Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015)

Citation: Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015)
Parent Document: Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2015-11-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3157363/borsuk-v-appellate-division-of-... ↗

Full Text

1,221 chars

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate, H. Jay Ford III, Judge. Petition
denied.
        Reed Smith, Margaret M. Grignon, Kathy J. Huang and Zareh A.
Jaltorossian for Petitioner.
        No appearance for Respondent.
       Kimball, Tirey & St. John and Chris J. Evans for Real Party in Interest.
       We ordered transfer of this case from the Appellate Division of the Los
Angeles Superior Court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1008. The
issue is whether the tenant in an unlawful detainer action may bring a motion to
quash service of the summons on the ground that the landlord did not properly
serve the three-day notice to pay rent or quit required under the Unlawful Detainer
Act.1 (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1159-1179a.)2 We conclude that the tenant may not
challenge the allegedly defective service of the three-day notice via a motion to
quash service of summons because the three-day notice is an element of an
unlawful detainer action. In so holding, we disagree with the broad language of
Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033 (Delta), which
held that a motion to quash service is the only method to challenge whether a
complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text