1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

James Alan Bush 2967 Sherbrooke Way San Jose, California 95127 (408) 569-1634 Defendant in pro per

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Yvonne Ly, et al., Plaintiffs, v. James Alan Bush, Defendant.

Case No. NOTICE OF EX PARTE MOTION TO RECONSIDER DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS DEPT: JUDGE: DATE: ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________

TO THE PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , at _ _ _ _ _ _ , or soon thereafter as a matter can heard, in Department _ _ _ _ of the above court, located at 191 North First Street, in San Jose, Defendant, James Alan Bush, will move, ex parte, for an order revoking the order of this court made on March 29, 2013, which denied Defendants Motion to Quash Service of Summons on the erroneous grounds that such a motion is not the proper remedy to raise the issue of the sufciency of the termination notice.

NOTICE

PAGE 1 OF 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

GROUNDS FOR MOTION This motion is made on the grounds that the court erred in its determination that a motion to quash is not the proper method to test compliance with the noticing requirements of an unlawful detainer action, and erred further by stating that this issue is more properly raised at trial; rather, in Parsons v. Superior Court, 149 CA4th Supp 1 (2008), 58 CR3d 48, the court established that a motion to quash is the only method to test whether the complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer when the pleading defect affects personal jurisdiction. The court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the defendant where there is a lack of compliance with jurisdictional prerequisites, and strict compliance with the specically prescribed noticing conditions is a condition precedent to bringing an unlawful detainer. Any adverse judgment against the defendant will be rendered void if it is later determined that proper notice of the termination of tenancy was not given. The motion to be reconsidered was made on the ground that proper service of a notice of termination of tenancy had not been achieved on the defendant, and, therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over him. RELIEF REQUESTED Defendant respectfully requests that the court grant his motion because the issue of whether an improper notice of termination was used is properly brought in a motion to quash, and not at trial, which is precluded by this fatal defect in the complaint. SUPPORTING PAPERS This motion is based on this notice; all pleadings, papers, and records on le in this action; matters of which the court takes judicial notice; the accompanying supporting memorandum and declaration of the defendant; and, on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing. NOTICE PAGE 2 OF 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: April 4th, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

James Alan Bush Defendant in pro per // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // NOTICE PAGE 3 OF 3