J. Cardena & Sons v. Davenport
Filed 11/30/09 J. Cardena & Sons v. Davenport CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
J. CARDENAS & SONS, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. REGINALD E. DAVENPORT, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Civil No. B210391 (Super. Ct. No. 1269371) (Santa Barbara County) |
Reginald E. Davenport appeals in propria persona a judgment in an unlawful detainer action awarding the landlord possession and damages. Davenport claims the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the corporate plaintiff was misnamed on the summons and complaint. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
In July 2007, the parties entered into a lease of agricultural land until August 31, 2008. In the body of the lease, the landlord was identified as J. Cardenas & Sons Farming, Inc. On the signature line, however, the landlord was identified as J. Cardenas & Sons, Inc. Davenport was the lessee.
In April 2008, Davenport's landlord served him with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. The landlord appeared on the notice as J. Cardenas & Sons, Inc. At the end of April 2008, the landlord served Davenport with an unlawful detainer summons and complaint. The plaintiff was identified on the summons as J. Cardenas & Sons without any notation that plaintiff is a corporation, and on the complaint as J. Cardenas & Sons, Inc. Service was made by Juan Cardenas, an officer of J. Cardenas & Sons Farming, Inc.
Davenport responded with a motion to quash service of the summons. The motion was based on the ground that Juan Cardenas is a party to the action, and therefore could not lawfully serve the summons. Apparently conceding the point, Jerry Cardenas, an employee but not an officer of the corporation, reserved the summons and complaint. The trial court denied Davenport's motion to quash, and ordered him to answer.
Davenport moved to set aside the trial court's order. He pointed out the summons shows the plaintiff as J. Cardenas & Sons. He argued that because Jerry Cardenas is one of the sons, he is a party to the action. Thus he claimed the reservice of the summons and complaint was not valid. The trial court ordered the summons amended by interlineating "Inc." after J. Cardenas & Sons on the summons. The court stated it reconsidered Davenport's motion to quash and reaffirmed its denial.
Davenport filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's orders denying his motion to quash, and petitioned this court for a writ of supersedeas, prohibition or other appropriate relief. We dismissed the appeal as being from a nonappealable order and denied the writ petition as not warranted.
J. Cardenas & Sons, Inc., obtained a default judgment against Davenport for possession and $71,000 in damages.
DISCUSSION
Davenport contends the court had no personal jurisdiction because the service of process is improper.
Davenport points out that a party to an action cannot effect personal service on the defendant. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., 414.10; Caldwell v. Coppola (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 859, 863.) His argument appears to be that the summons identified the plaintiff as J. Cardenas & Sons and the summons and complaint was served by one of J. Cardenas's sons. He concludes the complaint was served by a party.
But the complaint identifies the plaintiff as a corporation, J. Cardenas & Sons, Inc. That the summons excluded the corporate "Inc.," was simply a trivial error.
Davenport also points out that the corporation identified as the plaintiff does not exist. The true name of the corporate plaintiff is J. Cardenas & Sons Farming, Inc., not J. Cardenas & Sons, Inc. Once again, it is a trivial defect.
It is well settled that the trial court has jurisdiction even though there is an error in the defendant's name on the summons and complaint. (Lester v. Beer (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 984, 987.) There is no reason why the same rule should not apply to an error in the plaintiff's name. Here any reasonable person served with the instant summons and complaint would know who the plaintiff is and why it is suing the defendant.
The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P.J.
We concur:
COFFEE, J.
PERREN, J.
Rodney S. Melville, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Reginald E. Davenport, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Twitchell and Rice, LLP and Vincent T. Martinez for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
