Deal

Deal v. Municipal Court

Good Law
157 Cal. App. 3d 991·1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2261·204 Cal. Rptr. 79
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 1984Civ. 69418California2,300 words

Opinion

Opinion

Storch, J.

Real party in interest, H. L. Tilbury (landlord) appeals from a judgment of the superior court granting the petition of Billy Joe Deal and Mary Lucy Deal (tenants) for writ of mandate wherein the respondent municipal court was ordered to vacate its denial of tenants’ motion to quash service of summons and to grant said motion in an unlawful detainer action. In its judgment the superior court awarded tenants $600 in attorney’s fees and $100 as costs.

The issue presented on this appeal is whether section 1167 of the Code of Civil Procedure which requires a defendant in an unlawful detainer action to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint within five days after service of summons, as contrasted to the usual thirty days in most other civil actions, is in violation of either the due process or equal protection clauses of the Constitutions of the United States and California. The superior court found section 1167 to be an unconstitutional deprivation of due process in that the five day limitation did not allow adequate time within which to retain counsel and to prepare and file defensive pleadings. We conclude that section 1167 passes federal and state constitutional…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.