Case Number: 23AHCV00379 Hearing Date: July 19, 2023 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT
| JOSE RIVERA,
Plaintiff(s), vs.
CALIFORNIA STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION,
Defendant(s). |
)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
CASE NO.: 23AHCV00379
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS
Dept. 3 8:30 a.m. July 19, 2023 |
On February 22, 2023, plaintiff Jose Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants California State Lottery Commission (“Commission”), the State of California (“State”), “Reggie” (subsequently named as “Urachi F. Romero”) (“Romero”), and Edwin G. Castro (“Defendant”) (sued as “Edwin Castro”). Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a lottery ticket that had the winning numbers for the November 8, 2022, $2.04 billion Powerball draw, but that the ticket was stolen by Romero. Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to present a claim form to the Commission on February 15, 2023, after the Commission and State released the identity of the winner, Edwin Castro, and now seeks declaratory relief against all defendants to establish himself as the lawful and rightful owner of the winning lottery ticket. Plaintiff also asserts causes of action against Romero individually for conversion, trespass to chattels, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and negligent interference with prospective economic relations.
On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service reflecting that Defendant was personally served at 8365 Sunset View Drive in Los Angeles, California (the “Los Angeles Address”). On May 25, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to quash service of process. The next day, on May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended proof of service claiming that Defendant was personally served on April 25, 2023, at 2174 Midlothian Drive in Altadena, California (the “Altadena Address”).
In his moving papers, Defendant argues that he was not served as claimed in either proof of service. Defendant claims that Plaintiff actually served his father, Edwin H. Castro (“Mr. Castro”). Mr. Castro submits a declaration stating that he is Defendant’s father and does not have authority to accept service of process on Defendant’s behalf. (Motion, Castro Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) He also states that he resides at the Altadena Address and that Defendant resides at the Los Angeles Address. (Id., ¶¶ 3, 5.) Defendant also submits a declaration stating that he lives at the Los Angeles Address and that his father is not authorized to accept service of process on his behalf. (Motion, Def.’s Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Defendant further declares that he has never been personally served or received a copy of summons and complaint in the mail. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.)
When a defendant moves to quash service of summons, 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 (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.) Here, in an opposition brief filed on July 6, 2023, Plaintiff argues that substituted service has been effected because a copy of the summons and complaint has been mailed to both the Los Angeles and the Altadena Address. Plaintiff incorrectly asserts that the Altadena Address is a correct location to serve Defendant because Defendant purchased the property. But based on the declarations submitted by Defendant and his father, the Altadena Address is not Defendant’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,” and Plaintiff provides no evidence that it is. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) Therefore, Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements for substituted service as specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b).
Plaintiff also contends that Defendant has now been properly served via substituted service because a copy of the summons and complaint was served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the Los Angeles Address. This also appears to be a misapprehension the law. Plaintiff did not leave papers “in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge” at the Los Angeles Address. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)
Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff claims that Defendant has been served by mail, Plaintiff is also incorrect. To serve a summons by mail, a copy of the summons and complaint must be mailed, together with two copies of the notice and acknowledgement and a return envelope with postage prepaid and addressed to the sender. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30, subd. (a).) Service is deemed complete on the date a written acknowledgment of receipt is executed. Plaintiff does not assert that the summons and complaint served included notices of acknowledgment and a return envelope as described by statute.
The Court additionally addresses another inaccurate assertion by Plaintiff in his opposition brief. Plaintiff claims that “[t]o the extent [Mr. Castro] has no involvement in the matter, that can be resolved in a proceeding other than by a Motion to Quash, i.e., the Motion to Quash can not [sic] be used as a substitute for a motion for summary judgment.” (Opp., p. 3.) The Court clarifies for the record that insofar as Defendant’s father, Mr. Castro, is concerned, no appearance is needed because Mr. Castro has not been identified as a defendant in the complaint, therefore no additional proceedings are necessary.
In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to quash service of process is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.
Dated this 19th day of July 2023
| William A. Crowfoot
Judge of the Superior Court |