Case Number: BC602042 Hearing Date: May 09, 2016 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to quash service of summons and complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Jerry Agam, Karen Agam, and Rafi Hayon (“defendants”)

Resp. Party: None

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs commenced this instant action on 11/23/15 against defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) quantum meruit and quantum valebant; (4) fraud; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) conversion; (7) misrepresentation; (8) negligent interference of prospective business advantage; and (9) tortious interference with prospective business expectancy.

ANALYSIS:

Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to properly effect service of process on them.

“ ‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.’ ” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544. Accord Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1152.) Complainants have the initial burden to evidence valid statutory service of a summons and complaint. (Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439 40; Floveyor Internat. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶ 4:428.) “ ‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.’ ” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) A filed proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper, if it complies with applicable statutory requirements. (Floveyor Internat. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.)

The proofs of service filed by plaintiffs in this action state that Jerry Agam and Karen Agam were served by personal service on 3/9/16 at 2995 N. Beverly Glenn Cir., Los Angeles, California 90077. Plaintiff has also filed proofs of service stating that Rafi Hayon was served by personal service on 3/10/16 at 27058 Esward Drive, Calabasas, California 91301.

“A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete at the time of such delivery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.) Defendants argue that they were never properly personally served with the complaint and summons.

Jerry Agam declares that he does not reside at 2995 N. Beverly Glenn Cir., Los Angeles, California 90077 and that he is unfamiliar with the address. (J. Agam Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Jerry Agam declares that he has never been personally served with the instant lawsuit. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Karen Agam declares that she does not reside at 2995 N. Beverly Glenn Cir., Los Angeles, California 90077 and that she is unfamiliar with the address. (K. Agam Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Karen Agam declares that she has never been personally served with the instant lawsuit. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Rafi Hayon declares that he does live at 27058 Esward Drive, Calabasas, California 91302. (Hayon Decl., ¶ 3.) He declares that he has never been personally served with the instant lawsuit. (Id., ¶ 6.) He declares that on 3/10/16, his son, who is not yet 18-years-old, found a complaint and summons sitting on the doorstep when he got home. (Id., ¶ 4.) Hayon believes that nobody was home when the complaint was delivered, and he is unaware of any prior attempts to serve a member of his household. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Defendants’ evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption that they were properly served. Because the motion is unopposed, plaintiffs fail to show that service was proper.

The specially-appearing Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.