Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 25STCV05607, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV05607    Hearing Date: May 29, 2025    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Specially Appearing Defendant Miguel Mendez-Barrios’ motion in pro per to quash service of summons is denied.

Specially Appearing Defendant Miguel Mendez-Barrios (“Mendez-Barrios”) (“Specially Appearing Defendant”) moves in pro per to quash Plaintiff Maple & Griffith Properties, LLC’s (“Maple & Griffith”) (“Plaintiff”) service of summons upon him on the basis this Court lacks jurisdiction over him because he was improperly served with a copy of the summons and unlawful detainer complaint, and that the unlawful detainer complaint fails to state a cause of action in which relief can be had.  (Notice Quash, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§1161, 1162.)

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for unlawful detainer (“UD”) on February 27, 2025.

Mendez-Barrios filed the instant motion on April 3, 2025.  Plaintiff filed its opposition on May 7, 2025.  As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

Legal Standard

“A defendant, on or before the day of his or her time to plead . . . may serve and file a notice of motion . . . [t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.”  (C.C.P. §418.10(a)(1).)  By filing such motion, “a defendant makes a special appearance for the narrow purpose of contesting personal jurisdiction where the summons is defective.”  (Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 393.)

Discussion

Mendez-Barrios’ argument that he was not properly served with the three-day notice to quit by Plaintiff is not really a challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction.  Instead, Mendez-Barrios challenges an element of Plaintiff’s cause of action for unlawful detainer.  (C.C.P. §1161(2) [stating three days’ notice as element of unlawful detainer when tenant continues in possession after default in payment of rent].)  This argument is more properly made in a challenge to the merits, than in a motion to quash.

Accordingly, Mendez-Barrios’ motion to quash is denied.

Conclusion

Mendez-Barrios’ motion in pro per to quash service of summons is denied.  Mendez-Barrios has made a general appearance as of the date of this hearing.  Mendez-Barrios is to serve and file an answer or demurrer to the Complaint within five calendar days of this ruling.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  May _____, 2025