Case Number: 18LBCV00006 Hearing Date: February 14, 2019 Dept: S27

TENTATIVE RULING

The court GRANTS Defendant Carmona’s motion to quash service of summons, complaint and first amended complaint.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from the alleged mistreatment of Plaintiff while a student at Pacific Coast University School of Law. Plaintiff alleges eighteen causes of action against the University and its staff and faculty, City Attorneys, the California Bar Association, and the Long Beach Police Department amongst others.

Defendant Maren Grubb Carmona, Dean of Students, now moves the court for an order quashing service of summons, complaint and first amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

Overview of Relevant Law

“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.” Dill v. Berquist Construction Co., 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444(1994). “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Id. at 1441-1442.) When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.” Coulston v. Cooper, 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868(1966).

ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, once service is challenged by a defendant, the burden is on plaintiff to prove that service was effective. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition, the Court concludes Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden, and the motion to quash must be GRANTED.

Even setting aside the issue of burden, Defendant has demonstrated that the attempted service was improper.

Here, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Carmona by delivering copies of the summons, complaint, and first amended complaint to Sherry Diamond (dean of academics at Pacific Coast University School of Law). Defendant was never personally served.

Furthermore, substitute service is only be allowed when “a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served.” CCP § 415.20. Because Plaintiff made no attempt to personally serve Defendant with the summons and complaint, nor has he argued that such service is unavailable, he cannot argue substitute service under CCP § 415.20.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant Carmona’s motion to quash service of summons, complaint and first amended complaint.