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

1,334 chars

7
service in unlawful detainer actions].) “[O]n a motion to quash the issue before the
trial court and on review is ‘strictly limited to the question of jurisdiction over the
defendant.’ [¶] . . . [¶] [A] motion to quash, like most pretrial motions made in
civil cases, does not involve a determination of facts related to the merits of the
case. [Citations.]” (School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court (1997) 58
Cal.App.4th 1126, 1132-1133; see also Kroopf v. Guffey (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d
1351, 1360 (Kroopf) [“‘Determination of the merits of the complaint [is] not within
the scope of the issues raised by the motion. [Fn. omitted.]’ [Citation.]”].) “Thus a
motion to quash does not serve the function of a demurrer as to whether the
complaint states a cause of action.” (Kroopf, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 1360.)
Yet, by authorizing a motion to quash to challenge an unlawful detainer complaint
and service of a notice to pay or quit (which is an element of the unlawful detainer
cause of action), Delta authorized the use of the motion to determine facts going to
the merits of the case. In short, Delta expanded the scope of a motion to quash
beyond its purpose.4
       Third, the cases on which Delta relied – Greene v. Municipal Court (1975)
51 Cal.App.3d 446 and Castle Park No. 5 v. Katherine (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text