Section 415.46 provides that an owner of property may serve a prejudgment claim of right to possession form on a tenant as part of an unlawful detainer action. Once the tenant is served with the claim form, section 1174.25, subdivision (a)(1), provides the tenant “may file a claim as prescribed in Section 415.46, with the court within 10 days of the date of service of the prejudgment claim of right to possession [form] as shown on the return of service.... Filing the prejudgment claim of right to possession shall constitute a general appearance....”
Subdivision (b) of section 1174.25 provides further, “At the time of filing, the claimant shall be added as a defendant in the action for unlawful detainer and the clerk shall notify the plaintiff that the claimant has been added as a defendant in the action by mailing a copy of the claim filed with the court to the plaintiff with a notation so indicating. The claimant shall answer or otherwise respond to the summons and complaint within five days... after filing the prejudgment claim of possession. Thereafter, the name of the claimant shall be added to any pleading, filing or form filed in the action for unlawful detainer.”
“In addition to the service of a summons and complaint in an action for unlawful detainer upon a tenant and subtenant, if any, as prescribed by this article, a prejudgment claim of right to possession may also be served on any person who appears to be or who may claim to have occupied the premises at the time of the filing of the action. Service upon occupants shall be made pursuant to subdivision (c) by serving a copy of a prejudgment claim of right to possession, as specified in subdivision (f), attached to a copy of the summons and complaint at the same time service is made upon the tenant and subtenant, if any.” (Civ. Code, Sec. 415.46(a).)
“In addition to the service on an identified occupant, or if no occupant is disclosed to the officer or process server, or if substituted service is made upon the tenant and subtenant, if any, the officer or process server shall serve a prejudgment claim of right to possession for all other persons who may claim to occupy the premises at the time of the filing of the action by leaving a copy of a prejudgment claim of right to possession attached to a copy of the summons and complaint at the premises at the same time service is made upon the tenant and subtenant, if any, affixing the same so that it is not readily removable in a conspicuous place on the premises so that it is likely to give actual notice to an occupant, and sending the same addressed to ‘all occupants in care of the named tenant’ to the premises by first-class mail.” (Civ. Code, Sec. 415.46(c)(3).)
Occupants of the premises not named in the unlawful detainer action or in the writ of possession (and never served with a prejudgment claim of right to possession by the landlord, pursuant to Civ. Code, Sec.415.46) may contest enforcement of the writ of possession if they claim a right to possession predating the commencement of the unlawful detainer action. Civ. Code, Sec. 715.020(d) and 1174.3(a). To object to enforcement of the writ of possession, the occupants must file with the levying officer a “claim of right to possession.” Civ. Code, Sec. 1174.3(a) and (h). The claim may be filed with the levying officer at any time after service or posting of the writ of possession, but no later than the time at which the levying officer returns to effect actual eviction under the writ (i.e., the sixth day after service of the writ). Civ. Code, Sec.1174.3(a). If a timely claim of right to possession is made, the levying officer must deliver the claim to the court and obtain a hearing date to determine the validity of the claim. Civ. Code, Sec. 1174.3(b). The levying officer must then notify the claimant and the landlord of the date of the hearing. Civ. Code, Sec. 1174.3(c).
[Plaintiff did not serve a prejudgment claim of right to possession on all unknown occupants as prescribed by CCP § 415.46.] On 4/26/19, Judge Escalante issued Judgment for Possession of the premises and Judgment in the sum of $52,296.12 in favor of Vivera and against Blaine Holding & Development LLC. (RJN, Ex. B, 4/26/19 Judgment for Possession.) Defendant was ordered to vacate the Premises (i.e.
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
McIntyre further attests that the only document posted was the prejudgment claim of right to possession, that this document was posted around 1:00 p.m. and that he took pictures of the prejudgment claim of right to possession after he posted it on the door of the Corner Tavern and of Defendant. (Id., ¶8, Exh. B.)
Los Angeles County, CA
Representing himself, he filed a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession on November 21, 2019 alleging that he had a written rental agreement with a person other than the landlord. On that same date he filed his Answer-Unlawful Detainer generally denying the allegations of the Complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses. One defense asserted was that the notice served failed to provide a 90-day notice. Claimant Ramon Jose did not allege the existence of any contract with the Plaintiff.
