Case Number: BC533428 Hearing Date: February 09, 2015 Dept: 92
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

AHARON GAZALA,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
DARRYL DEVOE, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC533428

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #25
February 9, 2015

Plaintiff, Aharon Gazala filed this action against Defendants, Darryl DeVoe and Avis Budget Group, Inc. for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

On 9/25/14, Plaintiff filed proof of service on DeVoe. The POS shows Plaintiff’s process server served Defendant via substituted service on John Doe at 7 Times Square, New York, New York, 10036 and mailed the summons and complaint to the same address thereafter.

DeVoe contests the service. DeVoe contends 7 Times Square is a 47-story office building. He notes that no details are given about the unit number where the service took place. He declares no person notified him that legal papers for him were dropped off at the location, and he never received any mailed documents.

Plaintiff argues Defendant, at the scene of the accident, gave his work address at Ann, Inc. at 7 Times Square. Plaintiff argues Defendant had an obligation to be honest about his address, and service was proper.

CCP §415.20 governs substituted service. To effectuate substitute service, the process server must leave a copy of the summons and complaint at the individual’s dwelling house, usual place of business, or usual mailing address. If the papers are left at a business, they must be left with someone apparently in charge of the business. The process server must then mail the papers to the same address thereafter.

Defendant correctly notes that the proof of service does not identify the exact location or unit number where the papers were served. It also does not provide any identification of the John Doe who accepted service, such as a description of why the process server believed that individual to be apparently in charge of the business. The Court notes that such proofs of service typically indicate that the John Doe was, for example, a manager at a specific business, or something similar.

Additionally, it does not appear that the mailing of the documents would have resulted in proper service. The documents were mailed to a 47-story office building without a unit address. The chance that they made their way to the named defendant is, therefore, minimal.

The Court finds Plaintiff did not meet his burden to establish service on Defendant based on the 9/25/14 proof of service was proper.

Plaintiff also argues, in opposition, that he recently served Defendant via service on the California DMV. On 1/27/15, Plaintiff filed proof of service on Defendant via service on the DMV. The proof of service includes a return receipt signed by J. McDowell, showing receipt of the documents at Ann, Inc. at 7 Times Square in New York.

Whether the 1/27/15 proof of service is proper or not is not the subject of this motion. The service attempt took place after this motion was filed, and is not at issue on the motion. This ruling, therefore, quashes only the 9/24/14 service attempt; this ruling makes no determination concerning the 1/27/15 proof of service. That being said, the Court notes, without deciding, that Defendant, in reply, contests the most recent service attempt as well. The parties are ordered to meet and confer concerning the 1/27/15 proof of service in an attempt to avoid further law and motion practice in connection with service of the summons and complaint.

Dated this 9th day of February, 2015

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court