The issue is whether the tenant in an unlawful detainer action may bring a motion to quash service of the summons on the ground that the landlord did not properly serve the three-day notice to pay rent or quit required under the Unlawful Detainer Act. [Civ.Proc. §§ 1159-1179a.] The Court of Appeal stated: “We conclude that the tenant may not challenge the allegedly defective service of the three-day notice via a motion to quash service of summons because the three-day notice is an element of an unlawful detainer action. In so holding, we disagree with the broad language of Delta Imports, Inc. v. Mun. Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033 [194 Cal.Rptr. 685], which held that a motion to quash service is the only method to challenge whether a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer.” (Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (LA Hillcreste Apartments, LLC) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; November 23, 2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607.)No Motion To Quash Permitted By Tenant Served With A Three Day Notice To Quit.
The issue is whether the tenant in an unlawful detainer action may bring a motion to quash service of the summons on the ground that the landlord did not properly serve the three-day notice to pay rent or quit required under the Unlawful Detainer Act. [Civ.Proc. §§ 1159-1179a.] The Court of Appeal stated: “We conclude that the tenant may not challenge the allegedly defective service of the three-day notice via a motion to quash service of summons because the three-day notice is an element of an unlawful detainer action. In so holding, we disagree with the broad language of Delta Imports, Inc. v. Mun. Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033 [194 Cal.Rptr. 685], which held that a motion to quash service is the only method to challenge whether a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer.” (Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (LA Hillcreste Apartments, LLC) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; November 23, 2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607.)