Filed 3/7/18 Feinberg v. Enova Technology Corp. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


IAN FEINBERG et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
ENOVA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
Defendant and Appellant.

A151491

(San Mateo County
Super. Ct. No. CIV 538895)


The trial court entered a judgment confirming an attorney-client fee arbitration award in favor of attorney Ian Feinberg and his law firm Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson, LLP (collectively Feinberg) against a former client, Enova Technology Corporation (Enova). Enova appeals, contending that service of the petition to confirm the fee award was defective, rendering the judgment void. We conclude that Feinberg substantially complied with service requirements and that Enova had actual notice of the petition. We shall therefore affirm the judgment.
Statement of Facts
Feinberg represented Enova, a Taiwanese company, in patent infringement litigation. Enova disputed certain fees and costs incurred in that litigation. In an arbitration before a San Mateo County Bar Association Fee Arbitration panel, the panel resolved the matter in Feinberg’s favor, awarding the firm $577,168.48 in fees and costs.
Enova’s chief executive officer (CEO), Robert Wann, represented Enova at the arbitration hearing. In April 2016, the arbitrators mailed a copy of their nonbinding arbitration award to Wann in Taiwan with notice of Enova’s right to contest the award. The arbitrators also emailed a copy of the award to Wann. The award became binding when Enova did not contest it. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6203, subd. (b).)
In June 2016, Feinberg petitioned the superior court to confirm the award and began efforts to serve the petition. Initially, Feinberg sent the petition to Wann at Enova’s Taiwan address by registered mail and overnight delivery, and also emailed him the petition. Wann acknowledged receiving the petition by email and overnight delivery but the post office was unable to deliver the registered mail. Enova, represented by California counsel, moved to quash service of the petition and the motion was granted in August 2016.
Feinberg then sought to serve Enova within California. On September 16, 2016, it attempted personal service of the petition at an address in San Jose listed on Enova’s website for its “North America Operations.” Upon arrival at the location, however, the process server discovered a different company and could not find anyone with information about Enova. The process serving company conducted an independent search to locate other addresses for Enova in California but found only the San Jose address.
Public records disclosed that Robert Wann, Enova’s CEO, owns residential property in Piedmont, California. On September 17, 2016, the process server hand delivered a copy of the petition to Wei Wann, an adult female occupant of the residence who identified herself as Robert Wann’s wife, and later mailed a copy of the petition to Enova at the Piedmont address. In his “Declaration of Diligence,” the process server states: “Female occupant identifies herself as spouse of Robert Wann. She states she does not know his schedule and says she is authorized to accept for Enova.”
Discussion
The trial court found that Enova was properly served through substituted service on its CEO, Robert Wann, or, alternatively, was properly served through service on Wei Wan, a person authorized to receive service of process for Enova. Enova contests these findings and asserts the court erred in denying its motion to quash service of the petition.
Service of a petition to confirm an arbitration award may be made within California “in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1).) A summons may be served on a corporation by delivering the summons and complaint to its CEO, other specified officers, “or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.” (§ 416.10, subd. (b).) Delivery may be by personal service (§ 415.10) or substituted service (§ 415.20, subd. (a)). Substituted service upon a corporation is accomplished by “leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours” in the office of its CEO, officer or authorized agent “or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address . . . with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.” (§ 415.20, subd. (a).)
“It is well settled that strict compliance with statutes governing service of process is not required. Rather, in 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. [Citations.] Thus, substantial compliance is sufficient.” (Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 313.) “ ‘[I]n the last analysis the question of service should be resolved by considering each situation from a practical standpoint.’ ” (Pasadena Medi-Center Associates v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 773, 778.)
Feinberg served Enova’s CEO Wann by leaving a copy of the petition at a residence Wann owns and which Feinberg contends is Wann’s usual mailing address. There is no direct evidence that Wann usually receives mail at his Piedmont property. However, Wann has no other California address and the process server’s declaration establishes that the Piedmont residence is occupied by a woman sharing Robert Wann’s last name, identifying herself as his wife, remarking that she “does not know his schedule,” and claiming authority to accept service of process for his company.
Against this evidence is Robert Wann’s declaration that Wei Wann is his former wife with no authority to act on Enova’s behalf. He declares that Wei Wann resides in Piedmont without him in a house he bought after their divorce. The trial court found the declaration not credible and declined to consider it. A trial court is not required to accept a self-serving declaration that contradicts the process server’s declaration. (Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 751.) Nor may this appellate court credit Wann’s declaration given the trial court’s determination. “Typically, when a trial court resolves conflicting evidence presented in declarations, the appellate courts defer to the trial court’s resolution of the conflicts: ‘The resolution of factual issues arising from competing declarations is conclusive on the reviewing court, and conflicts in the declarations are resolved in favor of the prevailing party.’ ” (Sands & Associates. v. Juknavorian (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1294.)
While the evidence does not unambiguously establish the Piedmont residence as Wann’s usual mailing address there is sufficient evidence of substantial compliance with service requirements. Feinberg sent the petition by overnight delivery to Wann at Enova’s Taiwan office and also emailed the petition. Wann admits receiving the petition by both means of transmission. A process server attempted personal delivery at an office address in San Jose listed on Enova’s company website for its “North America Operations” but found a different company at the location. A search for other California addresses for Enova was unsuccessful. The process server turned to residential property admittedly owned by Enova’s CEO and delivered a copy of the petition to a woman at the residence identifying herself as the CEO’s wife and authorized to accept the petition. Actual notice indisputably was received. We conclude that Enova was properly served through substituted service on its CEO, Robert Wann. We need not address the trial court’s alternative finding that Enova was properly served through service on Wei Wan as a person authorized to receive service of process for Enova.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.


_________________________
Pollak, J.


We concur:


_________________________
McGuiness, Acting P.J.*


_________________________
Siggins, J.













A151491