Stop Falling for This Common Legal Trick in California Evictions
If you are a tenant facing an eviction, or a landlord seeking to recover possession of property, it is important to understand what a motion to quash can and cannot accomplish in an unlawful detainer case.
For years, some litigants relied on language from older cases to argue that a motion to quash service of summons could be used to attack defects in an unlawful detainer complaint or challenge whether the complaint stated a valid cause of action. In Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, the California Supreme Court clarified the limited role of a motion to quash and rejected attempts to use it as a broad tool for litigating the merits of an eviction case.
What a Motion to Quash Is Actually For
The Supreme Court held that a motion to quash under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 is a limited procedural device used to challenge personal jurisdiction, defective service of process, or a defective summons.
Generally speaking, a defendant may not use a motion to quash to dispute the truth of the allegations in an unlawful detainer complaint or to litigate the merits of the landlord's claims.
The Court explained that a motion to quash remains appropriate when the unlawful detainer summons itself is defective, including rare situations where:
The five-day unlawful detainer summons is served with a complaint alleging a completely different cause of action, such as breach of contract; or
The complaint fails to allege even the minimal elements necessary to constitute an unlawful detainer claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161.
In those limited circumstances, the summons may be improper and a motion to quash may be an appropriate jurisdictional challenge.
What You Cannot Do
A tenant cannot use a motion to quash merely because they disagree with the landlord's allegations.
For example, a motion to quash is generally not the proper method to argue that:
The landlord's factual allegations are false;
The landlord lacks evidence to prove the case;
The landlord improperly served a three-day notice;
The complaint contains ordinary pleading defects; or
The plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on the merits.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a motion to quash is not an all-purpose procedural weapon for attacking every defect or alleged deficiency in an unlawful detainer action.
The Proper Tools for Challenging an Eviction
California law provides several procedural mechanisms for contesting an unlawful detainer action:
1. File an Answer
If you dispute the truth of the landlord's allegations or wish to raise affirmative defenses, the proper vehicle is generally an Answer.
2. File a Demurrer
If the complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action or does not comply with applicable pleading requirements, those issues are ordinarily raised by Demurrer, not by a motion to quash.
3. File Other Appropriate Motions
Depending on the circumstances, a defendant may use a motion to strike, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or other authorized procedural devices to challenge deficiencies in the complaint.
4. Use Multiple Procedures Simultaneously
Importantly, Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(e) permits a defendant to file a motion to quash while simultaneously filing a demurrer, answer, or motion to strike without making a general appearance or waiving a jurisdictional challenge.
The Bottom Line
Stancil did not eliminate motions to quash in unlawful detainer actions. Instead, the California Supreme Court clarified that they remain available for genuine jurisdictional defects, defective service, or an improper unlawful detainer summons.
What defendants may not do is use a motion to quash to contest the truth of a landlord's allegations, attack ordinary pleading defects, or litigate the merits of the eviction. Those issues must be raised through an answer, demurrer, motion to strike, or other appropriate procedural mechanism.
As the Supreme Court summarized, a motion to quash remains a limited jurisdictional tool, not a substitute for litigating the underlying unlawful detainer claim.
Authority: Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 390-403
Comments