SVF Grosvenor Del Rey Corp. v. Schwarz, JAD26-03

Background

Plaintiff landlord filed an unlawful detainer complaint alleging defendant tenant was served with a three-day pay-rent-or-quit notice and remained in possession after failing to pay rent. 1
The eviction notice listed a mail-payment option only as “By mail to Leasing Office 5550 Grosvenor Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90066,” without a person’s name or phone number for that option. 2
Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the notice did not satisfy section 1161(2) because the mail option omitted the required name, telephone number, and address of the payee. 3
The trial court granted the motion, and after plaintiff obtained a final judgment it appealed. 4
The appellate court reviewed the ruling de novo and reaffirmed that strict compliance with section 1161(2) is required in unlawful detainer cases. 5

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does section 1161(2) require payee information for a mail-payment option? 6	Only the personal-payment option needed the person’s name, phone number, and address.	Any notice offering mail payment must list the person’s name, phone number, and address.	Yes; the statute requires that information when mail payment is offered. 7
Was plaintiff’s eviction notice compliant? 8	The leasing office address and personal-payment details were enough.	The mail option omitted the required name and telephone number.	No; the notice failed strict compliance with section 1161(2). 9
Did the valid personal-payment option save the notice? 10	Even if mailing information was deficient, the in-person option made the notice valid.	The defective mail option rendered the entire notice ineffective.	No; an invalid mail option made the whole notice inoperative. 11

Key Cases Cited

Hsieh v. Pederson, 23 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 2018) (interprets section 1161(2) notice requirements for personal and mail payment options 12)
Foster v. Williams, 229 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 2014) (strict compliance with unlawful detainer notice requirements and legislative purpose of clarity 13)
Caldera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regents of University of California, 205 Cal.App.4th 338 (Cal. App. 2012) (order granting judgment on the pleadings is reviewable after final judgment 14)
Ellerbee v. County of Los Angeles, 187 Cal.App.4th 1206 (Cal. App. 2010) (order granting judgment on the pleadings may be reviewed from ensuing judgment 15)
Sepanossian v. National Ready Mixed Concrete Co., 97 Cal.App.5th 192 (Cal. App. 2023) (judgment on the pleadings reviewed de novo like a demurrer 16)
Bevill v. Zoura, 27 Cal.App.4th 694 (Cal. App. 1994) (valid three-day notice is prerequisite to unlawful detainer and strict compliance is required 17)
Jayasinghe v. Lee, 13 Cal.App.4th Supp. 33 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1993) (failure to state required statutory notice information defeats unlawful detainer 18)
Eddie E. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.4th 319 (Cal. App. 2015) (the word “or” denotes separate, disjunctive statutory alternatives 19)
California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Tilton, 196 Cal.App.4th 91 (Cal. App. 2011) (“or” in a statute marks an alternative, either-this-or-that 20)
City of Alameda v. Sheehan, 105 Cal.App.5th 68 (Cal. App. 2024) (legislative history shows section 1161(2) seeks clear payment instructions to avoid confusion 21)
Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978) (literal statutory language may yield to avoid absurd results and effect legislative intent 22)