Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV05805, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05805    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Shores Barrington, LLC v. Lastotchkina, Case No. 23SMCV05805

Hearing Date February 13, 2024

Defendant Lastotchkina’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint (UNOPPOSED)

In this unlawful detainer action defendant Lastotchkina moves to quash service of the summons and complaint on the grounds that plaintiff Shores Barrington, LLC did not properly serve the three-day notice to pay rent or quit required under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1161.

“On a motion to quash [summons], the issue before the trial court and on review is ‘strictly limited to the question of jurisdiction over the defendant.’” School District of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131. The requirement to serve a three-day notice to pay rent or quit is an element of an unlawful detainer cause of action, not a jurisdictional requirement. Borsuk v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 613. Therefore, “a motion to quash is not the proper vehicle” for challenging service of a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. Id. at 618.

Borsuk, binding precedent from the Second District Court of Appeal, is on point. Lastotchkina cannot quash Barrington’s summons and complaint by challenging the three-day notice. Proper service of the three-day notice does not confer jurisdiction on this court; proper service of the complaint does. Lastotchkina does not argue that the complaint was improperly served.

DENIED.