How to Fill Out California Form UD-101 (w/Examples) + FAQs

California Form UD-101 is the Plaintiff’s Mandatory Cover Sheet and Supplemental Allegations—Unlawful Detainer, and you fill it out by checking every box that applies to your tenancy, attaching the lease, and serving it with the Summons and Complaint—Unlawful Detainer (UD-100). The form is required statewide for residential evictions filed under the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) and any case where COVID-19 rental debt is at issue under Code of Civil Procedure § 1179.01.

Roughly 741,000 eviction cases were filed in California between 2017 and 2022 according to the California Policy Lab eviction dataset, and a single missed checkbox on UD-101 can trigger a demurrer that dismisses the entire case. Filling it out wrong costs landlords months of lost rent, and missing it as a tenant defense waives valuable arguments.

Here is what you will learn in this guide:

📝 How to complete every line, box, and attachment on Form UD-101 with plain-English instructions.
⚖️ The exact statutes, just-cause rules, and notice requirements that drive each section of the form.
🏘️ Three named-person scenarios showing nonpayment, nuisance, and no-fault owner move-in evictions.
🚫 The seven biggest mistakes that get unlawful detainer cases dismissed or delayed in California.
💡 Tenant defenses, court rulings, and FAQs that answer the questions self-represented filers ask most.

What Form UD-101 Is and Why California Requires It

Form UD-101 is a Judicial Council mandatory cover sheet adopted under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.2105, and it must accompany every residential unlawful detainer complaint filed in California. The form forces plaintiffs to disclose whether the property is covered by AB 1482 just-cause rules, whether the tenancy is subsidized by Section 8 / HUD, and whether COVID-19 rental debt is part of the unpaid amount. Courts use the cover sheet to screen for compliance before issuing a Summons, so a missing or incomplete UD-101 stops the case at intake.

The Judicial Council added UD-101 in 2020 and revised it again on January 1, 2025, after the Legislature folded COVID-19 protections into the permanent Code of Civil Procedure § 1179.02 framework. Plaintiffs who skip the form risk a motion to quash under Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, which held that a defective unlawful detainer summons cannot be cured later. Tenants who receive the form should read each box because the answers control which defenses apply.

The federal layer matters too because the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act and HUD Section 8 regulations limit what a landlord can plead. California then layers stricter rules on top, and UD-101 is where those layers meet.

Who Must File UD-101

Every plaintiff filing a residential unlawful detainer in any California superior court must file UD-101 with the complaint, per the Judicial Council form list. That includes individual landlords, property management companies, family trusts, banks after foreclosure, and successor owners. Commercial landlords do not file UD-101 because the form is limited to dwellings governed by Civil Code § 1940.

Plaintiffs who skip the form face a clerk’s rejection at the filing window. The consequence is a delay of two to six weeks, which means more unpaid rent and more time the tenant remains in possession. A common misconception is that UD-101 is optional if the tenancy is month-to-month, but the form is required regardless of lease type.

When the Form Is Filed and Served

UD-101 is filed simultaneously with the Complaint—Unlawful Detainer (UD-100), the Civil Case Cover Sheet (CM-010), and a Summons—Unlawful Detainer (SUM-130). Service follows Code of Civil Procedure § 1162 — personal service, substituted service, or posting and mailing with court permission. The tenant has only five court days to respond, per CCP § 1167.

If the plaintiff serves UD-100 without UD-101, the tenant can file a Motion to Quash Service of Summons (UD-105) and force the landlord to start over. The consequence is months of additional delay. A common misconception is that the cover sheet can be filed later — it cannot, because the rule treats it as part of the initial pleading.

Section-by-Section Walkthrough of Form UD-101

The form is two pages with seven numbered sections, plus a caption block at the top, and the Judicial Council instructions explain each line. Every box matters because each one connects to a separate statute. Read every line before you check any box.

Caption Block (Top of Page 1)

The caption block asks for the attorney or party name, the State Bar number if applicable, the address, the telephone number, and the email under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.111. Self-represented (pro per) plaintiffs write “In Pro Per” in the attorney slot. The plain-English explanation: this is who the court contacts when something happens in the case.

