Gotham West Properties LLC v. Brustad

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. O) September 9, 2026 DEPARTMENT O LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

September 9, 2026 26SMCV03843 (Gotham West Properties LLC v. Brustad) INSTANT MOTION On August 25, 2026, defendant Lila Brustad (Defendant) filed the instant motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff Gotham West Properties LLC (Gotham) filed an opposition. No reply has been filed.

DISCUSSION The Court finds that service on Defendant was effective. After registered California process server Ryan Sallee made five unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Defendant at the premises she occupies, Plaintiff obtained a Court order authorizing service by posting and certified mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.45. Sallee then complied with that order by posting the summons, complaint, and related unlawful detainer documents at the premises on August 4, 2026, and mailing copies to Defendant at the same address by certified mail. (Sallee Decl. P.P. 2-6; Bachour Decl. P.P. 2-3, Exhs. 1-2.)

Defendant offers no evidence to the contrary. She submits no declaration denying service, identifies no defect in the Court-authorized posting or mailing, and does not challenge any of the five prior service attempts. Her memorandum instead leaves three alternative "[Option A]," "[Option B]," and "[Option C]" theories unfinished and never identifies what Plaintiff supposedly did wrong.

The registered process server's return is presumptive evidence of the facts stated in it, and Defendant has produced nothing to rebut that presumption. (Evid. Code, Sec. 647; Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1427-1428 [registered process server's return creates a statutory presumption of the facts stated in the return]; Sallee Decl. P.P. 1, 4- 6.)

Defendant's sole cited case also does not assist her. Rutterberg v. Rutterberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801 concerns wrongful-death joinder, not service of summons, section 415.45, or reasonable diligence. (Id. at pp. 806-808.) It provides no basis to invalidate the service performed here. (Def.'s Mot. at p. 2.)

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to quash service of summons is DENIED. | Home -->)" -->