Case Number: BC638669 Hearing Date: April 04, 2018 Dept: 92

JOSE ALFREDO MALDONADO,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

RAMALINGAM LEELAKANTI, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC638669

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

April 4, 2018

Background Facts

Plaintiff, Jose Alfredo Maldonado filed this action against Defendants, Ramalingam Leelakanti and PV Holding Corp. for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Leelakanti is sued as the driver of the automobile involved in the accident, and PV Holding is sued as the owner of the automobile and for negligently entrusting the vehicle to Leelakanti.

Plaintiff filed this action on 10/26/16. On 6/20/17, he filed an application to serve the summons and complaint on Leelakanti via publication. On 6/28/17, the Court granted the order for publication. On 8/14/17, she filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on Leelakanti via publication.

Motion to Quash

At this time, specially appearing Defendant Leelakanti moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, contending she resides in Singapore, such that service must be per the Hague Convention, and service by publication in a Los Angeles based newspaper is not sufficient. Specifically, she contends the address she used on her rental car application was a Singapore address, and she contends she used a Singapore driver’s license to rent the car. She notes that the police report contains a Los Angeles address, but contends this address was, at most, a temporary address where she was staying while on vacation in California. She therefore argues service of the summons and complaint on her was improper and should be quashed.

As an initial note, Plaintiff refers to the motion as one brought by “PV Holding Corp.” While it is true that the attorney who has appeared in PV Holding’s behalf is the attorney who filed the motion, it is clear that the motion is brought by specially appearing defendant Leelakanti, and not by PV Holding.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff argues Leelakanti failed to provide admissible evidence to support her position that she resides in Singapore, as opposed to Los Angeles. Plaintiff appears to concede that, if Leelakanti is a resident of Singapore, then service must be pursuant to the Hague convention and would not be proper via publication in a Los Angeles newspaper, as he does not argue or provide authority to the contrary in the opposition.

Plaintiff misstates the burden in connection with a motion to quash. Once a defendant files a motion to quash, the burden immediately shifts to the plaintiff to establish that service of the summons and complaint was proper. Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413. The opposition does not attempt to make this showing, and instead relies entirely on the purported lack of evidence with the moving papers. In an abundance of caution, the Court previously continued the hearing on this motion to require Defendant to provide affirmative evidence that she resides in Singapore. Defendant subsequently submitted Declarations of Christian D. Molloy, John Leach, and Sheila Ponnosamy in support of the motion; each of these declarations confirms that Defendant resides in Singapore. Plaintiff has not, to date, submitted any additional briefing or evidence in connection with the motion.

Because Plaintiff has the burden to establish service was proper, and because Plaintiff did not provide any evidence on this issue, the motion to quash is granted.