CLAUDIO S. NICOLOSI VS. CHRISTINA NICOLOSI, ET AL
DEFENDANT CHRISTINA NICOLOSI’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO QUASH SUMMONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Motion type
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
6/11/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 16 of 17
2:00 PM LINE: 3 26-UDL-00477 CLAUDIO S. NICOLOSI VS. CHRISTINA NICOLOSI, ET AL
CLAUDIO S. NICOLOSI STEVEN T. NAUMCHIK CHRISTINA NICOLOSI PRO SE
DEFENDANT CHRISTINA NICOLOSI’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO QUASH SUMMONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons stated below, Defendant Christina Nicolosi’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.
Defendant Nicolosi has not established that service by posting and mailing was defective. To the extent Defendant also argues the Complaint fails to state a cause of action because she is the equitable owner of the property and no landlord-tenant relationship exists, that issue cannot be determined by motion to quash. The First Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the owner of the property. A motion to quash may not be used to challenge the merits or truth of the allegations in an unlawful detainer complaint. (Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 396–397.) Defendant shall file a responsive pleading within five days.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.
6/11/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 17 of 17
2:00 PM LINE: 4 26-UDL-00477 CLAUDIO S. NICOLOSI VS. CHRISTINA NICOLOSI, ET AL
CLAUDIO S. NICOLOSI STEVEN T. NAUMCHIK CHRISTINA NICOLOSI PRO SE
DEFENDANT MARK WILLIAMS’ MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO QUASH SUMMONS AND AMENDED COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons stated below, Defendant Williams’s Motion to Quash is DENIED. Defendant Williams has not established that service by posting and mailing was defective. To the extent Defendant also argues the Complaint fails to state a cause of action because no landlord-tenant relationship exists, that issue cannot be determined by motion to quash. The First Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff owns the property, gave Defendant permission to occupy it, served Defendant with a notice of termination, and that Defendant failed to vacate. A motion to quash may not be used to challenge the merits or truth of the allegations in an unlawful detainer complaint. (Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 396–397.) Defendant shall file a responsive pleading within five days.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.
Posted: 3:00 P.M.
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”