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

2
the month of March. According to the complaint, LA Hillcreste served a three-day
notice to pay rent or quit on Borsuk on March 5, 2015 by “posting a copy on the
premises . . . because no person of suitable age or discretion can be found there.”
The three-day notice stated that Borsuk had failed to pay her rent for the period of
March 1 to 31, 2015.
      Borsuk filed a motion to quash the service of the summons and the
complaint. She argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over her because the
landlord “failed to properly serve the three-day notice . . . in the manner prescribed
by law.” Her husband, Harvey Borsuk, stated in a declaration that, on March 5,
2015, he noticed an “unmarked, unaddressed envelope on the floor at the side of
the apartment . . . .” He picked it up several days later and found it contained the
three-day notice to pay rent or quit. A “Declaration of Service of Notice to
Resident” stated that the three-day notice was served by leaving a copy of the
notice at the door. On March 18, 2015, LA Hillcreste’s process server gave Mr.
Borsuk a copy of the summons and the complaint.
      Borsuk’s declaration submitted in support of her motion to quash stated that
she was never served with the three-day notice or a summons or a complaint.3 She
further stated that she had not been evading service of process and that she could
have been reached at her residence if service had been attempted.
      The trial court denied the motion to quash. Borsuk filed a petition for writ
of mandate in the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Following the issuance of an alternative writ, the Appellate Division issued a
published opinion holding that a motion to quash was “the proper vehicle to raise