Borsuk

DISCUSSION

“A motion to quash service is the proper method for determining whether the court has acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendant through service of the five-day unlawful detainer summons. [Citation.]” (Delta, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d at p. 1035.) “If the [trial court] erroneously refuses to quash service, the defendant is entitled to a writ of mandate from the [appellate court]. [Citations.]” (Ibid.)

In Delta, the Court of Appeal found that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer because it did not allege compliance with the statutory notice requirements (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. (2)). It held that “[u]nder the [c]ircumstances of [that] case,” a motion to quash service was the “[p]roper [p]rocedure” “to test whether the complaint states a cause of action for 1 This court acknowledges that it incorrectly ordered the trial court to “enter a new order granting the motion.” Respondent court should have been ordered to consider the merits of petitioner‟s motion and then decide whether the motion should be granted or denied. By the terms of this opinion, we are correcting that error. 2 unlawful detainer and, thereby supports a…