The consequence of leaving the email blank is that you may miss electronic notices, and missing a notice can mean missing a hearing. A real-world example: Maria, a landlord in Long Beach, listed an old email and missed the trial setting notice, and the court entered a non-suit. A common misconception is that the caption is just formatting — it is the legal address of record.

Section 1: Plaintiff and Defendant Names

Section 1 lists the plaintiff exactly as the property is titled and lists each adult tenant by full legal name. If the property is held in a trust, you must list the trustee per Probate Code § 18004. If the property is owned by an LLC, the LLC must be in good standing with the California Secretary of State and represented by counsel because CCP § 1167.1 bars LLC self-representation.

The consequence of naming the wrong plaintiff is dismissal for lack of standing. David, a landlord in Fresno, listed his personal name instead of his family trust, and the court dismissed under Schaefer v. Berinstein. A common misconception is that “Doe” defendants cover unknown occupants automatically — you must serve a separate Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession (CP10.5).

Section 2: Subject Premises Address

Section 2 asks for the full street address of the rental, including unit number, city, county, and ZIP code. The address must match the notice to quit and the lease exactly. A typo here triggers dismissal because CCP § 1166(a)(2) requires precise identification.

The consequence of a wrong address is that the tenant can argue the notice was never properly tied to the property. Aisha, a landlord in Oakland, wrote “Apt 2” instead of “Unit 2B” and the case was thrown out. A common misconception is that minor typos are harmless — courts treat unlawful detainer pleadings as strictly construed because the remedy is summary in nature.

Section 3: Type of Property and Local Rent Control

Section 3 forces the plaintiff to disclose whether the property is subject to a local rent or eviction ordinance such as the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO), the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, the Oakland Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Ordinance, or the Santa Monica Rent Control Charter Amendment. You must check the box and identify the ordinance.

The consequence of failing to disclose local coverage is that the case will be challenged as preempted or non-compliant with the local just-cause framework. Carlos, a landlord in West Hollywood, failed to disclose the West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and the trial judge sustained a demurrer. A common misconception is that AB 1482 replaces local ordinances — it does not, because Civil Code § 1946.2(g)(1) lets stricter local rules control.

Section 4: AB 1482 (Tenant Protection Act) Coverage

Section 4 asks whether the property is exempt from the Tenant Protection Act. Common exemptions include single-family homes owned by a non-corporate landlord with a proper exemption notice, owner-occupied duplexes, and housing built within the last 15 years (a rolling date under Civil Code § 1947.12(d)). You must attach the exemption notice if you claim one.

The consequence of falsely claiming an exemption is dismissal and possible damages under Civil Code § 1947.12(j). Lin, a landlord in San Jose, claimed a single-family exemption but never gave the written notice, so the court denied the eviction. A common misconception is that all single-family homes are exempt — they are not, because the exemption requires written notice and non-corporate ownership.

Section 5: Just Cause and Notice Type

Section 5 lists the just-cause grounds under Civil Code § 1946.2. At-fault grounds include nonpayment of rent, breach of lease, nuisance, criminal activity, and refusal to renew. No-fault grounds include owner move-in, withdrawal under the Ellis Act, substantial remodel, and government order. You must check the matching ground and attach the notice.

The consequence of checking the wrong ground is that the court will measure the notice against a statute it does not satisfy. Priya, a landlord in Sacramento, served a 3-day notice for a no-fault ground that requires 60 days, and the case was dismissed. A common misconception is that nuisance always requires a 3-day notice — chronic nuisance often requires the Cure or Quit path under CCP § 1161(3).

Section 6: COVID-19 Rental Debt Allegations

Section 6 implements CCP § 1179.02 and requires the plaintiff to identify any unpaid rent that accrued between March 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021 (protected period) and between October 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022 (transition period). Protected COVID-19 rental debt cannot be the basis for an unlawful detainer under CCP § 1179.05. It can only be sued on as a small-claims debt.

The consequence of suing for protected COVID debt as eviction grounds is dismissal with prejudice. Jamal, a landlord in Los Angeles, included $9,000 of 2020 rent in his 3-day notice, and the trial judge struck the notice. A common misconception is that COVID rules expired entirely — they did not, because the underlying debt rules survive even after the moratoria ended.

