SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

WEST DISTRICT, SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSE (19484 )
1725 MAIN STREET, SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
TELEPHONE: (310) 260-1887
PNMAC MORTAGE vs.
STANKO, KAMIE Case Number: SM 11U04495
MINUTE ORDER AND CLERK'S NOTICE OF RULING AND/OR APPEALABLE ORDER
Court convened at 08:30 AM, on 03/07/2012; in Department WES
Present: Honorable LAWRENCE H. CHO, Judge/Comm. Presiding.
MARY WECHTER , Deputy Clerk;
and the following proceedings were had: notice given per section CCP 664.5:
Plaintiff(s) PNMAC MORTAGE (NOT)
DEBORAH M. BASS, ESQ.
Defendant(s) STANKO, KAMIE (NOT)
RONALD RICHARDS, ESQ.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: CAUSE CALLED AFTER SUBMISSION
DISPOSITION
THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS:
appearing by
appearing by
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IS GRANTED
AS FULLY REFLECTED IN THE ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SIGNED
AND FILED THIS DATE.
/
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED AS ALso FULLY REFLECTED IN
THE COURT'S ORDER SIGNED AND FILED THIS DATE.
/
CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.
/
A CONFORMED COPY OF THE COURT'S RULING IS MAILED TO RESPECTIVE COUNSEL
VIA U.S. MAIL THIS DATE.
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify
that I am not a party to the cause herein, and that this date I served
Minute Order and Clerk's Notice the above minute order of
03/07/2012 upon each party or counsel named below by depositing in the
United States mail at the courthouse in SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA,
one copy of the original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope for each,
addressed as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid.
RONALD RICHARDS
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD RICHARDS & ASSOCS.
P. O. BOX 11480
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90213
(310) 556-1001
DEBORAH M. BASS ESQ
LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH BASS
8961 SUNSET BLVD, SUITE 2A
LOS ANGELES, CA 90069
(310) 248-3840
JOHN A. CLARKE, Executive Officer/Clerk
Dated:03/07/2012 By MARY WECHTER , Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COUR':I'. og ... COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
WEST DISTRICT, SANTA COURTHOUSE (19484 )
1725 MAIN STREET, SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
TELEPHONE: (310) 260-1887
PNMAC MORTAGE vs.
STANKO, KAMIE Case Number: SM 11U04495
MINUTE ORDER AND CLERK'S NOTICE OF RULING AND/OR APPEALABLE ORDER
Court convened at 08:30 AM, on 02/27/2012; in Department WES
Present: Honorable LAWRENCE H. CHO, Judge/Comm. Presiding.
MARY WECHTER , Deputy Clerk;
and the following proceedings were had: notice given per section CCP 664.5:
Plaintiff(s) PNMAC MORTAGE
DEBORAH M. BASS ESQ
Defendant(s)' STANKO, KAMIE
RONALD RICHARDS, ESQ.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: CAUSE CALLED FOR HEARING RE:
appearing by
appearing by
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS.
DISPOSITION
THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS:
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND THE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS HEARD,
CONSIDERED AND TAKES THE MATTER UNDER SUBMISSION.
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify
that I am not a party to the cause herein, and that this date I served
Minute Order and Clerk's Notice the above minute order of
02/27/2012 upon each party or counsel named below by depositing in the
United States mail at the courthouse in SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA,
one copy of the original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope for each,
addressed as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid.
..
\i- '

