Grewal v. Martin
Filed 3/3/08 Grewal v. Martin CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
ANTOINETTE GREWAL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. W. JOHN MARTIN et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B193640 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC282804) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Dunn, Judge. Affirmed.
Chance E. Gordon for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen & McKenna, Richard D. Carroll and David P. Pruett for Defendants and Respondents W. John Martin and W. John Martin, a Medical Corporation.
DAntony, Doyle & Moore, Geoffrey T. Moore and Marisa L. Terrill for Defendant and Respondent University of Southern California.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Antoinette Grewal appeals a judgment entered after the trial court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings of defendants W. John Martin, W. John Martin, a Medical Corporation, and the University of Southern California (USC). We find that defendants request for admissions and defendants motion for an order deeming the request for admissions admitted, and the notice of the trial courts order granting the motion for an order deeming the request for admissions admitted, were validly served on plaintiff. Consequently, we reject plaintiffs claim that she was not legally required to respond to defendants request for admissions, that defendants improperly filed the motion to have request for admissions deemed admitted, and that the trial courts order granting that motion was invalid. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 4, 2002, plaintiff Antoinette Grewal filed a verified complaint for personal injury, alleging multiple causes of action for fraud, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against W. John Martin, W. John Martin, a Medical Corporation, the Center for Complex Infectious Diseases, and the University of Southern California. Grewal filed an amended verified complaint on November 12, 2002, and a first amended complaint on April 25, 2003, alleging causes of action for fraud, negligence, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, with judgment filed on February 2, 2004. Grewal appealed that judgment, and in its decision filed on March 30, 2005, this court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. On September 23, 2005, the trial court granted Grewals motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, and ordered that third amended complaint deemed filed.
The third amended complaint alleged causes of action for fraud and for violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500. These causes of action were based on allegations that Martin, a USC Medical School professor, fraudulently represented to Grewal that she had contracted a contagious, fatal virus called Martin Stealth Virus, which did not exist; falsely stated that Epione, a drug that supposedly cured the Martin Stealth Virus, was close to the New Drug Application stage of FDA approval; and that in justifiable reliance on these representations, Grewal was induced to work, fundraise, promote, engage in project development, and contribute money to what the defendants called the Epione research project.
On March 7, 2006, defendant Martin served a request for admissions (set one) and interrogatories on Grewal by overnight/express mail and by first class mail at P. O. Box 1198, Sacramento, California. This was the address on Grewals complaint and verified amended complaint.
On April 21, 2006, Martins attorney left a voicemail giving notice to Grewal that Martin would appear ex parte on April 24, 2006, for an order that the request for admissions (set one) be deemed admitted and for an order shortening time for hearing on that motion. On April 24, 2006, Martin filed an ex parte application for an order compelling request for admissions (set one) be deemed admitted, based on Grewals failure to respond to the request for admissions, and for an order shortening time for hearing on that motion.
Also on April 24, 2006, defendant Martin filed a notice of motion that on May 2, 2006, Martin would move to have request for admissions (set one) served on Grewal be deemed admitted. On April 24, 2006, this motion was served on Grewal at the Office of the Secretary of State, 1500 11th Street, 4th Floor, Suite 460, Sacramento, California by hand delivery/personal service, and was served by overnight/express mail on Grewal at P.O. Box 1198, Sacramento, California and at 532 W. Oliver Street, San Pedro, California.[1]
Grewal appeared at the April 24, 2006, hearing, at which the trial court granted Martins ex parte application, in part, by shortening time to hear the motion to have the request for admissions be deemed admitted on May 2, 2006, and ordered: All motions are to be filed and served this date in court upon plaintiff, who is present in court this date.
On May 2, 2006, the trial court granted defendant Martins motion and ordered Martins request for admissions (set one) deemed admitted.
On May 8, 2006, defendant Martin filed an ex parte application for a motion for judgment on the pleadings, based on Grewals admissions that refuted the causes of action in her Third Amended Complaint.[2] On May 23, 2006, USC filed a motion to have the request for admissions deemed admitted. The trial court granted defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings on June 19, 2006.
Judgments in favor of W. John Martin and W. John Martin, a Medical Corporation, and in favor of USC were filed on July 26, 2006.
Grewal filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgments.
ISSUE
Grewal claims on appeal that defendants service of the request for admissions, motion for an order deeming request for admissions admitted, and the order granting that motion did not comply with service requirements of Government Code section 6206, subdivision (a)(5)(A), which made the orders deeming the request for admissions admitted and granting judgment on the pleadings invalid.
DISCUSSION
Grewal asserts her membership in the Confidential Address Program. A person who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking who fears for his or her safety may apply to the Secretary of State to have an address designated by the Secretary of State serve as the persons address[.] (Gov. Code, 6206, subd. (a).) An applicant for this program designates the Secretary of State as agent for service of process and receipt of mail. (Id. at subd. (a)(5).) Service on the Secretary of State of any summons, writ, notice, demand, or process shall be made by delivering to the address confidentiality program personnel of the Office of the Secretary of State two copies of the summons, writ, notice, demand, or process. (Id. at subd. (a)(5)(A).) When a summons, writ, notice, demand, or process is served on the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State forwards a copy to the program participant. (Id. at subd. (a)(5)(B).
