WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC VS FORMULA ONE MOTORS,, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC13715    Hearing Date: July 06, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Michael Zaheri’s Motion to Quash Service 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 June 3, 2020 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: Filed on June 26, 2020 [   ] Late [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On October 30, 2018, Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants Formula One Motors (“Formula One”) and Michael Zaheri (“Zaheri”). On February 18, 2020, Defendant Formula One was dismissed from the action. (2/13/20 Minute Order.) On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a proof of service demonstrating that, on March 1, 2020, Defendant Zaheri was served by substitute service. (4/15/20 Proof of Service.)

On April 9, 2020, Defendant Zaheri filed the instant Motion to Quash Service (the “Motion”). On June 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition, and on June 26, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply.  

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

“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).)  A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading, or 40 days if service was effectuated by substitute service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3); Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

Defendant Zaheri’s Motion is timely. He argues that, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.110, service was untimely because Defendant Zaheri was served well after 60 days from the date the Complaint was filed. (Mot., p. 2:7-18.) As a result, he argues, the Court is required to quash service of the Summons and Complaint. (Id.) In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the remedy for failing to comply with Rule 3.110, subdivision (b) is an award of sanctions, not dismissal of the summons and complaint. (Oppo., p. 2:8-21.) In Reply, Defendant Zaheri argues that Plaintiff’s interpretation essentially renders Rule 3.110 meaningless. (Reply, p. 3:5-9.)

Rule 3.110, subdivision (b) states that the Complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after filing the complaint. Indeed, the remedy for failure to serve within 60 days is potential award of sanctions, not an order quashing the Summons and Complaint. Rule 3.110, subdivision (f) provides that “[i]f a party fails to serve and file pleadings as required under this rule and has not obtained an order extending time to serve its pleadings, the court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall not be imposed.” Defendant Zaheri has not provided any authority providing otherwise.  

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Michael Zaheri’s Motion to Quash Service is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC13715    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Michael Zaheri’s Motion to Quash Service 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 June 3, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on June 26, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On October 30, 2018, Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants Formula One Motors (“Formula One”) and Michael Zaheri (“Zaheri”). On February 18, 2020, Defendant Formula One was dismissed from the action. (2/13/20 Minute Order.) On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a proof of service demonstrating that, on March 1, 2020, Defendant Zaheri was served by substitute service. (4/15/20 Proof of Service.)

On April 9, 2020, Defendant Zaheri filed the instant Motion to Quash Service (the “Motion”). On June 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition, and on June 26, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

“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).) A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading, or 40 days if service was effectuated by substitute service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3); Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

Defendant Zaheri’s Motion is timely. He argues that, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.110, service was untimely because Defendant Zaheri was served well after 60 days from the date the Complaint was filed. (Mot., p. 2:7-18.) As a result, he argues, the Court is required to quash service of the Summons and Complaint. (Id.) In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the remedy for failing to comply with Rule 3.110, subdivision (b) is an award of sanctions, not dismissal of the summons and complaint. (Oppo., p. 2:8-21.) In Reply, Defendant Zaheri argues that Plaintiff’s interpretation essentially renders Rule 3.110 meaningless. (Reply, p. 3:5-9.)

Rule 3.110, subdivision (b) states that the Complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after filing the complaint. Indeed, the remedy for failure to serve within 60 days is potential award of sanctions, not an order quashing the Summons and Complaint. Rule 3.110, subdivision (f) provides that “[i]f a party fails to serve and file pleadings as required under this rule and has not obtained an order extending time to serve its pleadings, the court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall not be imposed.” Defendant Zaheri has not provided any authority providing otherwise.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Michael Zaheri’s Motion to Quash Service is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.