,§II
FILED
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 0 Y
PNMAC MORTGAGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
KAMIE STANKO,
Defendant.
) Case No. 11 U04495
)
)
)
) ORDER RE: Defendant's Motion to Quash
)
)
) Hearing: February 27,2012
)
)
-----------------------------)
I
F acts and Procedural History
Plaintiffs purchased the property at issue at a foreclosure sale in January 2011.
Defendant claims to be a tenant of the prior owner. Plaintiff served defendant with a
three day notice to pay rent or quit in December 2011, claiming that defendant failed to
pay rent of $2,500 per month for a 10 month period from March 2011 thru November
2011. The rent was not paid and plaintiff brought this unlawful detainer action to evict
defendant.
Defendant brings this instant motion to quash the service of the summons and first
amended complaint
l
pursuant to Delta Imports v. Municipal Court, 146 Cal.App.3d 1033,
1036 (1983), challenging the sufficiency of the complaint. Specifically, defendant claims
that because plaintiffs took over the property by foreclosure, defendant is entitled to a
I Defendant had filed a similar challenge to plaintiff's initial complaint, which was heard and denied by this
Court on February 6, 2012. Defendant also seeks sanctions against plaintiff for the filing of that initial
complaint, which is denied for the reasons set forth below.
1
minimum 90 day notice to quit under the Federal Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act
("PTF A"), rather than the 3 day pay rent or quit notice alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff
counters that the 3 day pay rent or quit notice is legally sufficient because, regardless of
the 90 day PTF A requirement, tenants still must pay the rent or be subject to only a 3 day
payor quit notice. Oral arguments were held on February 27, 2012 and the matter was
taken under submission.
II
ANAL YSIS & ORDER
A. Motion to Quash
1. Complaint Caption
Defendant first argues that the complaint must be quashed because it fails to
comply with CCP § 1166(c), which requires that "in an action regarding residential real
property based on Section 1161 a, the plaintiff shall state in the caption of the complaint
'Action based on Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 a." Section 1161 a sets forth the
procedural requirements to evict parties when the property has been sold under a deed of
trust/foreclosure sale.
Plaintiffs concede both that they obtained the property via trustees deed sale and
that the complaint fails to contain the applicable language stated above, but argues that
the § 1161 a language is not necessary because plaintiffs are not seeking an eviction under
that section (foreclosure sale), but rather under CCP § 1161(2) (failure to pay rent).
This Court agrees with plaintiff s argument that their choice of legal theory
dictates the procedural landscape and that since they have chosen failure to pay rent
2
This Court agrees with plaintiff s argument that their choice of legal theory
dictates the procedural landscape and that since they have chosen failure to pay rent
under CCP § 1161 as their theory of liability, the required language of CCP § 1166( c)
does not apply. By its very terms, the mandatory caption language of § 1166(c) apply
only to "actions based on § 1161a." Since plaintiffs are not basing their eviction on a
foreclosure theory under that section, the mandatory language does not apply.
2. Required Notice Period
Defendant next argues that the complaint is insufficient as it alleges only a 3 day
notice to pay rent or quit rather than a federally mandated 90 day notice period under the
Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act of2009 ("PTFA"), 12 U.S.C. § 5220. Plaintiff
counters that only a 3 day notice is required in failure to pay rent cases under § 1161 (2)
and not the PTFA 90 day notice. The applicable provision of the PTFA states:
In the case of any foreclosure ... any i m m e d i a t ~ successor
in interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall
assume such interest subject to:
(1) the provision, by such successor in interest of a notice
to vacate to any bona fide tenant at least 90 days before
the effective date of such notice; and
(2) the rights of any bona fide tenant -
(A) under any bona fide lease entered into before the notice of
foreclosure to occupy the premises until the end of the remaining
term of the lease ....
In simple terms, a foreclosing party must provide a bona fide tenant a minimum
90 day notice before termination of the tenancy and must honor any remaining term of a
bona fide lease. Plaintiff concedes that the complaint alleges only a 3 day notice, but
argues, in essence, that the 90 day PTF A notice is applicable only when a foreclosing
party seeks to evict based on the eviction alone, and that plaintiffs are not seeking
3
(;1···
\ ~ ~
eviction on that basis but rather on a failure to pay rent theory which requires only a 3
day notice pursuant to § 1161 (2). Accepting this analysis, it is possible for a foreclosing
party who would otherwise be barred from evicting a tenant for 90 days, to be able to
effectuate an eviction before the 90 day period if a tenant failed to pay rent within that
time.
Plaintiffs theory reads into the PTF A something that it is silent on: a requirement
that bona fide tenants continue to honor their rental obligations post foreclosure and that
failure to do so gives rise to the right of the foreclosing party to evict the non-paying
tenant. At first blush, plaintiffs theory that upon foreclosure they step into the shoes of
the prior landlord and therefore assumes the right of the landlord to evict for failure to
pay rent on a 3 day notice has persuasive appeal from both a common sense and fairness
perspective. After all, since subsection (a)(2)(A) of the PTFA binds the foreclosing party
to honor any remaining term of a prior bona fide lease agreement, it only makes sense to
hold the tenant to their responsibilities under the same bona fide lease agreement, that is,
the tenant is entitled to the remainder of his lease on the condition that he continue to
timely pay his rent as required by that lease. Without this implied corollary to PTF A
(a)(2)(A), the landlord would be bound to allow the tenant to live out the remainder of the
lease agreement rent free, which would be patently unjust. In accepting the theory that
the PTF A requires both parties to honor their respective responsibilities for the remainder
of the lease, one should also logically accept the converse of that theory: if the tenant
does not continue to pay the rent, the foreclosing party is relieved ofhis/her obligation to
honor the remainder of the lease term and, as plaintiff urges, should be allowed to evict
the non-paying tenant with a 3 day notice to pay rent or quit pursuant to CCP § 1161 (2).
4
This Court agrees that even after foreclosure there is an ongoing duty of the tenant
to pay the rent in order for himlher to invoke the PTF A protections for the remaining
term of the lease agreement. This Court also agrees that the tenant's failure to pay rent
during the remaining lease period relieves the landlord of his/her obligation to honor the
remaining balance and provides the foreclosing party with the remedy of eviction under
CCP § 1161, which requires only a 3 day notice. But how can this analysis be accorded
with the 90 day notice requirement under the PTF A? More specifically, does the 90 day
notice still apply when the theory of eviction is failure to pay rent?
The answer lies in a close examination of the specific language of the PTF A,
. which requires that "any immediate successor in interest in such property pursuant to the
foreclosure shall assume such interest subject to ... [providing to a bona fide tenant] a
notice to vacate ... at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice ... (emphasis
added)." Here, the applicable "interest" assumed by plaintiff in this action was the prior
landlord's right to demand defendant to continue to pay his/her rent or be subject to
eviction for failure to do so; however, that interest is subject to and conditioned upon
plaintiff providing the tenant a notice to vacate "at least 90 days before the effective date
of such notice." The language of the PTF A is unequivocal in this regard; no matter what
rights or "interest" the foreclosing party assumes (including the right to evict for non-
payment of rent), it cannot evict without providing the minimum 90 day notice to bona
fide tenants. In other words, it appears to this Court that the 90 day notice period is
inviolable no matter what theory of eviction a foreclosing party has available to it.
5
Plaintiffs argue that in applying the PTF A in this manner in the non-payment of
rent context, it allows for tenants to live rent free for a minimum 90 days which cannot be
the intention of that statute to allow for such an unjust result. However, the 90 day PTF A
notice period does not excuse the tenant from his/her rental obligations; it merely delays
the remedy of eviction for a 90 day period. Following the 90 day notice, plaintiff is
entitled to avail itself of all the rights and remedies the prior landlord had to seek redress
for the tenant's failure to pay rent, including eviction and the awarding of back rent, and
holdover damages for the 90 day period.
Having found that the PTF A 90 day notice is applicable even in the failure to pay
rent context, defendant's motion to quash service ofthe summons and complaint must be
granted because the complaint fails to allege compliance with that statutory notice
requirement.
B. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and Attorney's Fees
Defendant seeks the award of sanctions under CCP § 128.7 against plaintiff,
alleging that their original complaint was frivolous and brought for an improper purpose.
The issues raised by plaintiffs initial complaint are nearly identical to those raised in
their current First Amended Complaint, and the arguments submitted by both parties in
attacking/defending the sufficiency of those complaints were equally as compelling for
both sides. Indeed, at the February 6, 2012 hearing, this Court found in favor of the
plaintiffs and denied defendant's challenge to the initial complaint. The issues raised
then and now appear to be ones of first impression, without controlling caselaw for either
side. Given that the legal theory and positions taken by plaintiff in both the initial and
6
first amended complaints were non-frivolous, taken in good faith, and objectively
reasonable, this Court finds absolutely no basis to award sanctions under CCP § 128.7.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Defendant's motion to quash service of summons and complaint is
GRANTED; and
(2) Defendant's motion for sanctions is DENIED.
March 7, 2012
Judge, Los Angeles County Superior Court
7

