485 P.3d 446
Cal.2021Background
- The City of Redwood City (lessor) filed an unlawful detainer (UD) complaint and five‑day summons against tenant Edward Stancil after serving a 60‑day termination notice related to Docktown Marina.
- Stancil filed a motion to quash service of summons under Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10, arguing the City (not the port department) lacked authority to sue and relying on Delta Imports.
- The City opposed, relying on Borsuk, arguing a motion to quash may only challenge personal jurisdiction or a defective summons, not the truth or sufficiency of UD allegations.
- The superior court denied the motion to quash; Stancil sought writ relief, which was denied by the Court of Appeal; the California Supreme Court granted review on the narrow issue whether § 418.10 may be used to test whether a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer.
- The Supreme Court held a motion to quash under § 418.10(a)(1) is a limited tool to contest personal jurisdiction or a defective summons (including when a five‑day UD summons is unsupported by the accompanying complaint), and cannot be used to dispute the truth or merits of the UD complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to quash under § 418.10 may be used to challenge that an unlawful detainer complaint fails to state a cause of action or the truth of its allegations | Motion to quash is proper to test whether the complaint supports the five‑day UD summons; any defect in complaint invalidates summons (Delta Imports) | Motion to quash is limited to defects in summons or service (personal jurisdiction); challenges to truth/sufficiency belong in demurrer or answer (Borsuk) | Motion to quash is limited to personal‑jurisdiction/summons defects; it may be used where the five‑day UD summons is unsupported (e.g., complaint alleges a different cause or lacks the minimal § 1161 allegations) but not to dispute the truth or merits of UD allegations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court, 146 Cal.App.3d 1033 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (motion to quash appropriate where complaint lacked allegations required to support five‑day UD summons)
- Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal.App.4th 607 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (motion to quash cannot be used to contest the truth of notice or merits of UD allegations)
- Greene v. Municipal Court, 51 Cal.App.3d 446 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (five‑day UD summons is improper when accompanying complaint pleads a different cause and thus does not confer jurisdiction)
- MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court, 153 Cal.App.3d 555 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (service of a substantially defective summons does not confer jurisdiction)
- Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App.4th 1043 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (personal jurisdiction arises from valid service of summons and complaint under statutory rules)
- Kwok v. Bergren, 130 Cal.App.3d 596 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (unlawful detainer is a statutory proceeding requiring strict compliance with statutory pleading and notice requirements)