Los Angeles County, CA
. ¶21] On December 14, 2019, defendants were duly served with a copy of the summons and complaint in this action and the prejudgment claim of right to possession was served on all unnamed occupants of the premises [Id. ¶22] Defendants are still in possession of the premises. [Id. ¶23] Defendants have not tendered the amount of the debt for which the property was given as security. [Id. ¶24] 3.
Santa Barbara County, CA
In opposition to the motion, plaintiff provides evidence that each of the Lopez defendants was served by substitute service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.20 and 415.46. “The preferred way to serve a defendant, of course, is by personal delivery, as prescribed in section 415.10, as this is the most likely to ensure actual notice to the defendant. [Citation.] Service is deemed complete at the time of delivery.
Santa Barbara County, CA
ANALYSIS: Specially-Appearing Defendants move for an order quashing service of summons and dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff failed to serve Specially-Appearing Defendants with a copy of the Summons and Complaint as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.10-415.46; and (2) the Court lacks general and/or specific jurisdiction because Specially-Appearing Defendants lack any minimum contacts with the forum state. (Motion, p. ii:2-13.) A.
Los Angeles County, CA
Frasier, however, is a party by virtue of having filed a Prejudgment Claim of Right To Possession on March 6, 2019. Accordingly, Ms. Fraiser cannot be removed as a defendant by virtue of a voluntary dismissal. Thus, the motion remains on calendar.) When a party files a motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer, defendant is entitled to present opposition “orally at the time of hearing or in writing.” (C.R.C. 3.1351(b).)
Contra Costa County, CA
There are no copies of such documents submitted to establish the posting or the follow up mailing, or to permit the court to confirm the prejudgment claim of right to possession conformed with CCP § 415.46 (f). This is insufficient to persuade the court that service complied with CCP § 415.46. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or Stay Unlawful Detainer Proceedings is GRANTED.
Real Property
Quiet Title
Los Angeles County, CA
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 415.46, no occupant of the premises retains any possessory interest of any kind following service of the writ of possession. See CCP § 715.020(d) (explaining that ‘if the summons, complaint, and prejudgment claim of right to possession were served upon the occupants in accordance with Section 415.46, no occupant of the premises, whether or not the occupant is named in the judgment for possession, may object to the enforcement of the judgment ...’)”
Orange County, CA
Inefficient Staffing of the Case Petitioner’s attorneys billed at least 415.46 hours: Olson for about 170 hours; O’Brien for 168 hours; and Fields for 48.3 hours.[7] (Golds Decl. ¶ 16; Olson Decl. ¶ 12’ O’Brien Decl. ¶ 25.) Thus, Olson was the highest biller on the case, both in terms of hours and rate. As discussed above, this action did not involve any particularly novel or complex issues of CPRA law.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
As a matter of equity, she was identified as a tenant in the addendum to the lease, and she appeared in the unlawful detainer action by filing her answer and her prejudgment claim of right to possession. So as a matter of equity, entry of judgment against her was not improper. 2. It is true, but irrelevant, that the trial court in the unlawful detainer action, did not enter Ghasemian’s default or take her default judgment.
Orange County, CA
The Ninth Circuit concluded: “The unlawful detainer judgment and writ of possession entered pursuant to California Code Civil Procedure § 415.46 bestowed legal title and all rights of possession upon Eden Place. See Vella, 142 Cal.Rptr. 414, 572 P.2d at 30. Thus, at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition, Perl had been completely divested of all legal and equitable possessory rights that would otherwise be protected by the automatic stay. See id.
El Dorado County, CA
The court must determine if service complied with CCP Section 415.46(e)(l) which would invoke CCP Section 715.020(d), which would require automatic eviction of Prapai Benjauthrit, even though she is not named on the U.D. judgment. The plaintiff could be entitled to a post judgment hearing pursuant to CCP Section 1174.3(a)(1). It should be noted that plaintiff Prapai Benjauthrit is not named in the U.D. judgment.