and the following proceedings were had: notice given per section CCP 664. addressed as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid. CAL~~IA4o·· COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WEST DISTRICT. KAMIE RONALD RICHARDS. Judge/Comm. . appearing by appearing by 11U04495 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: CAUSE CALLED FOR HEARING RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS. CA 90401 TELEPHONE: (310) 260-1887 PNMAC MORTAGE vs. Deputy Clerk. do hereby certify that I am not a party to the cause herein. BASS ESQ Defendant(s)' STANKO. . CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER I. one copy of the original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope for each. ESQ. DISPOSITION THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS HEARD. SANTA MO~tA COURTHOUSE (19484 ) 1725 MAIN STREET. og . KAMIE Case Number: SM MINUTE ORDER AND CLERK'S NOTICE OF RULING AND/OR APPEALABLE ORDER Court convened at 08:30 AM. Presiding. CHO. SANTA MONICA. CONSIDERED AND TAKES THE MATTER UNDER SUBMISSION. MARY WECHTER . and that this date I served Minute Order and Clerk's Notice the above minute order of 02/27/2012 upon each party or counsel named below by depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse in SANTA MONICA.SUPERIOR COUR':I'. in Department WES Present: Honorable LAWRENCE H. the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court. on 02/27/2012.5: Plaintiff(s) PNMAC MORTAGE DEBORAH M. CALIFORNIA. STANKO.

