Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/13/2021 at 00:03:49 (UTC).

JI AE KIM VS FORNASERI ANTHONY

Case Summary

On 05/08/2018 JI AE KIM filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against FORNASERI ANTHONY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6884

  • Filing Date:

    05/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KIM JI AE

Defendant

ANTHONY FORNASERI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KIM JI AE

 

Court Documents

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

3/3/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/11/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF ATTORNEY BRIAN LEACH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3/16/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF ATTORNEY BRIAN LEACH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/16/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

3/16/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

3/16/2020: Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

4/21/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/27/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

7/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

8/31/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

11/5/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Summons - on Complaint

5/8/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Complaint

5/8/2018: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/8/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

5/8/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Ji Ae Kim on 05/08/2018, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Ji Ae Kim as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Ji Ae Kim (Attorney): Organization Name: Law Offices of Ji Kim

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 10/07/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service /Dismissal scheduled for 10/19/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/11/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 07/15/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 10/07/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service /Dismissal scheduled for 06/16/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 10/19/2020 09:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request for Dismissal Filed Not Entered: Name Extension: Filed Not Entered; As To Parties changed from Fornaseri Anthony (Defendant) to Fornaseri Anthony (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 11/05/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/05/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 11/05/2019; Result Type to Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service /Dismissal scheduled for 03/12/2020 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Ji Ae Kim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Ji Ae Kim (Plaintiff); As to: Fornaseri Anthony (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/05/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/11/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC06884    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Anthony Fornaseri’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is CONTINUED to OCTOBER 7, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or 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: None filed as of July 13, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 13, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff Ji Ae Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for negligence against Defendant Anthony Fornaseri, erroneously sued as Fornaseri Anthony (“Defendant”).

A non-jury trial was scheduled for November 5, 2019, but was placed off calendar because service of the Summons and Complaint had not yet been effectuated on Defendant. (11/5/19 Minute Order.) The Court set an Order to Show Cause re Failure to File Proof of Service/Dismissal for March 12, 2020. (Id.) On the Court’s own motion, the March 12th hearing was thereafter continued to June 16, 2020, and continued again to October 19, 2020.

On March 16, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons (the “Motion”), originally scheduled for hearing for May 5, 2020. On the Court’s own motion, the hearing was continued to July 15, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (4/17/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.) Plaintiff was ordered to give notice of the continuance by mail to file a proof of service for the notice. (Id.)

On April 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal as to the entire action with prejudice but was rejected due to an error in Plaintiff’s counsel’s address. (4/21/20 Request for Dismissal.)

To date, no opposition to the Motion has been filed.

  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).)

“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.) 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

A. Service of Notice of Continuance

As an initial matter, the Court notes that, because Plaintiff did not file a proof of service for the April 17th continuance as requested, it is unclear whether Defendant received proper notice of the hearing changes.

B. Quash Service

Here, Plaintiff filed a proof of service purporting to show Defendant was personally served with the Summons and Complaint at 600 N. Harbor Blvd. Apt. 22, La Habra, CA 90631 (the “Harbor Address”) on January 24, 2020 by David Kim (“Kim”). (3/3/20 Proof of Service.) Kim is not a registered California process server. (Id.) Accordingly, the proof of service is not entitled to a presumption of valid service pursuant to California Evidence Code section 647.

Because Defendant was purportedly personally served on January 24, 2020, the deadline to file this motion was February 23, 2020. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1); Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3).) However, as Defendant argues he was never served with the Summons and Complaint, either personally or by mail, the Court finds good cause to extend the time for filing the Motion. (Mot., Fornaseri Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s proof of service is likely inaccurate because Kim is inexperienced in serving papers and because he has the same last name as Plaintiff, suggesting Kim is not a disinterested person. (Mot., p. 2:23-3:12.) He also argues that, on January 24, 2020, the Harbor Address was not his “dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address.” (Id. at ¶ 2.) However, it is substitute service, not personal service, that requires that a person be served at their dwelling, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 415.10; 415.20.)

Although the burden of proof is on Plaintiff to demonstrate service was proper, Defendant’s declaration is so vague, it is unclear to the Court how he discovered this action and why he could not have been properly personally served at the Harbor address. Thus, Defendant is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration providing these additional details.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Anthony Fornaseri’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is CONTINUED to OCTOBER 7, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.