Landlords’ attorney relieved at removal of tenants’ delay tactic

An attorney representing a landlord group expressed relief Tuesday about a ruling by the state Supreme Court that removed a tactic often used by tenant attorneys to defend against eviction actions.

The Monday decision by the state Supreme Court limited the use of a motion of quash summons and affirmed a 1st District Court of Appeal panel ruling denying writ relief to petitioner Edward Stancil.

The decision does not resolve the lawsuit by Stancil and other petitioners who challenged Redwood City's bid to evict them from the Docktown Marina, where several of them have lived on their boats.

But the unanimous high court ruling, written by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, resolves a divide between two 2nd District Court of Appeal decisions and limits when motions to quash summons can be used in eviction cases.

"What we conclude is that a defendant may not use a motion to quash service of summons to dispute the truth of the allegations contained in an unlawful detainer complaint," Cuellar wrote. Stancil v. Superior Court, 2021 DJDAR (Cal. May 3, 2021).

The underlying case was remanded to the 1st District Court of Appeal to be sent back to San Mateo County Superior Court, where Stancil can ask a judge to have the case dismissed on summary judgment or other grounds.

While the issue has been on appeal, the cases of Stancil and others who lived on their boats at the marina have been permitted to stay, although not all of them remain.

Stancil, the lead plaintiff, lives in Santa Cruz, although two of his boats are still at the harbor, according to his attorney, Karen R. Frostram, a San Diego based partner with Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire.

"The city has not gotten a court order to evict anyone at this point," she said in a phone interview Tuesday.

The ruling does not eliminate motions to quash service of summons, but "does not transform a motion to quash to encompass challenges to the merits of a complaint, as Stancil suggests," Cuellar wrote.

"Instead, the motion to quash remains a limited procedural tool appropriate where the court lacks personal jurisdiction because the statutory requirements for service of process are not fulfilled or the summons is defective," he added.

Curtis A. Dowling, a San Francisco partner with Dowling & Marquez LLP who argued for the California Apartment Association, said the Supreme Court ruling is a relief for property owners who feared a contrary ruling would allow aggressive tenant attorneys to "buy time" in eviction cases.

Frostram cited a 1983 ruling, Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983), to support the argument that motions to quash summons were the only way to test if unlawful detainer actions were permitted.

A more recent Court of Appeal ruling, Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015), disagreed.

Since then, Dowling said the number of summonses filed by tenants have declined considerably.

"The industry was worried a breath of life could be put into Delta," reviving what had been a routine defense tactic to delay evictions, he added.

Kevin D. Siegel, an attorney with Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, represents the city.