Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge, Super. Ct. No. 06CC09586
Madison Harbor, Robert Sabahat, Ali Parvaneh and Michael C. Robinson for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, A. Kristine Floyd, and Robert C. Shaia for specially appearing Defendants and Respondents.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
Plaintiff Hans A. Mahayni appeals from orders of dismissal following the trial court’s granting of motions to quash filed by defendant Technology & Communication Supply Company (TCS), a Saudi Arabian company, and defendants Khalid A. A. Bugshan (Khalid), Majed A. A. Bugshan (Majed), Mazin A. A. Bugshan (Mazin), and Abdullah A. A. Bugshan (Abdullah), all Saudi Arabian residents, on grounds of ineffective service and lack of personal jurisdiction. Because plaintiff failed to address the service issue, we affirm on that basis without addressing the latter. We deny plaintiff’s motion to augment the record to include his opposition to Khalid’s motion to quash because the document is unnecessary to our determination of this matter.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2004, plaintiff, a California resident, entered a written employment agreement with defendant TCS, a Saudi Arabian company, to work in Saudi Arabia. Defendant Khalid, the director of TCS and a Saudi Arabian resident, signed the agreement on behalf of TCS. It is unclear what connection if any defendants Majed, Mazin, or Abdullah have with Kalid or TCS.
Two years later, plaintiff sued defendants for breach of contract, failure to pay earned wages, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff attempted to serve a copy of the summons and complaint on Khalid via “certified or registered mail with return receipt requested” to “Philistine Street, Bridgestone Building, First Floor, P.O. Box 42023, Jedah 21541, Saudi Arabia” and later obtained entry of default against him.
To each of the remaining individual defendants, he mailed a copy of the summons and complaint by registered mail with return receipt requested to the same address. These defendants, specially appearing, moved to quash service, asserting ineffective service and lack of personal jurisdiction.
The trial court granted the motion on both grounds. It also granted Khalid’s motion to set aside the entry of default and his subsequent motion to quash service for the same reasons.
DISCUSSION
In his opening brief, plaintiff does not discuss the trial court’s ruling that service was ineffective. Plaintiff concedes his failure but claims the issue “is moot” because he could serve defendants again. Regardless of whether he could re-serve defendants, an appellant’s failure to raise an issue in his or her opening brief waives that challenge. (Roehl v. Ritchie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 338, 352, fn. omitted.) We affirm the judgment on this basis alone without addressing the personal jurisdiction issue.
DISPOSITION
The orders granting the motions to quash and dismissing defendants are affirmed. Defendants shall recover their costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: O’LEARY, J., FYBEL, J.