Real Property
Quiet Title
Los Angeles County, CA
., proof of service of summons, complaint and prejudgment claim of right to possession filed 1/15/16 as to All Other Occupants in Possession in this case); Granted as to Exhibit “6” (i.e., proof of service of summons, complaint and prejudgment claim of right to possession filed 1/15/16 as to Autosports European, Inc. in this case); Granted as to Exhibit “7” (i.e., proof of service of summons, complaint and prejudgment claim of right to possession filed 1/15/16 as to Scuderia Investments, LLC in this case); Granted
Los Angeles County, CA
Mark Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) subsequently filed a prejudgment claim of right to possession on September 18, 2018, asserting he is an occupant of the subject property and acknowledging his understanding that he would be added as a defendant as a result of filing the claim. Lisa Peralta (“Peralta”) later filed her own prejudgment claim of right to possession on October 11, 2018 stating the same.
Santa Clara County, CA
He filed a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession of the property with the Demurrer. On January 31, 2018, this court dismissed the action pursuant to a Stipulation to Dismiss Action between all named parties. It does not appear that Rhee was part of the stipulation. On March 6, 2018, this court entered Judgment pursuant to a Stipulation for Judgment between the named parties. Rhee was part of this stipulation. Rhee filed the present Motion to Vacate Dismissal on April 18, 2018.
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 5, 2013, Freddie Mac served the summons and complaint with a prejudgment claim of right to possession form on Purvis Washington and “All Unknown Occupants.” (RJN Exh. B.) Plaintiffs allege they were tenants at this time and therefore would be among “all unknown occupants.” Plaintiffs were deemed to have been served with the summons, complaint, and a prejudgment claim of right to possession. (RJN Exh. B.)
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Order to Show Cause re Stipulated Judgment and Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession On June 14, 2018, the court set an order to show cause regarding why the stipulation for entry of judgment filed in this action on January 22, 2018, should not be set aside, and why the prejudgment claim of right to possession, filed November 7, 2017, should not be stricken.
Placer County, CA
Case No. 17CV05003 was filed on 11/6/17 against prior owners Richard Meaney and Ness Carroll, who answered claiming possession, and Steve Travis appeared through a prejudgment claim of right to possession. She requested that discovery be conducted, and authenticates Mr. Travis’ responses to form interrogatories, as well as the complaint in that action. Ms. Reyes declares further that no landlord/tenant relationship exists between plaintiff and defendants.
Santa Barbara County, CA
Riddex may file a prejudgment claim of right to possession and response to the complaint on or before April 27, 2018.
Placer County, CA
(There was an issue regarding a 90 day notice required under CCP §§ 1161a(c) and 1161b for tenants because, in that case, defendant Ian Robinson filed prejudgment claim of right to possession declaring that he occupied the property pursuant to a rental agreement with the defendant Sanchez.) Motion: Plaintiff moves “for an order granting summary judgment or summary adjudication of all affirmative defenses specified in Defendant’s Answer.” The matter was set for a hearing on March 9.
Santa Barbara County, CA
(There was an issue regarding a 90 day notice required under CCP §§ 1161a(c) and 1161b for tenants because, in that case, defendant Ian Robinson filed prejudgment claim of right to possession declaring that he occupied the property pursuant to a rental agreement with the defendant Sanchez.) Motion: Plaintiff moves “for an order granting summary judgment or summary adjudication of all affirmative defenses specified in Defendant’s Answer.” There is no opposition to the motion on file.
Santa Barbara County, CA
That the CCP §415.46 default was entered as to all occupants other than the named defendant was due to a series of assumptions and mistakes on both sides. This motion is based on CCP §473(b) and supported by the declarations of paralegal Nealy Kendrick and of attorney Carlos Lloreda, Jr. Attorney Lloreda testifies that he prepared an answer on behalf of all occupants. Ms.
Los Angeles County, CA
Sogelau filed a prejudgment claim of right to possession that added her as a defendant. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion fails to identify Sogelau, and nowhere in the motion papers does Plaintiff discuss the elements of this claim against Sogelau. Therefore, any motion as to Sogelau is DENIED because Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing all the elements of this unlawful detainer claim against Sogelau. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.
San Mateo County, CA
Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession served the Summons and Complaint. See Proof of Service filed on November 1, 2017. =(501/REQ)
San Francisco County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
