that you should not have responded to complaint by filing a Motion to Strike?
In California, the reason for the verification on a complaint for unlawful detainer is not the signature or the identity of the party doing the verification. The reason for the verification is to plead facts in the complaint or separate affidavit showing the action has been commenced in the “proper court” and “proper court location” for the claim involved, otherwise the action is subject to dismissal. Cases hold that a mere “technical defect” in the verification does not render it insufficient. (Sheeley v. City of Santa Clara (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 83, 86.) “A verification may be upheld although signed by the party's attorney, rather than by the party. The mistake is a matter of ‘form’ rather than ‘substance.’” (Soltani-Rastegar v. Sup.Ct. (Brinzo) (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 424, 428.)
In California, a motion to strike complaint is technically not permitted in an unlawful detainer case.
See California Code of Civil Procedure section 1170 (“On or before the day fixed for his appearance, the defendant may appear and answer or demurrer.”) and Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, 1035 (“A motion to quash service is the only method by which the defendant can test whether the complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer and thereby, supports a five-day summons.”
If the court rules by granting the motion to strike, all that happens is the court will order the defendant to answer the complaint for unlawful detainer (usually within 5 days).
Frank W. Chen has been licensed to practice law in California since 1988. The information presented here is general in nature and is not intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice for a particular case. This Avvo.com posting does not create any attorney-client relationship with the author. For specific advice about your particular situation, please consult with your own attorney.