Stancil v. Superior Court of San Mateo Cnty.

• Decision Date: 03 May 2021
• Docket Number: S253783
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: Edward STANCIL, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, Respondent; City of Redwood City, Real Party in Interest.

11 Cal.5th 381

485 P.3d 446

278 Cal.Rptr.3d 27

Edward STANCIL, Petitioner,

v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, Respondent;City of Redwood City, Real Party in Interest.

S253783

Supreme Court of California.

May 3, 2021

Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire, Vincent J. Bartolotta, Jr., Karen R. Frostrom, San Diego, Neal A. Markowitz, David E. Kleinfeld ; Madden Law Office and Alison Madden, Redwood City, for Petitioner.

Matthew Warren, Madeline Howard, Los Angeles, Crystal Sims, Norwalk, and Richard A. Rothschild, Los Angeles, for Western Center on Law & Poverty as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, Oakland, Kevin D. Siegal, Randall G. Block and Maxwell Blum, Oakland, for Real Party in Interest.

Heidi Palutke; Dowling & Marquez and Curtis F. Dowling for California Apartment Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Opinion of the Court by Cuéllar, J.

Because tenants and landlords have differing interests, they can disagree sharply about the nature of their relationship and sometimes engender disputes that end up in court. When that happens, certain sections of the Code of Civil Procedure — commonly known as the Unlawful Detainer Act ( Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1159 – 1179a¹ ) — govern the procedures for resolving many of the most common legal disputes between landlords and tenants. In particular, the Unlawful Detainer Act addresses a fundamental issue in the landlord-tenant relationship: a tenant's peaceful possession of real property leased from a landlord. Given society's interest in swiftly resolving the balance between a tenant's right to enjoy leased real property without disturbance and a landlord's right to ownership income, unlawful detainer actions advance quickly — and the relevant statutes impose shorter procedural timelines than the ones governing other civil actions. These proceedings are limited in scope and demand strict adherence to the statutes’ procedural requirements. At the center of this dispute is the use of a motion to quash service of summons under section 418.10 to challenge an unlawful detainer complaint.

The landlord in this case is the City of Redwood City (the City), which operates Docktown Marina (Docktown). The City filed a complaint in unlawful detainer against a tenant of Docktown, Edward Stancil. In response, Stancil filed a motion to quash service of summons, relying on Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, 1036, 194 Cal.Rptr. 685 ( Delta Imports ), in which the Court of Appeal concluded that a "motion to quash service is the only method by which the defendant can test whether the complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer and, thereby supports a five-day summons." The City opposed the motion to quash, relying on a more recent case, Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 581 ( Borsuk ), which disagreed with this statement in Delta Imports . We granted review to decide whether a defendant may use a motion to quash service of summons pursuant to section 418.10 to challenge a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

What we conclude is that a defendant may not use a motion to quash service of summons to dispute the truth of the allegations contained in an unlawful detainer complaint. Rather, a motion to quash under section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1) is a limited procedural tool to contest personal jurisdiction over the defendant where the statutory requirements for service of process are not fulfilled. In the unlawful detainer context, a defendant may contest personal jurisdiction where the five-day summons specific to unlawful detainer actions is not supported by a complaint for unlawful detainer. Such instances are unusual, and arise only where the summons is served alongside a complaint for a completely different cause of action (e.g., breach of contract) or a complaint that fails to allege the allegations necessary to assert the defendant is guilty of unlawful detainer as specified in the relevant subdivision of section 1161. In these rare and limited circumstances, a defendant may use a motion to quash to challenge the unlawful detainer five-day summons as improper. But no defendant may use a motion to quash service of summons as a means of disputing the merits of the unlawful detainer complaint's allegations or to argue the plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading requirements specific to unlawful detainer actions set out in section 1166.