Defendant brings this instant motion to quash the service of the summons and first amended complaint l pursuant to Delta Imports v. \i.~ . 1 . which was heard and denied by this Court on February 6. The rent was not paid and plaintiff brought this unlawful detainer action to evict defendant. defendant is entitled to a I Defendant had filed a similar challenge to plaintiff's initial complaint. Defendant. 1036 (1983).§II FILED LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALlFO~~Clark'. challenging the sufficiency of the complaint. Plaintiff served defendant with a three day notice to pay rent or quit in December 2011. E~ FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES eY:-M~ECHTeR.500 per month for a 10 month period from March 2011 thru November 2011.. Specifically. 0 Y PNMAC MORTGAGE.3d 1033. Defendant claims to be a tenant of the prior owner. 146 Cal. 2012. ) Case No.' (. defendant claims that because plaintiffs took over the property by foreclosure.App. which is denied for the reasons set forth below. claiming that defendant failed to pay rent of $2. Plaintiff. 11 U04495 ) ) ) ) ORDER RE: Defendant's Motion to Quash ) ) ) Hearing: February 27.. Municipal Court. Defendant also seeks sanctions against plaintiff for the filing of that initial complaint... v. KAMIE STANKO.2012 ) ) -----------------------------) I F acts and Procedural History Plaintiffs purchased the property at issue at a foreclosure sale in January 2011.~ .

Motion to Quash 1. This Court agrees with plaintiff s argument that their choice of legal theory dictates the procedural landscape and that since they have chosen failure to pay rent 2 . Plaintiffs concede both that they obtained the property via trustees deed sale and that the complaint fails to contain the applicable language stated above. which requires that "in an action regarding residential real property based on Section 1161 a. but argues that the § 1161 a language is not necessary because plaintiffs are not seeking an eviction under that section (foreclosure sale). regardless of the 90 day PTF A requirement." Section 1161 a sets forth the procedural requirements to evict parties when the property has been sold under a deed of trust/foreclosure sale. Plaintiff counters that the 3 day pay rent or quit notice is legally sufficient because. Oral arguments were held on February 27. but rather under CCP § 1161(2) (failure to pay rent).minimum 90 day notice to quit under the Federal Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act ("PTF A"). the plaintiff shall state in the caption of the complaint 'Action based on Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 a. II ANAL YSIS & ORDER A. rather than the 3 day pay rent or quit notice alleged in the complaint. tenants still must pay the rent or be subject to only a 3 day payor quit notice. Complaint Caption Defendant first argues that the complaint must be quashed because it fails to comply with CCP § 1166(c). 2012 and the matter was taken under submission.

Required Notice Period Defendant next argues that the complaint is insufficient as it alleges only a 3 day notice to pay rent or quit rather than a federally mandated 90 day notice period under the Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act of2009 ("PTFA").. The applicable provision of the PTFA states: In the case of any foreclosure . and (2) the rights of any bona fide tenant (A) under any bona fide lease entered into before the notice of foreclosure to occupy the premises until the end of the remaining term of the lease . § 5220..S.. a foreclosing party must provide a bona fide tenant a minimum 90 day notice before termination of the tenancy and must honor any remaining term of a bona fide lease. any immediat~ successor in interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall assume such interest subject to: (1) the provision. Plaintiff counters that only a 3 day notice is required in failure to pay rent cases under § 1161 (2) and not the PTFA 90 day notice.. 2.C. the mandatory language does not apply. but argues. In simple terms. and that plaintiffs are not seeking 3 . the required language of CCP § 1166(c) does not apply. By its very terms. 12 U. by such successor in interest of a notice to vacate to any bona fide tenant at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice. Plaintiff concedes that the complaint alleges only a 3 day notice. that the 90 day PTF A notice is applicable only when a foreclosing party seeks to evict based on the eviction alone." Since plaintiffs are not basing their eviction on a foreclosure theory under that section.. in essence.This Court agrees with plaintiff s argument that their choice of legal theory dictates the procedural landscape and that since they have chosen failure to pay rent under CCP § 1161 as their theory of liability. the mandatory caption language of § 1166(c) apply only to "actions based on § 1161a.

