This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/31/2021 at 11:52:54 (UTC).

UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY VS SHIN CHUL MOON

Case Summary

On 05/20/2020 UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SHIN CHUL MOON. 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:

    *******4335

  • Filing Date:

    05/20/2020

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY

Defendant

MOON SHIN CHUL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

NIVINSKUS MARK

Defendant Attorney

HOFFMAN RICHARD D

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

3/30/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Reply (name extension) - Reply memorandum in support of motion to quash

1/21/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply memorandum in support of motion to quash

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

1/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

1/28/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion

12/15/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion

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

9/21/2020: Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Complaint - Complaint

5/20/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) - Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

5/20/2020: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) - Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

5/20/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/20/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

5/20/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

5/20/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/07/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/07/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/24/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/07/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by United Financial Casualty Company on 05/20/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by United Financial Casualty Company as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Proof of Service by Substituted Service: Filed By: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff); Result: Voided; Result Date: 01/28/2021; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Shin Chul Moon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 01/28/2021 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 01/28/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2021
  • DocketReply memorandum in support of motion to quash; Filed by: Shin Chul Moon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2020
  • DocketOpposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion; Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 01/28/2021 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
1 More Docket Entries
  • 06/22/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff); Service Cost: 84.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff); As to: Shin Chul Moon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff); As to: Shin Chul Moon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff); As to: Shin Chul Moon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketStatement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff); As to: Shin Chul Moon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/24/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC04335    Hearing Date: January 28, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., January 28, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: United Financial Casualty Co. v. Moon COMPL. FILED: 05-20-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC04335 DISC. C/O: 10-18-21

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 11-02-21

TRIAL DATE: 11-17-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Shin Chul Moon

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff United Financial Casualty Company

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Shin Chul Moon’s Motion to Quash Service of Process is GRANTED.

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 15, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on January 21, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On May 20, 2020, Plaintiff United Financial Casualty Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Shin Chul Moon (“Defendant”).

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons (the “Motion”) on September 21, 2020. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on December 15, 2020, and Defendant filed a Reply on January 21, 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).)

“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.) Actual notice of an action is not a substitute for proper service and, until statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant. (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.)

  1. Legal Standard

Here, Plaintiff filed a proof of service purporting to show Defendant was served via substitute service on May 30, 2020 by leaving a copy of the Summons and Complaint with “Chun Moon, Occupant” at 2257 Cambridge St., Los Angeles, CA 90006 (the “Cambridge Address”). (6/22/20 Proof of Service.) Substitute service is permitted at a person’s “dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address…in the presence of a competent member of the household…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) Service was effectuated by J. Martinez, a registered California process server. (Id.) Defendant very generally states that he moved from Los Angeles to another state on December 18, 2019, that he was living and residing outside of California on May 30, 2020, the date he was purportedly served, and that he is not related to, or know anyone named, Chun Moon. (Mot., Moon Decl., p 1.)

As noted above, it is Plaintiff’s burden to establish service was properly effectuated. In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the proof of service, completed by a registered process server, creates a presumption that service was proper. (Oppo., p. 5: 21-25.) Defendant, however, does not dispute the actual service of the documents at the Cambridge Address; rather, Defendant argues the Cambridge Address was not a proper address to serve him. The fact that the proof of service was completed by a registered process server does not establish that the Cambridge Address was the correct address at which to serve Defendant.

Plaintiff also appears to argue that Defendant had actual notice of this action, and for this reason, service should not be quashed. (Oppo., p. 3:23-28, Nivinskus Decl., ¶ 6.) However, actual notice is not a substitute for proper service. (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.)

In support of its position that the Cambridge Address was proper, Plaintiff provides a copy of a Traffic Collision Report dated December 4, 2019. (Mot., p. 2:16-23, Exh. B.) The report was taken after an accident between Plaintiff’s insured and Defendant occurred. (Id.) The report lists the Cambridge Address as Defendant’s address. (Id.) However, the traffic report is dated almost six months before the Summons and Complaint were served at the Cambridge Address. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel does not discuss or provide any evidence demonstrating he took steps to ensure the Cambridge Address was Defendant’s current address, usual place of abode, or usual mailing address before serving him. Rather, it appears that Plaintiff’s counsel simply relied on the information in the police report without verifying it was correct.

As Plaintiff has not carried his burden to establish the Cambridge Address was the proper address at which to serve Defendant, the Motion is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Shin Chul Moon’s Motion to Quash Service of Process is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where United Financial Casualty Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HOFFMAN RICHARD D.