Here, the superior court correctly found that Stancil improperly lodged his motion to quash to dispute the truth of the City's allegations concerning its legal relationship with Stancil. A defendant who disputes the veracity of an allegation in a complaint can file an answer to the complaint. ( § 430.10, subd. (b).) But because a motion to quash is not the proper procedure to litigate the merits of an unlawful detainer claim, we affirm the Court of Appeal's denial of writ relief from the superior court's order denying Stancil's motion to quash.

I.

On September 21, 2018, the City filed a summons and complaint in unlawful detainer against Stancil. The complaint alleged that in July 2013, the City as operator and manager of Docktown, gave Stancil the right to use a berth for residential purposes. The original term of the "Live Aboard Rental Agreement" was for 12 months; after expiration of the initial term, the agreement renewed on a month-to-month basis, terminable by the City upon 60 days’ notice.

In December 2016, the City Council of Redwood City adopted the "Docktown Plan," which provided relocation assistance to eligible Docktown residents through financial assistance and relocation advisory services, and also detailed the process for terminating residential use at Docktown. Some Docktown residents accepted the relocation benefits and assistance, but others — including Stancil — remained.

The City served Stancil a 60-day notice to quit and surrender possession of the premises pursuant to sections 1946 and 1946.1. Stancil refused to surrender the premises during the 60-day period, so the City filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, requesting judgment for possession and damages for each day Stancil remained in the berth at the fair value rate of $17.19 per day.

In response, Stancil filed a motion to quash under section 418.10. Stancil argued only the port department — and not the City — had jurisdiction over Docktown and authority to sue him in unlawful detainer. Relying on Delta Imports , Stancil asserted that a motion to quash was the proper procedure to raise a challenge on these grounds.

In its opposition, the City argued that a motion to quash may only be used to challenge personal jurisdiction and cannot be used to attack a complaint for failure to state a claim. The City maintained that Borsuk expressly disapproved Delta Imports and controlled.

Following a hearing on the motion, the superior court denied Stancil's motion to quash and concluded his challenge to the City's complaint had to be raised on demurrer. Stancil requested an immediate stay, which the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of San Mateo County denied. Stancil then filed a petition for writ of mandate and prohibition challenging the superior court's order in the Court of Appeal, which was summarily denied. He subsequently filed a petition for review with this court, which we granted, limiting the issue for our determination to whether a motion to quash service of summons is the proper remedy to test whether a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

II.

The parties in this case disagree about how an unlawful detainer defendant may use a motion to quash service of summons under section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1). Stancil argues a defendant may use a motion to quash to challenge personal jurisdiction where an unlawful detainer complaint is defective in any manner, including when an allegation in the complaint is not true. In contrast, the City contends a motion to quash is not the proper procedure to challenge whether an unlawful detainer complaint states a cause of action. We resolve this disagreement by first considering the distinctive role of motions to quash service of summons in our system of civil procedure, before turning to unlawful detainer actions.

A.

Ordinarily, a court gains jurisdiction over the defendant from the time the defendant is served with a copy of the summons and the complaint on which it's based, as required under the Code of Civil Procedure. (§§ 410.50, 412.20 ; Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 861 ( Honda Motor Co. ); Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 110, 92 Cal.Rptr. 151.) The summons provides the defendant notice that the action described in the accompanying complaint has been filed against them in court. A valid summons must contain information such as the title of the court in which the action is pending, the names of the parties, and a direction that the defendant file a written pleading in response to the complaint within 30 days after the summons is served. ( § 412.20, subd. (a).) In the distinctive context of unlawful detainer, the summons must also adhere to section 1167, which subjects defendants to a drastically abbreviated, five-day response time. ( § 1167, subd. (a).)

Animating this dispute is the possibility that a motion to quash can interfere with the speedy adjudication of an unlawful detainer claim. Using such a motion, a defendant makes a special appearance for the narrow purpose of contesting personal jurisdiction where the summons is defective. ( Greene v. Municipal Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 446, 451, 124 Cal.Rptr. 139 ( Greene ); 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2020) Jurisdiction, § 217.) A plaintiff who files a claim for unlawful detainer has the substantial benefit of an expedited timeframe...