Motion Quash

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 10, 2017

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER ~ Karl Siganporia vs ZL Technologies, Inc. Hearing Start Time: 9:00 AM 17CV312791 Hearing Type: Motion: Quash Date of Hearing: 09/19/2017 Comments: Heard By: Zayner, Theodore C Location: Department 6 Courtroom Reporter: - No Record Transcribed Courtroom Clerk: Mai Jansson Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Exhibits: - No appearance, tentative adopted as follows:This is an action by a purported shareholder, Plaintiff, seeking to inspect the records of Defendant ZL Technologies, Inc. ( Defendant ). Currently before the Court is the motion to quash service of Plaintiffs petition for writ of mandate to allow Plaintiff to inspect Defendants records pursuant to California Corporations Code 1600 et seq. [I]n California, ...the original service of process, which confers jurisdiction, must conform to statutory requirements or all that follows is void. (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 809 ( Ruttenberg ).) Until statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacksjurisdiction over a defendant. (Id. at 808.) When a defendant challenges the courts personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of summons the burden is on the plaintiff to prove . . . the facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413; see also Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) Pursuant to CCP 416.10, a summons may be served on a corporation like Defendant by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an agent for service of process or officer of the corporation. (CCP 416.10(a), (b).) In lieu of personal service on an officer or agent for service of process, substitute service may be accomplished by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the business address of the person to be served during normal business hours and leaving the documents with the person apparently in charge thereof. (CCP 415.20(a).) The process server must thereafter mail (by prepaid first class mail) a copy of the summons and complaint to the officer or agent for service of process at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. (Ibid.) The evident purpose of Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 is to permit service to be completed upon a good faith attempt at physical service on a responsible person Service must be made upon a person whose relationship with the person to be served makes it more likely than not that they will deliver process to the named party. (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1202 1203, internal citations omitted.) Defendants Motion to Quash Service is GRANTED. With Defendant having filed a timely motion to quash the burden to establish proper service shifts to Plaintiff. [T]he burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the facts ofjurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (Evangelize China Fellowship, Inc. v. Evangelize China Fellowship, Hong Kong (1983) 146 Primed: 9/19/2017 09/19/2017 Motion: Quash - 17CV312791 Page 1 of2 ~ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Cal.App.3d 440, 444.) Where a motion to quash is made, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish the facts ofjurisdiction, by declarations, verified complaint or other evidence. (2 Witkin, California Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Jurisdiction, 220, p. 828.) While substitute service can be a valid method of serving a pleading or a writ petition on a corporation like Defendant, Plaintiff has not met his burden to establish through admissible evidence that he did it properly. Simply pointing to the process server s declaration is not enough. The apparent failure of Plaintiff and/or the process server to ever send Defendant a copy of the summons and a file-endorsed copy of the Petition by first class mail as expressly required by CCP 415.20 means the full requirements for substitute service have not been met, even assuming for purposes of argument that Defendant s receptionist Ms. Tairy Rich qualified as a person apparently in charge, for purposes of substitute service. Emailing documents to Defense Counsel also does not establish valid service as email does not comply with CCP 415.20 and Defense Counsel had already informed Plaintiff he was not authorized to accept service on behalf of Defendant. Primed: 9/19/2017 09/19/2017 Motion: Quash - 17CV312791 PageZ of2