Section 7: Verification and Attachments

Section 7 requires the plaintiff or counsel to verify the form under penalty of perjury per CCP § 446. You attach the lease, the notice to quit, the AB 1482 exemption notice if applicable, the local just-cause notice if applicable, and the registration certificate if the city requires one (e.g., Los Angeles RSO Registration).

The consequence of forgetting an attachment is a demurrer for uncertainty under Boston LLC v. Juarez, which held that a landlord must plead full compliance with local registration. A common misconception is that the lease is optional if the tenancy is oral — you must still allege the oral terms in writing.

Three Common Scenarios with Outcomes

Here are the three most common UD-101 fact patterns and how each one plays out in court. Each scenario uses a named plaintiff and a real California city.

Scenario A: Nonpayment of Rent in Long Beach

Filing Choice on UD-101	Resulting Court Outcome
Maria checks Section 5 nonpayment, attaches a 3-day notice to pay or quit with correct dollar amount, and excludes COVID debt	Default judgment for possession in 21 days
Maria includes 2020 protected COVID debt in the 3-day notice	Notice struck, case dismissed, must re-serve a clean notice
Maria lists the wrong unit number in Section 2	Demurrer sustained, case dismissed without prejudice

Scenario B: Nuisance in Oakland

Filing Choice on UD-101	Resulting Court Outcome
David checks Section 3 (Oakland Just Cause Ordinance) and Section 5 nuisance with documented complaints	Trial within 20 days, judgment for landlord on evidence
David skips the Oakland disclosure box	Demurrer sustained because of Boston LLC v. Juarez compliance pleading rule
David serves a 3-day notice with no specific facts	Notice ruled defective for lack of specificity under CCP § 1166

Scenario C: No-Fault Owner Move-In in San Francisco

Filing Choice on UD-101	Resulting Court Outcome
Aisha checks Section 4 AB 1482 covered, Section 5 owner move-in, attaches 60-day notice and SF Form 1007	Possession judgment with relocation paid
Aisha fails to pay the AB 1482 relocation assistance under Civ. Code § 1946.2(d)	Notice void, case dismissed
Aisha moves a non-relative into the unit after eviction	Tenant sues for wrongful eviction and recovers treble damages

Tenant Defenses Triggered by UD-101 Disclosures

Tenants reading a served UD-101 should treat each box as a roadmap to defenses. The form essentially tells the tenant which statutes apply.

Defense 1: AB 1482 Non-Compliance

If Section 4 is checked “covered,” the tenant can demand proof of just cause and, for no-fault grounds, proof of relocation assistance under Civil Code § 1946.2(d)(3). The consequence for the landlord of skipping relocation is a void notice. Priya, a tenant in Sacramento, won her case because the landlord short-paid relocation by $200. A common misconception is that relocation can be credited against back rent — it cannot, because the statute requires direct payment.

Defense 2: Local Ordinance Non-Registration

If Section 3 shows the property is in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, or Santa Monica, the tenant can demand proof of current registration. Under Boston LLC v. Juarez, an unregistered landlord cannot prosecute an unlawful detainer. The consequence is dismissal. Jamal won his Los Angeles case because the landlord’s RSO certificate had lapsed. A common misconception is that paying back fees mid-case fixes the issue — courts split on this.

Defense 3: Protected COVID-19 Rental Debt

If Section 6 includes any rent from March 2020 through September 2021, the tenant can move to strike that debt under CCP § 1179.05. The consequence for the landlord is the entire 3-day notice fails because the dollar amount is overstated. Lin prevailed when the landlord’s notice mixed protected and unprotected rent. A common misconception is that COVID protections only applied during the moratoria — the debt classification is permanent.

Defense 4: Defective Notice

If Section 5 cites a ground that does not match the attached notice, the tenant can file a demurrer (UD-105). The consequence is the case is dismissed. Carlos won because the landlord checked nuisance but attached a pay-or-quit notice. A common misconception is that the court will let the landlord amend on the fly — unlawful detainer pleadings are strictly construed.

Mistakes to Avoid When Filling Out UD-101

Avoid these seven errors because each one ends a case or extends it for months.

