4
subject to LARSO; (2) the unit consisted of “an illegally converted garage with a kitchen and
bathroom”; (3) the HCIDLA “inspected the property and declared it to be an unapproved unit
constructed without the requisite building permit(s) and certificates of occupancy or
completion”; and (4) no valid rental unit registration certificate was issued by the HCIDLA.
The court determined plaintiff’s “undisputed failure to secure and serve the necessary
registration certificate constitute[d] a violation of LARSO and provide[d] [d]efendant with an
affirmative defense to the unlawful detainer action.” Citing Salazar v. Maradeaga (1992)
10 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, the court concluded plaintiff could not bring an action premised on a
three-day notice to perform covenants or quit because the underlying lease that formed the basis
of his action was void. Judgment in defendant’s favor was entered that same day.
DISCUSSION
Notice of Summary Judgment
In an unlawful detainer case, “[a] motion for summary judgment may be made at any
time after the answer is filed upon giving five days notice.” (§ 1170.7.) The period is
extended, however, where notice is served by a method other than personal service, e.g., by five
calendar days for service by mail within the State of California. (§ 1013, subd. (a).) In the case
of service “by Express Mail or other method of delivery providing for overnight delivery [, the
notice period is] . . . extended by two court days.” (§ 1013, subd. (c).)
“[T]rial courts do not have authority to shorten the minimum notice period for summary
judgment hearings.” (McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 118.) Because
“[s]ummary judgment, although a very useful tool in litigation, is also a drastic remedy . . . , it
is important that all of the procedural requirements for the granting of such a motion be
satisfied before the trial court grants the remedy.” (Sierra Craft, Inc. v. Magnum Enterprises,
Inc. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1256.)
The proof of service attached to defendant’s summary judgment motion shows the
motion was served by overnight mail on December 4. The notice of motion indicates the
hearing was on calendar six days later—December 10. The notice was inadequate because the
last day the motion could have been served by overnight mail, given the date of the hearing,