Legal Opinion
Van Butenschoen v. Flaker
California Superior Court
Decided October 16, 2017No. BV 031862PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRicciardulli, J.
*12INTRODUCTION
In response to an unlawful detainer complaint, a defendant may, as was done in this case, file a motion to quash service of the summons. ( Code Civ. Proc., §§ 418.10, 1167.4.) If, in denying the motion to quash, the trial court also orders the defendant to "only" file an answer to the complaint, the trial court effectively deprives that defendant of his or her right to file a demurrer ( Code Civ. Proc., § 422.10 ). Such was the case here. After defendants Cynthia Flaker and Chris Flaker were sued in unlawful detainer, they filed a motion to quash. The court denied the motion and,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2013
- Baird v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Corona v. LundiganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Whealton v. WhealtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
3Cited by5 opinions
- J.W. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Briggs v. Select Portfolio Servicing CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Flaker v. Butenschoen CA2/8California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Stancil v. Super. Ct.California Supreme Court · 2021
- Stancil v. Super.Ct.California Supreme Court · 2021