Case Number: BC577308 Hearing Date: May 05, 2016 Dept: 98

ADAM ZAMORA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

TIFFANY MARTINA CASTILLO CORRALES, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO: BC577308

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Dept. 98
1:30 p.m.
May 5, 2016

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff Adam Zamora (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for alleged damages arising out of a bicycle vs. vehicle collision. On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service on Defendant Las Vegas Shuttle Express, Inc. (“Defendant”). The Proof of Service indicates that process was served on Eulalio Corrales (erroneously spelled as Ealalio Corrales) (“Corrales”), Defendant’s agent for service, via substituted service on Ruby Ruiz, on February 3, 2016 at 108 7th Street, Los Angeles, California 90014 (“Los Angeles location”). The documents were thereafter mailed at the same address on the same date. Defendant now moves to quash service of summons.

A summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a person’s usual place of business in the presence of a person apparently in charge of his or her office or place of business and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and 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. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b). “Statutes governing substitute service shall be ‘liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold jurisdiction if actual notice has been received by the defendant ….’” Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 (citing Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1392).

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of: 1) the Proof of Service filed by Plaintiff on February 10, 2016; and 2) a copy of the print-out from the California Secretary of State’s website, identifying Eulalio A. Corrales as Defendant’s agent for service of process with an address at 102 1/2 W. Hall Avenue, San Ysidro, California 92713 (“San Ysidro location”). The request for judicial notice is granted. Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h).

Plaintiff asserts that he attempted to serve Defendant through Corrales at the San Ysidro location, but discovered that Defendant and Corrales were no longer located there. George Sano, Process Server, attempted service at the San Ysidro location on May 1, 2015. Declaration of George Sano, ¶ 4. He discovered that Defendant had moved from that location and the Barajas family were the new tenants. Id. Plaintiff therefore served process at the Los Angeles location. Plaintiff contends that Defendant does business at the Los Angeles location, but offers no evidence to support his contention. Arman Mardigian, Plaintiff’s Process Server, states that Ruby Ruiz informed him that she was the person in charge at the Los Angeles location. Declaration of Arman Mardigian, ¶ 4. Mr. Mardigian told Ms. Ruiz that he had documents to serve on Defendant, and Ms. Ruiz said that she would accept service. Id.

Defendant contends that service was improper because Plaintiff failed to serve the correct person and failed to serve process at the correct location. Corrales, President and Owner of Defendant, avers that Defendant has been out of business and has ceased all business operations since 2013. Declaration of Eulalio Alberto Corrales, ¶ 2. He further states that Defendant does not and has never done business at the Los Angeles location and has never employed and does not employ anyone by the name of Ruby Ruiz. Id., ¶ 3-4. Corrales further does not know any individual by the name of Ruby Ruiz. Id., ¶ 4. Lastly, Corrales declares that he has never received the summons, complaint, or first amended complaint that were purportedly served in this matter. Id., ¶ 5.

In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that service on Defendant at the Los Angeles location was improper. The burden of proof on a motion to quash is on the party asserting that service was proper. Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Defendant conducted business at the Los Angeles location and therefore has not met his burden. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED.

Dated this 5th day of May, 2016

Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court