Judge: George F. Bird, Jr., Case: 22CMCV00542, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

“INSTRUCTIONS:
If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court
appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other
parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the
tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day
before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties
will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all
parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is
called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its
tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then
no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.
If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may
either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

Case Number: 22CMCV00542    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: B

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Tustin Springs, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Desiree Mejia (“Defendant”) entered into a written lease agreement with Plaintiff for a 24-month tenancy at a property located at 1601 E. Imperial Highway, Unit C, Los Angeles, CA 90059 (the “Property”).  (Complaint (“Compl.”), ¶¶ 3, 6.) Plaintiff alleges they served Defendant with a 10-day notice to perform covenant or quit. (Compl., ¶ 9(a).) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with the notice by October 31, 2022. (Compl., ¶ 9(b).) 

II.       MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

A.    Motion filed March 1, 2023.

            Defendant alleges that the summons issued in this case is invalid and cannot confer jurisdiction upon Defendant because the underlying Complaint is defective and fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Specifically, Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to allege that Defendant was properly served with the 10-day Notice to Perform Covenant or Quit.

B.     Opposition filed March 1, 2023.

            The Opposition, filed as Opposition TO MOTION TO STRIKE, points to the allegations in the Complaint to demonstrate that service is properly alleged to support an unlawful detainer action.

C.     Hearing on March 7, 2023.

            The court conducted a hearing on this Motion to Quash on March 7, 2023. At the hearing, Plaintiff informed the court that he intended to file a First Amended Complaint. (See Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of summons and complaint) filed March 7, 2023.) The hearing was continued to April 12, 2023. (Ibid.) Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint.  

III.       LEGAL STANDARDS

In an unlawful detainer action, “[a] motion to quash service is the only method by which the defendant can test whether the complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer and, thereby, supports a five-day summons. A general demurrer only tests whether the complaint states a cause of action for something even if it is on a theory other than unlawful detainer." (Delta Imports, Inc v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, 1036.)

In Stancil v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.5th 381, the California Supreme Court agreed that in the context of an unlawful detainer action, “the motion to quash remains a limited procedural tool appropriate where the court lacks personal jurisdiction because the statutory requirements for service of process are not fulfilled, or the summons is defective. (§§ 410.50, 412.20; Honda Motor Co., supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1048, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 861.) A defendant may not use a motion to quash service of summons under section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1) to contest any conceivable defect or the merits of the allegations contained in an unlawful detainer complaint. A defendant may instead make use of other motions: a demurrer, motion to strike, or answer.” (Ibid.)  

The California Supreme Court further concluded that “a defendant may file a motion to quash under section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1) for lack of personal jurisdiction where the unlawful detainer five-day summons is defective because it is not supported by the accompanying complaint. Personal jurisdiction is conferred only where the statutory requirements for service of process are fulfilled, so an unlawful detainer defendant may use a motion to quash a defective summons." (Id. at 396-397.)

IV.       DISCUSSION

             Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to allege a cause of action for unlawful detainer and thus the summons issued is defective. When an amended complaint is filed, a motion to quash becomes moot because the allegations in the first amended complaint may properly support the summons issued. (See Naylor v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4 [“Petitioners filed their first motion to quash service of summons and complaint on December 8, 2014, but Hirsch filed his first amended complaint prior to the hearing on that motion, thereby mooting it.”].) Because Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint, this Motion to Quash based on the original Complaint is moot.

V.          CONCLUSION

            The Court rules as follows:

            This Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

Dated: April 12, 2023                                                 __________________________________

                                                                                                Judge of the Superior Court