Stancil v. City of Redwood City - S253783 - 05/03/2021

An unlawful detainer action is where a landowner seeks to evict a tenant.  In Stancil v. City of Redwood City, the Court (Cuellar, J.) holds that a defendant in an unlawful detainer action may not seek to quash service (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1)) by asserting that the complaint does not adequately allege facts necessary to support a claim for unlawful detainer, or where the complaint is not true.  A motion to quash is allowed to assert the plaintiff did not serve correct summons for an unlawful detainer case, or where the complaint does not actually allege an unlawful detainer claim.

A court obtains jurisdiction (authority) over a defendant when the defendant is properly served with a “summons.”  In general, a defendant then has 30 days to file a response after service of the summons.  In response, a defendant may assert the court cannot assert authority over the defendant because, for example, the summons was not properly served, or the defendant has no connection to the state the lawsuit was filed in.  This is typically a “motion to quash service of summons.” 

(Defendant have other options:  they may argue the action was filed in the wrong court and move to “change venue.”  A defendant can also argue that the complaint is defective by filing a “demurrer” or “motion to strike.”  Typically, a demurer argues that “even if everything the plaintiff says is true, the plaintiff should still lose.”  Finally, defendant may file an “Answer,” in which the defendant accepts the court has authority but typically denies the allegations of the plaintiff.)

An unlawful detainer action moves more quickly and is generally limited to the issue of possession.  Unlike an ordinary civil action, a defendant needs to file a response within 5 days of service instead of 30.

Filing a motion to quash would slow down an unlawful detainer action because the motion extends the time to otherwise respond to the complaint and, if the motion is denied, the defendant can stay the action by filing a petition with the court of appeal.  While all of this is going on, the tenant remains at the property.

Presumably, the defendant in Stancil argued that he should be able file a “motion to quash” against an unlawful detainer complaint by arguing that if a plaintiff had not fully complied with the unlawful detainer service requirements or, for example, is not actually the owner of the property, then the action does not really qualify as an unlawful detainer action.  And if there is no valid unlawful detainer, then the 5-day summons is improper and should be quashed.  The court disagreed because it would improperly expand a motion to quash beyond issues of jurisdiction.

I have no problem with the result or reasoning of the opinion, but it could be 5-10 pages instead of 22.  For example, the entire first paragraph is unnecessary.