Case Number: BC686402 Hearing Date: March 12, 2018 Dept: 47

Alex Nerush v. Stuart Grant, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY: Specially-Appearing Defendants Stuart Grant, Valerie Grant, Barry Grant and Approved Legal Hotline, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Alex Nerush

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Stuart Grant has failed to repay a $1.5 million loan and has bounced bad checks tendered for repayment.

Specially-Appearing Defendants Stuart Grant, Valerie Grant, Barry Grant and Approved Legal Hotline, Inc. move to quash service of summons due to defective service.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion to quash service of summons is MOOT as to Defendant Approved Legal Hotline, Inc. Defendant Approved Legal Hotline, Inc. is ordered to respond to the Complaint (other than a motion to quash) within 30 days of this order.

Defendants Stuart Grant, Valerie Grant and Barry Grant’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Quash Service of Summons

“When a defendant challenges [personal] 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. . . .” (Citation omitted.)” Floveyor International v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 793.

“A party cannot be properly joined unless served with the summons and complaint; notice does not substitute for proper service. Until statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant.” Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808. Earlier case law even held that there is “no duty to act upon a defectively served summons. The requirement of notice ‘is not satisfied by actual knowledge without notification conforming to the statutory requirements’ [citation]; it is long-settled that methods of service are to be strictly construed and that a court does not acquire jurisdiction where personal service is relied upon but has not in fact taken place. [Citations.]’” Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal. App. 3d 1457, 1466-67. However, the strict application of service requirements in the earlier line of cases has been relaxed somewhat where a defendant has received actual notice after an attempt to comply with the service statutes, as stated by the Second District Court of Appeal in Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 410-11:

The liberal and practical approach to service of process has been followed in subsequent Court of Appeal decisions. In Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. the court stated: “It is well settled that strict compliance with statutes governing service of process is not required. Rather, in deciding whether service was valid, the statutory provisions regarding service of process should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant.”

(Bold emphasis and underlining added.)

On the same day that this motion was filed, Plaintiff personally served LegalZoom.Com, Inc. as the agent for service of process on behalf of Approved Legal Hotline, Inc. See Opposition, Exh.1. LegalZoom, Com, Inc. is listed as agent for service of process in the California Secretary of State’s business records. Id. This service complied with CCP § 416.10(a), which permits service upon a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person designated as agent for service of process. As such, the motion to quash is MOOT as to Defendant Approved Legal Hotline, Inc.

Defendant Approved Legal Hotline, Inc. is ordered to respond to the Complaint within 30 days of this order.

Here, all three individual Defendants—Stuart Grant, Valerie Grant and Barry Grant—were purportedly served by substituted service whereby a copy of the summons and complaint was left for each Defendant on January 3, 2018 at 9107 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 450, Beverly Hills, CA 90120. See Proofs of Service filed on February 28, 2018. However, this address is not the residence, work or usual mailing address of any of the individual Grant Defendants, nor is any agent for service of process on behalf of the individual Grant Defendants located at that address. See Declaration of Stuart Grant, ¶ 3; Declaration of Valerie Grant, ¶ 6; Declaration of Barry Grant, ¶ 6. In this regard, substituted service was not properly served at any of the places authorized by CCP § 415.20(b) as to substituted service upon individuals:

(b) If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served 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 other than a United States Postal Service post office box, 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 other than a United States Postal Service post office box, 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. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.

CCP § 415.20(b)(bold emphasis added).

Accordingly, the motion to quash is GRANTED as to Defendants Stuart Grant, Valerie Grant and Barry Grant.

Plaintiff to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2018 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court