2013-00149977-CL-BT

Bhajan Singh Bariana vs. Asif Mahmood

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Filed By: Ullrich, Gabriel

Defendant Asif Mehmood’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is
unopposed but is denied.

Plaintiff has sued Defendant as an individual. The caption of the complaint is
confusing, as it also defines Mehmood as the President of Sacramento Independent
Taxi Owners Association and lists the address of the association, but the Complaint
does not name the Association as a defendant.

Mehmood contends he was not properly served with the summons and complaint,
contending that “another taxi driver” was personally served with the summons and
complaint. The proof of service in CCMS, by a registered process server, states that
he served a person apparently in charge of defendant’s place of business, Dawood
Ahmadi, after three attempts to serve the defendant personally. (See ROA Item 10)
The summons and complaint were later mailed pursuant to CCP 415.20(a). The proof
of service shows proper service by substituted service pursuant to CCP 415.20(a).

Asif Mehmood states only that he has not been personally served with the Complaint.
(Declaration of Mehmood). Mehmood is the president of the Sacramento Independent
Taxi Owners Association. Ahmadi, the “person in charge” was served at the office
location of the Association. Defendant contends that Dawood Ahmadi was not a
designated agent for service of process, however Mehmood is not an corporation but
an individual. Service of an individual by substituted service requires only serving the
person in charge of the office, not an agent for service of process.

Defendant has not challenged the proof of service filed by the registered process
server. The process statutes should be liberally construed to effectuate service and
uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant,
and in the last analysis the question of service should be resolved by considering each
situation from a practical standpoint. (See e.g. Espindola v. Nunez (1988) 199 Cal App
3d 1389.) One benefit of the liberal construction rule is its tendency to eliminate
unnecessary, time-consuming, and costly disputes over service of process issues.
Summers v. McClanahan, (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 403, 415. As noted by the
Summers court, “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.[(1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 295] 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.” Id. at p. 410-411.

Defendant shall file and serve an Answer on or before December 23, 2013.