs of service describe the person served as a Middle Eastern male in his 70s, 5’7”, weighing 150 pounds with white hair. (3/23/20 Affidavit of Diligence.) However, Defendant Mason states that he is 62 years old, weighing 180 pounds with dark brown hair and a beard. (Id., Mason Decl., ¶ 4.)

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues personal service at the West Covina Address was proper because it is Defendants’ usual mailing address (Oppo., pp. 2:19-3:7.) Plaintiff provides a copy of the property detail report for the West Covina property, which is owned in part by Defendant Mason, noting the mailing address was 428 S. Barranca St., West Covina, CA 91791. (Id., Golding Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5, Exh. A, B.) However, this does not demonstrate that Defendants’ usual mailing address is the West Covina Address. In addition, the property is only owned by Defendant Mason, not Defendant Roya. Substitute service is permitted at a defendant’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a post office box. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) Although Plaintiff’s evidence demonstrates Defendant Roya was the former owner of the property located at the West Covina Address, she does not currently seem to have any interest in that property (See Oppo., Exhs A, B.) Plaintiff has not explained why this is a proper address to effectuate service on Defendant Roya. Thus, the Court finds the West Covina Address is not a proper address for service on Defendant Roya.

Plaintiff also provides the declaration of registered process server Garcia stating that on March 20, when she attempted service, she asked if the gentleman who answered the door at the West Covina Address was Defendant Mason. (Oppo., Garcia Decl., ¶ 6.) After confirming that he was, she laid the two sets of documents, one for each Defendant, on the floor rather than handing them directly due to COVID-19. (Id.) However, Defendants also provide the declaration of Behrooz Ahoubim, Defendant Mason’s brother-in-law. (Mot., Ahoubim Decl., ¶ 4.) He states that he and his family have been the sole residents of the property located at the West Covina Address since 1994, that he is 76-years old, is Middle-Eastern, 5’8” tall, weighs about 160 pounds, and has white hair. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-6.) He further states that on the morning of March 20, 2020, when a process server asked for Roya Pari, he stated she did not live there. (Id. at ¶ 7.) The process server asked if he knew Defendant Mason, and after stating he did, the process server dropped off a packet on the floor and left without saying anything else. (Id.) (Emphasis added.)

Based on the above, the Court finds Defendants presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate Defendant Mason was not personally served and that substitute service on Defendant Roya at the West Covina Address was ineffective. Thus, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.

As a final note, Defendants’ request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 is procedurally improper. A motion under Section 128.5 must be made separately from other motions and must provide a 21-day safe harbor to the offending party to withdraw or correct the challenged action or tactic. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (f)(1)(A), (B).) As Defendants did not comply with these procedural requirements, the request for sanctions is DENIED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED. However, Defendants’ request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where EVOCON ENGINEERING INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GOLDING JONATHAN F