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

2,015 chars
8
Supp. 6 – do not support Delta’s assertion that a motion to quash is the proper
method to challenge either the validity of an unlawful detainer complaint or service
of the underlying notice in unlawful detainer actions. In Greene, supra, the
complaint and the written agreement appended to the complaint established a
relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants of “seller and buyer in a
conditional sale of real property,” not of lessor and lessee. (51 Cal.App.3d at p.
450.) Because the complaint on its face did not “allege a situation to which the
remedy of unlawful detainer applies,” it did not state a cause of action within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the municipal court. (Ibid.) The court thus
concluded that the five-day unlawful detainer summons was invalid and reversed
the judgment of the municipal court. (Id. at p. 448.) Greene did not examine the
merits of the underlying complaint in determining that the municipal court lacked
jurisdiction and therefore does not stand for the proposition that a motion to quash
is the proper method to challenge the merits of the complaint. Nor does Greene
support the notion that the service of the three-day notice may be challenged in a
motion to quash.
      In Castle Park, supra, the issue was “whether a landlord who terminates a
month-to-month tenancy may recover rent for the period prior to the termination in
an unlawful detainer proceeding.” (Castle Park, supra, 91 Cal.App.3d at p. Supp.
9.) Castle Park merely cited Greene for the proposition that “[w]hen a complaint
seeks relief beyond that authorized under the unlawful detainer statutes, the five-
day summons is improper. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. Supp. 8, fn. 1.) Thus it, too, is
not authority for the proposition that a motion to quash may be used to challenge
service of a notice to pay rent or vacate.
      Fourth, to the extent Delta analyzed whether a motion to quash is the proper
vehicle to challenge the facial validity of an unlawful detainer complaint or service