Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text

2,099 chars
6
Cal.App.4th at p. 1425 [“‘A lessor must allege and prove proper service of the
requisite notice. [Citations.]’”]; Kruger v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10,
16 [“The basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in
Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision 2, are (1) the tenant is in
possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant
is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a
written three-day notice; and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice
period has elapsed.”].) Those courts and treatises that have, in the wake of Delta,
described the service of the three-day notice as jurisdictional are incorrect. (See,
e.g., Parsons, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. Supp. 7 [describing service of a proper
notice to quit as a jurisdictional fact alleged in the complaint]; Wiseman & Reese,
Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, Claims & Defenses (The Rutter
Group 2015) ¶ 11:324 [citing Delta for proposition that unlawful detainer
complaint failing to allege compliance with notice requirement does not subject
defendant to court’s personal jurisdiction]; Eviction Defense Manual, supra,
§ 13.13A [describing the notice as a jurisdictional prerequisite, relying on Delta
and Parsons]; Landlord-Tenant Practice, supra, § 10.11 [“Because strict
compliance with the specifically prescribed notice conditions is a condition
precedent to bringing an unlawful detainer, lack of compliance with the
jurisdictional prerequisites is properly tested by a motion to quash.”].)
      Second, in approving the use of a motion to quash to challenge an unlawful
detainer complaint and service of a notice to pay or quit, Delta shunted aside the
limitations of a motion to quash under section 418.10. Section 418.10 provides
that a defendant may file a motion “[t]o quash service of summons on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (§ 418.10, subd. (a)(1), italics
added; see § 1167.4 [addressing filing deadlines for a defendant’s motion to quash