Purpose and Scope

The remedy of unlawful detainer is a summary proceeding to determine the right to possession of real property. Since it is purely statutory in nature, it is essential that a party seeking the remedy bring himself clearly within the statute. (Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Limited (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 672, 674.) Strict compliance with specifically prescribed notice conditions is a prerequisite to invoking the summary unlawful detainer procedures. (See Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 599.) Failure to do so will render an unlawful detainer complaint defective and subject to demurrer for failure to state a cause of action. (Id.)

Procedural Elements

“Generally, in order to take advantage of this summary remedy, the landlord must demonstrate strict compliance with the statutory notice requirements contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 et seq., including providing the tenant with three days' written notice to pay rent or quit the premises. The notice to quit must be served personally or, if personal service is not possible, by substituted service.” (Borsuk v. Appellate Div. of the Superior Court of L. A. Cnty. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 610 n. 1. citing Culver Center Partners East #1, L.P. v. Baja Fresh Westlake Village, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 744, 749–750.)

Three-Day Service and Tenant's Motion to Quash

“According to the statutes governing unlawful detainer proceedings, ‘a tenant is entitled to a three-day notice to pay rent or quit which may be enforced by summary legal proceedings (Sec. 1161) but this notice is valid and enforceable only if the lessor strictly complies with the specifically described notice conditions.’” (Borsuk v. Appellate Div. of the Super. Ct. of L. A. Cnty. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 612 citing Sec. 1162) “Stated another way, ‘[p]roper service on the lessee of a valid three-day notice to pay rent or quit is an essential prerequisite to a judgment declaring a lessor's right to possession under section 1161, subdivision 2.’” (Id.) “‘A lessor must allege and prove proper service of the requisite notice. Absent evidence the requisite notice was properly served pursuant to section 1162, no judgment for possession can be obtained. ’” (Borsuk, supra,242 Cal.App.4th at 612 citing Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1425; see also Liebovich v. Shahrokhkhany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 511, 513, holding “A lessor must strictly comply with the statutorily mandated requirements for service of a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.)

The requirement that the landlord comply with sections 1161 and 1162 by serving the three-day notice on the tenant is undisputed. (See Palm Property, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1425, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 816.)

Multiple Actions and Statutory Precedence

Unlawful detainer actions are governed by summary statutory procedures, created to afford an “expeditious and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of premises wrongfully withheld by tenants.” (Childs v. Eltinge (1973) 29 Cal. App. 3d 843, 853.)

Unlawful detainer actions are given statutory precedence over all other civil actions other than those also granted special precedence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1179a.) It is common to have both an unlawful detainer and a civil action pending at the same time based on one tenancy, because other than rent, damages relating to a tenancy are only recoverable in a separate civil action. (See Hudec v. Robertson (1989) 210 Cal. App. 3d 1156, 1163.)

An unlawful detainer judgment will not have collateral estoppel effect as to issues that were not and could not have been litigated in the unlawful detainer. (Friedman, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶8:6:1.) Here, there are no title issues that mean it would make more sense for the cases to be consolidated. (See, e.g. Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 367, 385.) Just because the civil action for damages was filed first does not mean that a related unlawful detainer that solely seeks possession needs to be stayed, defeating its summary nature, pending resolution of the related civil matter.

Time Extensions

In order to extend trial in an unlawful detainer action beyond the 20 day period set forth in CCP 1170.5(a), it is necessary to follow the procedures set forth in CCP 1170.5(c). That section provides that if the court finds that there is a reasonable probability that the unlawful detainer plaintiff will prevail in the case, the court must determine the amount of damages the unlawful detainer plaintiff would suffer as a result of the extension and order the unlawful detainer defendant to pay that sum into the court each month until conclusion of the action.