GUILLERMINA BAUTISTA CHAVEZ ET AL VS METROPOLITAN AUTOMOTIVE

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****3311 Hearing Date: July 8, 2021 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant Joel Gallegos aka Joel Yovani Gallegos (“Defendant”) appears specially and moves to quash service of the summons and complaint. Plaintiff Guillermina Bautista-Chavez, aka Guillermina Chavez, aka Guillermina Castillo (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion.

ANALYSIS

“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: (1) 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).)

“In the absence of a voluntary submission to the authority of the court, compliance with the statutes governing service of process is essential to establish that court's personal jurisdiction over a defendant. When a defendant challenges that jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439–1440; accord Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160 [“It was incumbent upon plaintiff, after the filing of defendant's motion to quash, to present evidence discharging her burden to establish the requisites of valid service on defendant”].)

A plaintiff may serve an individual defendant “by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the 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 or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address . . . , at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 415.20, subd. (b).)

Here, Plaintiff filed a proof of service on June 13, 2019, which reflects service on Defendant via substituted service at “535 Tennis Court Ln. in San Bernardino, California” – the business address of Metropolitan Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (“MAW”) - on May 28, 2019. Plaintiff purportedly served Defendant via service on Superintendent Avaristo (“Avaristo”).

Defendant avers, however, that his employment with MAW terminated in late 2015. (Declaration of Joel Y. Gallegos, ¶ 3.) Thus, on May 28, 2019, 535 Tennis Court Ln., San Bernardino, California was neither Defendant’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, nor usual mailing address. (See Declaration of Joel Y. Gallegos, ¶ 4.) Accordingly, the service of the summons and complaint on Defendant via Avaristo is invalid.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that, despite deficient service, Defendant’s actual notice in this instance is sufficient to permit the case to proceed. The Court disagrees. A defendant’s knowledge of an action does not dispense with the statutory requirements for service of summons. (See Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808 [“notice does not substitute for proper service”].)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Consequently, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to quash the service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s order.