Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Mon, 06/08/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion of Defendants to Quash Service of Summons Tentative Ruling Monique Pierce v. Daniel Dornbrach and Shannon Dornbrach Case No. 26CV02651 Hearing Date: June 8, 2026 HEARING: Motion of Defendants to Quash Service of Summons ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Monique Pierce: Betty Jeppesen For Defendants Daniel Dornbrach and Shannon Dornbrach: Self-represented TENTATIVE RULING: The motion of defendants to quash service of summons is denied. Plaintiff shall serve notice of this ruling on defendants.

Background: As alleged in plaintiff Monique Pierce's complaint in unlawful detainer: Each of defendants Daniel Dornbrach and Shannon Dornbrach were served with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. (Complaint, P. 9(a)(1).) The notice was served by posting a copy on the premise on March 26, 2026, and mailing a copy to the defendants on that day because no person of suitable age or discretion could be found on the premises. (Complaint, P. 10(a)(3)(b) & exhibits 2, P. 4(C), 3, P. 4(C).)

On April 24, 2026, plaintiff filed the complaint in this action.

On June 1, 2026, defendants filed this motion to quash service of summons.

Analysis: The basis for this motion to quash is that plaintiff has not alleged an action in unlawful detainer and therefore has failed acquire personal jurisdiction over the defendants by service of the five-day unlawful detainer summons. "[A] defendant may properly use a motion to quash to challenge personal jurisdiction in an unlawful detainer case. Section 418.10 authorizes a motion to quash only where the summons is improper, or the service of process is defective. Accordingly, an unlawful detainer defendant may properly file a motion to quash to contest a summons.

The accelerated five-day summons required under section 1167 is applicable only in unlawful detainer cases. So where the summons instructs the defendant to respond in five days but is not accompanied with a complaint for unlawful detainer, the summons is improper and may be challenged via a motion to quash. A complaint that fails to even allege the defendant is guilty of unlawful detainer, as defined in the relevant subdivision of section 1161, cannot support the five-day summons exclusive to unlawful detainer cases.

In those limited circumstances ..., an unlawful detainer defendant may choose to use a motion to quash to challenge the summons as improper." (Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 400-401.)

Defendants assert that the complaint fails to allege an attempt at personal service before alleging service by posting and mailing. A motion to quash challenging the five-day summons on the grounds as opposed to the manner of service may address only the question of whether the complaint includes the minimal allegations necessary to justify an unlawful detainer action. (Stancil v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 402.) Thus, this motion cannot challenge whether the allegations are true (which is an issue left to trial or other appropriate procedure), but only challenge whether the allegations are legally sufficient.

"Except as provided in subdivision (b) [relating to commercial tenancies], the notices required by Sections 1161 and 1161a may be served by any of the following methods: "(1) By delivering a copy to the tenant personally. "(2) If he or she is absent from his or her place of residence, and from his or her usual place of business, by leaving a copy with some person of suitable age and discretion at either place, and sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at his or her place of residence. "(3) If such place of residence and business cannot be ascertained, or a person of suitable age or discretion there can not be found, then by affixing a copy in a conspicuous place on the property, and also delivering a copy to a person there residing, if such person can be found; and also sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at the place where the property is situated." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1162, subd. (a).)

The notices alleged in the complaint as exhibits 2 and 3 each contain a printed statement under paragraph 4, "Delivery of Notice/Proof of Service": "To comply with state law, service attempts must be done in the following order: A, then B, then C." A and B are personal service and substituted service, respectively; C is service by posting and mailing. C is checked. The most reasonable construction of these allegations is that method C was effected after service attempts by personal service or substituted service. These allegations comply with the service requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1162, subdivision (a), and are therefore sufficient for purposes of pleading the element of service of the notice. Thus, these allegations are sufficient for use of a five-day summons. The motion to quash will therefore be denied.

"The service and filing of a notice of motion [to quash service] shall extend the defendant's time to plead until five days after service upon him of the written notice of entry of an order denying his motion, except that for good cause shown the court may extend the defendant's time to plead for an additional period not exceeding 15 days." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1167.4, subd. (b).)

Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Miguel O Angeles, Sr