Van Butenschoen v. Flaker, 16 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 10

Plaintiff Van Butenschoen sued Cynthia and Chris Flaker in unlawful detainer alleging failure to comply with a 3‑day pay-or-quit notice and sought possession and damages.
Defendants timely moved to quash service (March 8, 2016), arguing service was improper.
The trial court denied the motion (March 14, 2016) and ordered that "Defendant has 5 days to answer," and a mailed notice repeated that it was "to file and serve an answer only."
Defendants sought a writ, which was denied; statutory tolling and mailing rules extended their time to plead to April 18, 2016.
Defendants filed a demurrer on April 18, 2016, but the clerk entered default judgment the same day. Defendants appealed; the Court of Appeal reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may limit post‑motion‑to‑quash responsive pleading to an answer only	The court's order permitting only an answer was proper and restricted pleadings accordingly	A defendant may file a demurrer; statutes permit demurrers as responsive pleadings	The court may not restrict a defendant to an answer; demurrer is an authorized response (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 422.10, 1170)
Whether default judgment entered April 18, 2016 was valid given defendants’ timely demurrer and statutory tolling	Default was proper because defendants failed to file an answer within five days	Time to plead was extended by motion to quash and writ denial; defendants timely filed a demurrer before deadline	Default was prematurely entered and thus void; judgment reversed

Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 1113 (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
Corona v. Lundigan, 158 Cal.App.3d 764 (appeal from default judgment reviews jurisdiction and pleading sufficiency)
Whealton v. Whealton, 67 Cal.2d 656 (premature default judgment is void)
Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal.App.4th 607 (tenant may challenge unlawful detainer via demurrer)