Grewal claims that defendants request for admissions and motion for an order deeming the request for admissions admitted, and the order granting the motion for an order deeming the request for admissions admitted, were not served in compliance with Government Code section 6206, subdivision (a)(5)(A).
a. The Request for Admissions (Set One) Was Validly Served on Grewal
With regard to the request for admissions (set one), the proof of service shows that on March 7, 2006, this document was served on Grewal at P.O. Box 1198, Sacramento, California (1) by first class mail and (2) by overnight/express mail. Defendant argues that this is a post office box managed by the California Secretary of State; there is evidence that documents served on USCs counsel and on the trial court showed Grewals address of record was P. O. Box 1198, Sacramento, California 95812. Grewals verified complaint and verified amended complaint also used P. O. box 1198, Sacramento, California as Grewals address. Moreover, Grewal appeared at the April 24, 2006, hearing on defendants ex parte motion for an order shortening time to hear the motion to have the request for admissions deemed admitted; a copy of the request for admissions was handed to Grewal in court. On April 25, 2006, two sets of documents (including the request for admissions (set one)), were served on Grewal at the Office of the Secretary of State, 1500 11th Street, 4th Floor, Suite 460, Sacramento California.
Thus Grewal received two copies of the request for admissions (set one) at a post office box managed by the California Secretary of State, and two copies at the Office of the Secretary of State. This satisfied the requirement of Government Code section 6206, subdivision (a)(5)(A). Moreover, because Grewal received one copy of the request for admissions (set one) by personal delivery in court on April 24, 2006, Grewal had actual notice, which supports the trial courts finding of valid service of the request for admissions (set one) on Grewal. [I]n deciding whether service was valid, the statutory provisions regarding service of process should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant. (Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 313.)
b. The Motion for an Order Deeming the Request for Admissions Admitted Was
Validly Served on Grewal
With regard to the motion for an order deeming the request for admissions admitted, this document was served on April 24, 2006, by hand delivery to Grewal at the Office of the Secretary of State, 1500 11th Street, 4th Floor, Suite 460, in Sacramento California, and by overnight/express mail on Grewal at P. O. Box 1198, Sacramento, California and at 532 W. Oliver Street, San Pedro, California. This document was also personally served on Grewal in court at the April 24, 2006, hearing. On April 25, 2006, two sets of documents (including the motion to have request for admissions deemed admitted) were served on Antoinette Grewal at the office of the Secretary of State, 1500 11th Street, 4th Floor, Suite 460, Sacramento California.
Thus Grewal received one copy of the motion at a post office box managed by the California Secretary of State, and two copies at the Office of the Secretary of State. This satisfied the requirement of Government Code section 6206, subdivision (a)(5)(A). Grewal also received one copy of the motion by personal delivery in court on April 24, 2006. Thus Grewal had actual notice, which supports the trial courts finding of valid service on Grewal of the motion for an order deeming the request for admissions admitted. (Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc., supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 313.)
c. The Notice of Ruling of the Order Granting the Motion for an Order Deeming
the Request for Admissions Admitted Was Validly Served on Grewal
With regard to the May 2, 2006, order granting the motion for an order deeming the request for admissions admitted, Martins counsel filed a notice of ruling on discovery motions (reflecting, inter alia, the trial courts granting of the motion to have request for admissions deemed admitted) on May 2, 2006. This notice of ruling on discovery motions was served on Grewal at P. O. Box 1198, Sacramento, California, and at 532 W. Oliver Street in San Pedro, California. On May 2, 2006, two copies of this notice of ruling were served on Grewal by delivery to Tom Lease, Safe at Home Program Specialist, Office of the Secretary of State, 1500 11th Street, Room 460, Sacramento California.
Thus Grewal received one copy of the notice of ruling at a post office box managed by the California Secretary of State, and two copies at the Office of the Secretary of State. This satisfied requirements of Government Code section 6206, subdivision (a)(5)(A), and supports the trial courts finding of valid service on Grewal of the notice of ruling of the order granting the motion for an order deeming the request for admissions admitted.
d. Conclusion
Valid service of the request for admissions (set one), the motion for an order deeming the request for admissions admitted, and the notice of ruling of the order granting the motion for an order deeming the request for admissions admitted means that we reject Grewals claim that she was not legally required to respond to defendants March 7, 2006, request for admissions. We find that the April 24, 2006, motion to have the request for admissions deemed admitted was properly filed, and that the trial courts May 2, 2006, order was valid. We affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendants University of Southern California, W. John Martin, and W. John Martin, a Medical Corporation.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KITCHING, J.
We concur:
KLEIN, P. J.
ALDRICH, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
[1] On April 25, 2006, two sets of this motion (and other documents) were personally delivered to the Secretary of State, 1500 11th Street, 4th Floor, Suite 460, Sacramento, California. The Secretary of States record indicated that mail received, described as service of process, was forwarded to Grewal by certified mail on April 25, 2006, and a signed receipt was received.
[2] Defendant USC served a copy of this motion on Grewal at P. O. Box 280586, Northridge, California, and at 532 West Oliver Street, San Pedro, California, and served two copies of this motion on Grewal c/o State of California Confidential Address Program, P. O. Box 1198, Sacramento, California.
