Unknown v. Unknown

(Inglewood Courthouse: Dept. 8) August 31, 2026 DEPARTMENT 8 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

The demurrer is overruled as untimely. The Plaintiff served the complaint and summons on defendant Kadiatu Kallay on July 31, 2026, which required Kallay to file a demurrer no later than August 24, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., ss 415.20, subdivision (a); 1167, subd. (a).) She did not file the demurrer until August 27, 2026. Meanwhile, the court entered default against her on August 26, 2026.

Case Number: 26IWUD01152 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: 8 Tentative: The motion to quash is granted. Code of Civil Procedure section 1167, subdivision (a), requires a summons in an unlawful detainer action "be in the form specified in [s]ection 412.20 except that when the defendant is served, the defendant's response shall be filed within 10 days, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, after the complaint is served upon the defendant." "Service of a substantially defective summons does not confer jurisdiction over a party." (Greene v. Municipal Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 446, 452.)

The summons served in this action was defective because it notified the Defendants under the former section 1167 that they had only five days to respond to the complaint. The statute was amended effective January 1, 2025 to allow 10 days for such response. (See Assembly Bill No. 2347 (Reg. Sess. 2023-2024).) "[S]ince the summons is substantially defective in illegally purporting to shorten defendants' time to plead, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the parties served with it." (Greene v. Municipal Court, supra, 51 Cal.App.3d at p. 452; see also Pousson v. Superior Court In and For San Diego County (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 750, 752-753 ["'the notice must apprise the party whose rights are to be affected, of what is required of him, and the consequences that may follow if he neglect to defend the action'"].)

Case Number: 26IWUD01223 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: 8 Tentative: The demurrer is overruled and the motion to strike is denied.

The Defendant argues the Plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue because it is not the owner of the property. That argument cannot be resolved via this demurrer and motion to strike, as it relies upon facts beyond the face of the complaint of which the court cannot take judicial notice. (See County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1034, 1041.)

The Defendant also argues the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer and is ambiguous and uncertain, but the Defendant fails to explain the bases for his arguments. The complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer based upon nonpayment of rent, as the three-day notice to pay or quit appears on its face to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1161(2) and Plaintiff alleges service of the notice in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1162. The Defendant is ordered to file an answer within five days' notice of this ruling. | Home -->)" -->