Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

The DA would -not- care about a civil matter. If you can prove it to the judge that you weren't served with the 30 days' notice (i.e. posted on your door and mailed to you, or handed to you), then you could win the unlawful detainer. Get your evidence together to prove it.

As Robert says, its a civil matter. The DA won't have any reason to get involved, nor would he have the resources to do so. If you can really prove that the notice was not properly served you could initially prevail in any unlawful detainer. Of course, if that's your only defense the landlord can/will just reserve the notice when he realize that fact. You might be better advised to negotiate for more time and/or an incentive payment to leave without a fuss. You should also check your local rent control laws to determine if they require any type of exit payment.

Good luck.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The above response is not intended to, and does not, create an attorney-client, fiduciary or other confidential relationship with the responder. Neither does it constitute the providing of legal advice or services or the giving of a legal opinion by the responder. Such a relationship can only be created, and legal advice and/or legal services provided, pursuant to a written agreement with the responder. Accordingly, no obligations of any kind are assumed with respect to any matter or question presented. It should also be noted that legal issues are often time sensitive and legal rights may be lost or compromised if you do not act in a timely fashion.

Cohen and Reich are confusing the DA's lack of a role in civil matters, with a lack of interest in perjury. Although I agree with them that you will have a hard time getting the DA to bother with a perjury case for something like this, it has nothing to do with the fact that it was in a civil case, except maybe indirectly. The main problem is that if the evidence is SO clear that a jury would convict beyond a reasonable doubt, then how the hell and why the hell didn't the other party get the perjured testimonly thrown out or disproved in the civil trial? And if the other party did get the evidence thrown out or discredited in the civil trial, it's "no harm no foul." And if it was really all that bad the civil judge would have found them in contempt and punished them already. So why waste scarce DA resources on a case against someone for a lie that they already got caught at, and already punished for if it was serious.