Today, received Request to Set Case for Trial - UD: It's mis-dated + other "errors"?

[Frankh]

Hi,


In Los Angeles, I am a defendant in an unlawful detainer action. On March 31, 2012, I received a Request to Set Case for Trial, which plaintiff had mailed.

1. On page one (Request to Set Case for Trial): above the printed name and signature of the landlord, the landlord dated it by specifying an appropriate month and day. However, the year indicated is "2011". Is that permitted?

2. On page two (Proof of Service):

a. The person who served put only an "x" where it reads, "My residence or business address is (specify)"
b. That person indicated did not specify the day of the month he mailed it. Where the form reads, "Date mailed:", the person typed "03/ / 2011". Is that permitted?

3. Also, the person who served did sign my copy of the proof of service, obviously before he even mailed it.

Could I request to vacate any resultant trial date, a demurrer or motion to strike that service of process based upon any or all of these grounds?

Thank you,

Frankh

 

[army judge]

You can request anything.

But, those legal shenanigans and tricks usually backfire.

Try your case, IF you have one, otherwise; do what you've been avoiding.

 

[fredrikklaw]

You can Quash Service, but will only delay!

FRANKH:

An Unlawful Detainer (U.D.) action comes under the title of "SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS" and (in California at least) its proceedings are just a step or two above that of small claims and traffic court, which basically means very unsophisticated and at times downright archaic. Also, their Honors who preside in the U.D. Department are there on an ever revolving basis, so very rarely will there be the same Honorable presiding twice over the same matter.

Add to these the fact that where it takes over a year to bring (for example) an attempted murder case to trial, a U.D. action is mandated by the Judicial Council to be scheduled for a trial within 20 days from the date the defendant has answered the complaint. Because in America, a person's house is considered his life span's biggest and most important asset and investment and he should be reunited with its possession as speedily as possible; hence the 20 day trial lead time and the U.D. Courts up and down California are all ill equipped to handle drawn out and legally complicated cases and as a result do not stand much on ceremony.

It is worth mentioning as well that the writing of 2011 instead 2012 on a form comes under the doctrine of "Harmless Error" which is an error that does not affect or prejudice the outcome of a proceeding; not like serving the wrong tenant anyways, and so it is left alone. Also, the landlord must have used a proper company for the service of process which is probably the reason the line asking for residence and whatnot has been left blank, as it will be filled in with the company's details before filing with the court.

The moral of the story here is that first of all the court will not be too receptive to a Motion to Dismiss Based on Defective Service of Process, and second, even if such a motion is granted, you will only be delaying the inevitable as the cure for such a defect is a simple second attempt at service of the process. Meanwhile the damages prayed for will increase by quite a few more dollars to compensate the landlord for the extended period of non-payment.

Bottom line: The proper motion here (if you feel the service was not properly done) would be a Motion to Quash Service of Summons based on Court's lack of jurisdiction. California Code of Civil Procedure §418.10(a)(1).

fredrikklaw