Mistake 1: Leaving Section 3 local-ordinance box blank when the property is in a covered city — result: demurrer sustained.
Mistake 2: Claiming an AB 1482 exemption without ever serving the exemption notice in the lease — result: exemption waived.
Mistake 3: Including COVID-19 protected rental debt in the 3-day notice — result: notice struck, case dismissed.
Mistake 4: Naming the wrong plaintiff entity (e.g., individual instead of trust) — result: dismissal for lack of standing.
Mistake 5: Forgetting to attach the lease or oral-tenancy allegations — result: demurrer for uncertainty under CCP § 430.10.
Mistake 6: Skipping the verification signature line — result: pleading treated as unverified, defendant gets a general denial automatically.
Mistake 7: Filing without a current local registration certificate (LARSO, Oakland, SF, Berkeley) — result: dismissal under Boston LLC v. Juarez.

Do’s and Don’ts for Plaintiffs

Do read the Judicial Council instructions for UD-101 before checking any box, because each box maps to a statute.
Do attach every notice and exemption disclosure, because Boston LLC v. Juarez requires affirmative pleading of compliance.
Do verify the form under penalty of perjury, because an unverified complaint flips the burden onto you.
Do confirm AB 1482 status against the California Apartment Association exemption checklist, because the wrong exemption claim is fatal.
Do keep originals of every notice you serve, because the tenant can demand proof of service at trial.
Don’t include protected COVID-19 rental debt in the 3-day notice, because that voids the entire notice.
Don’t rely on oral leases without alleging the terms in writing, because oral tenancies still require pleaded terms.
Don’t use a generic “Doe” defendant strategy without serving a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession, because unknown occupants can vacate the judgment.
Don’t file UD-101 days after UD-100 because the clerk will reject the package.
Don’t skip local just-cause disclosures even if you believe AB 1482 covers the unit, because local rules can be stricter.

Pros and Cons of California’s UD-101 Framework

Pro: The form forces one-page disclosure of every key statutory issue, which speeds court review.
Pro: Tenants get clear notice of the legal basis, which improves due process under Mathews v. Eldridge.
Pro: Judges can resolve threshold defenses early, saving trial time.
Pro: The form documents COVID-19 debt classification, which protects landlords from accidental § 1179.05 violations.
Pro: Standardization means out-of-county counsel can practice statewide without learning new local cover sheets.
Con: The form is technical, which disadvantages self-represented landlords.
Con: A single missed box restarts the entire eviction, costing months of rent.
Con: Local ordinance disclosures require landlords to track shifting city rules, increasing compliance costs.
Con: The verification requirement exposes filers to perjury risk for clerical errors.
Con: AB 1482 exemption boxes invite false claims that lead to sanctions under Civil Code § 1947.12(j).

Key Court Rulings That Shape UD-101 Practice

Three California decisions drive how judges read UD-101.

The first is Boston LLC v. Juarez, which holds that a landlord must affirmatively plead and prove compliance with local registration. The consequence is that Section 3 of UD-101 is outcome-determinative in covered cities. The plain-English meaning: if your city requires registration, prove it on the form.

The second is Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, which holds that defects in unlawful detainer service must be raised by motion to quash. The consequence is tenants who answer instead of moving to quash waive certain service defects. The plain-English meaning: tenants should review UD-101 service first, then file the answer.

The third is Group 1 Realty Inc. v. Superior Court, which addresses pleading specificity. The consequence is that vague allegations on UD-101 are demurrable. The plain-English meaning: write specific facts, not legal conclusions.

Federal Layer: Section 8, PTFA, and Bankruptcy

Federal law does not preempt California unlawful detainer rules, but it adds a top layer.

The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act gives bona fide tenants a 90-day notice after foreclosure. The consequence of skipping that notice is a void unlawful detainer. Aisha, a post-foreclosure buyer in Riverside, lost her case because she gave only 30 days. A common misconception is that PTFA expired — it did not, because Congress made it permanent in 2018.

Section 8 / Housing Choice Voucher tenancies require the landlord to follow 24 C.F.R. § 982.310 and notify the housing authority. The consequence of failing to notify is dismissal. Carlos lost his Long Beach case because he never copied the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles on the 3-day notice. A common misconception is that voucher tenants can be evicted on the same notice as private tenants — they cannot.

Bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 362 imposes an automatic stay that pauses the unlawful detainer the moment the tenant files. The consequence for the landlord of proceeding anyway is contempt and damages. Jamal avoided sanctions only by immediately dismissing after his tenant filed Chapter 7. A common misconception is that landlords can finish the eviction within the 30-day § 362(b)(22) window in every case — that exception only applies if the landlord already has a pre-petition judgment.

Filing Fees, Timing, and Where to File

Filing fees for an unlawful detainer fall under Government Code § 70613. The fee tier depends on whether damages claimed exceed $10,000. As of 2026, the typical filing fee is between $240 and $450. Fee waivers are available through Form FW-001 for low-income filers.

The consequence of choosing the wrong fee tier is rejection at the clerk’s window. Lin paid the lower fee but claimed $15,000 in damages, and the clerk rejected the package. A common misconception is that the fee includes service — it does not, because process servers are separate.

Cases are filed in the superior court of the county where the property sits, per CCP § 392. Many counties accept electronic filing through File & ServeXpress or One Legal. The consequence of filing in the wrong county is a venue transfer and weeks of delay.

Step-by-Step Checklist Before You File

Follow this order to avoid the most common rejections.

Step 1: Confirm the property is residential and within California, because UD-101 applies only to residential dwellings.
Step 2: Identify the local ordinance and pull the registration certificate, because Boston LLC v. Juarez requires it.
Step 3: Determine AB 1482 status using the exemption checklist, because the wrong exemption is fatal.
Step 4: Draft and serve the correct notice (3-day, 30-day, 60-day, 90-day) per CCP § 1161.
Step 5: Wait the full notice period before filing, because filing early voids the case.
Step 6: Complete UD-100, UD-101, CM-010, and SUM-130 in matching detail, because inconsistencies trigger demurrers.
Step 7: File at the correct courthouse with the correct fee or a fee waiver.
Step 8: Serve the tenant within 60 days under CCP § 583.210.

FAQs

Is Form UD-101 mandatory for every California eviction?

Yes. Every residential unlawful detainer filed in California superior court must include UD-101 with the complaint, per California Rules of Court, Rule 3.2105. Commercial cases are excluded.

Does UD-101 apply to commercial leases?

No. UD-101 covers only residential dwellings under Civil Code § 1940. Commercial unlawful detainers use a different cover sheet and are not subject to AB 1482.

Can a landlord file UD-101 after filing UD-100?

No. The cover sheet must accompany the complaint at filing, and clerks reject packages that arrive without it. Late filing forces the landlord to start over.

Must I disclose protected COVID-19 rental debt?

Yes. Section 6 requires disclosure of any rent from the protected and transition periods, and protected debt cannot be the basis for eviction under CCP § 1179.05.

Can a tenant move to quash if UD-101 is missing?

Yes. Tenants can file Form UD-105 to quash service when UD-101 is absent or defective, citing Borsuk v. Appellate Division.

Does AB 1482 apply to single-family homes?

No, generally — single-family homes owned by non-corporate landlords are exempt under Civil Code § 1947.12(d)(5), but only when the landlord serves the required written exemption notice in the lease.

Is relocation assistance always required for no-fault evictions?

Yes, for AB 1482-covered properties. Landlords must pay one month’s rent under Civil Code § 1946.2(d) before the tenant vacates, or the notice is void.

Can an LLC landlord represent itself on UD-101?

No. CCP § 1167.1 and long-standing California practice require corporate entities and LLCs to appear through licensed counsel.

Does UD-101 replace local just-cause notices?

No. Local ordinances such as LARSO and the San Francisco Rent Ordinance still require their own pre-filing notices. UD-101 only discloses that those rules apply.

Can a tenant in bankruptcy still be evicted?

Yes, but only after the landlord obtains bankruptcy stay relief or qualifies for the narrow § 362(b)(22) endangerment or pre-petition judgment exception.

Is a fee waiver available for filing UD-101?

Yes. Low-income plaintiffs and defendants can request a fee waiver using Form FW-001 under Government Code § 68631.

Does Section 8 housing change the UD-101 process?

Yes. Voucher tenancies require landlords to comply with 24 C.F.R. § 982.310, notify the housing authority, and follow good-cause termination rules in addition to California law.

Related reading