Parsons v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48

Summary

The court held that a motion to quash service of summons is a proper procedure for challenging an unlawful detainer complaint when an alleged notice defect affects personal jurisdiction under the expedited unlawful detainer process. The court concluded that determining whether a 30-day or 60-day notice was required under the Floating Home Residency Law could involve competent evidence beyond the face of the complaint. Because the plaintiff raised substantive arguments and supporting evidence for the first time on writ review, the court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to quash and conduct further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A motion to quash service of summons is the proper procedure to challenge an unlawful detainer complaint when an alleged defect in the termination notice affects personal jurisdiction under the five-day unlawful detainer summons. Filing a demurrer without simultaneously moving to quash would constitute a general appearance and moot the personal-jurisdiction challenge.
2. The appellate court will not decide the factual and legal merits of the notice issue based on evidence that was not submitted to the trial court. The trial court must first consider competent evidence concerning the jurisdictional facts and determine whether a 30-day or 60-day notice was required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a motion to quash service of summons is a proper procedure for challenging an unlawful detainer complaint based on an allegedly defective termination notice when the defect affects personal jurisdiction under the summary unlawful detainer procedure.
2. Whether the appellate court should consider evidence and factual arguments first presented in opposition to the writ petition concerning whether Civil Code section 800.70 applies.

Disposition

writ_granted