Case Number: BC678014 Hearing Date: August 31, 2018 Dept: 78

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 78

JUSTIN C. JONES,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROBERT KARDASHIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC678014

Hearing Date: August 31, 2018

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

Specially Appearing Defendant Robert Kardashian’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons.

Specially Appearing Defendant Robert Kardashian’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Justin Jones (“Jones”) was friends with Defendant Angela Renee White aka Blac Chyna (“Chyna”), a public personality. (Complaint ¶ 6.)

There exists a picture of Jones and Chyna kissing one another on the lips. (Complaint ¶ 7.) In October 2016, this kissing photo was released to an online entertainment publication. (Complaint ¶ 8.) Other sites released the photo with false headlines indicating that Jones and Chyna were in a sexual relationship. (Complaint ¶ 15.) Although Jones did not release the photo, Chyna and Defendant Robert Kardashian (“Kardashian”) believed he did, and so conspired to create a campaign of cyberbullying against Jones by sending threatening texts and releasing Jones’s private phone number and email address to the public. (Complaint ¶¶ 18, 21.) Chyna also released private information about Jones’s sexual orientation. (Complaint ¶ 19.) As a result of the release of Jones’s contact information, he received insulting and threatening messages from the public. (Complaint ¶ 23.) Jones eventually attempted suicide, though he was unsuccessful. (Complaint ¶ 26.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jones filed the Complaint on October 2, 2017, alleging four causes of action:

Defamation

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Cyberbullying in Violation of Penal Code § 653.2

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Jones filed a Proof of Service of Summons for Kardashian on January 18, 2018, indicating that Kardashian had been served by substituted service at a Woodland Hills address.

Kardashian filed the present Motion to Quash Service of Summons on June 13, 2018.

Jones filed an Opposition on August 21, 2018.

DISCUSSION

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Kardashian argues that service of the Complaint and summons upon him must be quashed because the address where he was served is not his residence, place of business, or mailing address. (Motion at pp. 5–6.)

“‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) Mere notice of litigation does not confer personal jurisdiction absent substantial compliance with the statutory requirements for service of summons. (MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 555, 557.)

While courts are not required to accept self-serving evidence — such as declarations that one was not served — submitted to support a motion to quash, facial defects of the proof of service will rebut its presumption of proper service. (American Exp. Centurion Bank, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.) The burden is on a plaintiff to prove facts showing that service was effective. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20, subd. (b) allows for substituted service upon a natural person “[i]f a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served.” If personal service cannot reasonably accomplished, then a plaintiff may serve the summons “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 person apparently in charge” of the premises. (Ibid.)

Kardashian presents the declaration of Angela Kukawski, who testifies that she is an Account Manager/Employee Relations Manager at Boulevard Management, the business that operates at the Woodland Hills address identified on Plaintiff’s proof of service as the place where substitute service was made. (Kukawski Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.) She testifies that, although Boulevard Management provides accounting and tax services to Kardashian, he does not reside at the office, conduct business out of the office, or use the office as his personal mailing address. (Kukawski Decl. ¶ 4.)

Jones argues in response that the Woodland Hills address was located by a “skip trace,” and that no other current addresses for Kardashian have been located. (Opposition at p. 4.) Jones argues that if the Woodland Hills address is not a proper address for substitute service, then Kardashian would have no current address or place of business. (Opposition at p. 4.)[1]

Jones’s argument does not adequately support a conclusion that the Woodland Hills address is Kardashian’s business, residence, or mailing address, especially in the face of the Kukawski declaration. Jones has therefore not carried his burden to show effective service upon Kardashian.

The Motion to Quash Service of Summons is therefore GRANTED.

Defendants to give notice.

Dated: August 31, 2018

__________________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Kardashian’s counsel, Patricia A. Millett, testifies that she offered to accept service on behalf of Kardashian via notice and acknowledgement of receipt if Jones agreed to withdraw the claim that service had been properly effected. (Millett Decl. ¶ 5.)