Flowers v. Crawford CA4/1
Filed 10/26/22 Flowers v. Crawford CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MARIANNE FLOWERS, D078670
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2018- 00015752-CU-PO-CTL) MARY S. CRAWFORD, et al.
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard S. Whitney, Judge. Affirmed. Marianne Flowers, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lynberg & Watkins, Michael J. Larin, Shant N. Nashalian; Sutton & Murphy and Michael S. Sutton, for Defendants and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION Marianne Flowers alleged she was injured when she slipped and fell on water from a freezer leak at a Vons supermarket. Among other defendants, she sued Jerry Crawford, the president and CEO of a janitorial company. She did so as a self-represented litigant. More than two years after filing her complaint, Flowers allegedly served the summons and complaint on Crawford
by substituted service. She failed to show proof she mailed Crawford a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, as required by California
Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b).1 Instead, she filed proof of service that she emailed a copy of the summons and complaint to Crawford’s attorney, who was not authorized to accept service. Consequently, the trial court granted Crawford’s motion to quash service of the summons. Contrary to Flowers’s arguments on appeal, the trial court’s
ruling was proper and so we affirm.2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Flowers filed her complaint against Crawford on March 29, 2018.3 She filed a proof of service on Crawford on June 29, 2020. According to the proof of service, a non-California registered process server left a copy of the summons and complaint at an address in Addison, Texas with “John Doe, Front Desk in Lobby Hispanic male, 45-50 years old, black hair, 200 lbs, 5’10”.” That allegedly occurred on January 21, 2020. The proof of service did not reflect that the summons and complaint had been mailed first-class, postage prepaid to the same location. Box 5.c. on the proof of service
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)