1··· \~~ eviction on that basis but rather on a failure to pay rent theory which requires only a 3 day notice pursuant to § 1161 (2). which would be patently unjust. the landlord would be bound to allow the tenant to live out the remainder of the lease agreement rent free. that is. Plaintiffs theory reads into the PTFA something that it is silent on: a requirement that bona fide tenants continue to honor their rental obligations post foreclosure and that failure to do so gives rise to the right of the foreclosing party to evict the non-paying tenant. plaintiffs theory that upon foreclosure they step into the shoes of the prior landlord and therefore assumes the right of the landlord to evict for failure to pay rent on a 3 day notice has persuasive appeal from both a common sense and fairness perspective. 4 . it only makes sense to hold the tenant to their responsibilities under the same bona fide lease agreement. After all. Without this implied corollary to PTF A (a)(2)(A). one should also logically accept the converse of that theory: if the tenant does not continue to pay the rent. At first blush. since subsection (a)(2)(A) of the PTFA binds the foreclosing party to honor any remaining term of a prior bona fide lease agreement. the foreclosing party is relieved ofhis/her obligation to honor the remainder of the lease term and. it is possible for a foreclosing party who would otherwise be barred from evicting a tenant for 90 days.(. In accepting the theory that the PTF A requires both parties to honor their respective responsibilities for the remainder of the lease. Accepting this analysis. to be able to effectuate an eviction before the 90 day period if a tenant failed to pay rent within that time. the tenant is entitled to the remainder of his lease on the condition that he continue to timely pay his rent as required by that lease. should be allowed to evict the non-paying tenant with a 3 day notice to pay rent or quit pursuant to CCP § 1161 (2). as plaintiff urges.

does the 90 day notice still apply when the theory of eviction is failure to pay rent? The answer lies in a close examination of the specific language of the PTF A..." The language of the PTFA is unequivocal in this regard. But how can this analysis be accorded with the 90 day notice requirement under the PTF A? More specifically... no matter what rights or "interest" the foreclosing party assumes (including the right to evict for nonpayment of rent). [providing to a bona fide tenant] a notice to vacate .. however. it cannot evict without providing the minimum 90 day notice to bona fide tenants. it appears to this Court that the 90 day notice period is inviolable no matter what theory of eviction a foreclosing party has available to it. that interest is subject to and conditioned upon plaintiff providing the tenant a notice to vacate "at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice." Here. at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice . (emphasis added). . This Court also agrees that the tenant's failure to pay rent during the remaining lease period relieves the landlord of his/her obligation to honor the remaining balance and provides the foreclosing party with the remedy of eviction under CCP § 1161.which requires that "any immediate successor in interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall assume such interest subject to .This Court agrees that even after foreclosure there is an ongoing duty of the tenant to pay the rent in order for himlher to invoke the PTFA protections for the remaining term of the lease agreement. the applicable "interest" assumed by plaintiff in this action was the prior landlord's right to demand defendant to continue to pay his/her rent or be subject to eviction for failure to do so. which requires only a 3 day notice. In other words. 5 ..

without controlling caselaw for either side.7 against plaintiff. Given that the legal theory and positions taken by plaintiff in both the initial and 6 . and holdover damages for the 90 day period. it merely delays the remedy of eviction for a 90 day period. including eviction and the awarding of back rent. alleging that their original complaint was frivolous and brought for an improper purpose. B. Following the 90 day notice. plaintiff is entitled to avail itself of all the rights and remedies the prior landlord had to seek redress for the tenant's failure to pay rent. 2012 hearing. it allows for tenants to live rent free for a minimum 90 days which cannot be the intention of that statute to allow for such an unjust result. The issues raised then and now appear to be ones of first impression. Indeed. the 90 day PTF A notice period does not excuse the tenant from his/her rental obligations. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and Attorney's Fees Defendant seeks the award of sanctions under CCP § 128. at the February 6. and the arguments submitted by both parties in attacking/defending the sufficiency of those complaints were equally as compelling for both sides. However. Having found that the PTF A 90 day notice is applicable even in the failure to pay rent context. The issues raised by plaintiffs initial complaint are nearly identical to those raised in their current First Amended Complaint.Plaintiffs argue that in applying the PTF A in this manner in the non-payment of rent context. this Court found in favor of the plaintiffs and denied defendant's challenge to the initial complaint. defendant's motion to quash service ofthe summons and complaint must be granted because the complaint fails to allege compliance with that statutory notice requirement.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: (1) Defendant's motion to quash service of summons and complaint is GRANTED. March 7.7. and objectively reasonable.first amended complaints were non-frivolous. Los Angeles County Superior Court 7 . taken in good faith. this Court finds absolutely no basis to award sanctions under CCP § 128. 2012 Judge. and (2) Defendant's motion for sanctions is DENIED.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.