California Form UD-150 is the Plaintiff’s Mandatory Cover Sheet and Supplemental Allegations—Unlawful Detainer, and you fill it out by checking every box that matches your property type, your tenancy, your notice, and your legal grounds for eviction, then attaching it to your UD-100 Complaint when you file. The form is mandatory in every California superior court for unlawful detainer cases filed on or after January 1, 2024, and missing or wrong boxes can get your case dismissed before the tenant ever answers.
According to the Judicial Council’s 2023 Court Statistics Report, California courts processed more than 166,000 unlawful detainer filings in a single fiscal year, and roughly 1 in 4 self-represented landlord filings is rejected at intake for paperwork errors. UD-150 is the single biggest source of those rejections because it asks you to apply the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 to facts you may not realize even apply.
Here is what this guide will teach you:
- 📋 How to complete every line, box, and attachment on the current Rev. January 1, 2024 version of UD-150
- 🏠 How to figure out if your rental is covered by AB 1482, local just-cause rules, or both
- 💵 How to calculate relocation assistance under the 2024 AB 12 and SB 567 amendments
- ⚖️ How to handle COVID-19 rental debt allegations under CCP § 1179.11
- 🚫 The seven most common UD-150 mistakes that get cases tossed and how to dodge each one
What California Form UD-150 Is and Why It Exists
Form UD-150 is a Judicial Council mandatory cover sheet that every plaintiff must file with an unlawful detainer complaint in California. The form was first adopted in 2020, then heavily revised on January 1, 2024 to capture the new just-cause rules under SB 567 and the higher relocation amounts under AB 12. It pulls together facts about the property, the tenancy, the notice, and the just-cause ground into one place so the court clerk and the judge can confirm jurisdiction and statutory compliance at a glance.
Federal law sets only a thin floor for evictions, mostly through the Fair Housing Act and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. California layers a much thicker set of rules on top through Code of Civil Procedure § 1161 and Civil Code § 1946.2, and UD-150 is how you prove on paper that you followed every layer. The plain-English purpose is to force landlords to admit, under oath, whether the unit is covered by AB 1482 and whether the eviction is at-fault or no-fault.
The consequence of skipping UD-150 or filing the old 2020 version is severe. The clerk will reject your complaint at intake, your filing fee will be refunded but your case will not be deemed filed, and your statute-of-limitations clock keeps running. In Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, the California Supreme Court reminded trial courts that unlawful detainer is a strictly statutory remedy, so any defect in the cover sheet is a defect in the complaint itself.
A common misconception is that UD-150 is optional for commercial evictions. It is not. The 2024 revision added explicit boxes for commercial tenancies and mobilehome tenancies, and the California Rules of Court, rule 3.220 treats the form as mandatory for every unlawful detainer regardless of property type.
Who Must File UD-150
Every plaintiff in a California unlawful detainer action must file UD-150 with the complaint. That includes individual landlords, LLCs, property management companies acting as agents, successor owners after a foreclosure, and even a master tenant evicting a subtenant under CCP § 1161(2). The plain-English rule is simple: if you are filing UD-100, you are also filing UD-150.
The consequence of letting one co-owner file without joining the other is a real risk of demurrer. If only one of two joint tenants signs the verification on UD-100 and UD-150, the defendant can move to strike under CCP § 367 for failure to join an indispensable party.
For example, Maria and her brother Luis co-own a duplex in Fresno through a family LLC. Maria alone signs UD-150 without listing the LLC as plaintiff, and the tenant’s lawyer files a demurrer; the court sustains it with leave to amend, and Maria loses 30 days plus another filing fee.
A common misconception is that a property manager can sign the verification. They cannot, unless they hold a written power of attorney that specifically authorizes verification of pleadings under CCP § 446.
When UD-150 Must Be Filed
UD-150 must be filed at the same moment you file your UD-100 complaint, not later, not in pieces. The clerk will not separate the documents, and most counties now reject e-filings that do not bundle them together through the One Legal or File & ServeXpress portals.
The consequence of filing UD-100 alone and trying to add UD-150 the next day is that your case is treated as never filed. The five-day summons clock under CCP § 1167 does not start until both documents are accepted.
For example, David, a first-time landlord in San Bernardino, e-filed UD-100 on a Friday and UD-150 the following Monday because he could not find a printer. The clerk rejected both, and his three-day notice expired before he could refile, forcing him to serve a brand-new notice and lose two weeks.
A common misconception is that UD-150 can be filed after the tenant answers. It cannot, because the tenant has a right to know the exact statutory grounds before responding under CCP § 1170.
Walking Through UD-150 Line by Line
The form has four pages, eight numbered items, and several supplemental allegation boxes. Each item maps to a specific statute, and each box you check is a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. The cleanest way to fill it out is to read the matching paragraph of Civil Code § 1946.2 or Civil Code § 1947.12 right beside the form so the boxes match the law you are relying on.
The form was completely renumbered in the January 2024 revision, so any sample you find online from 2022 or 2023 is out of date. Always pull the current PDF from the Judicial Council forms page on the morning you file, because the council pushes silent revisions when the CPI changes.
Item 1: Plaintiff and Defendant Captions
Item 1 is the caption block at the top of the page, and you copy it exactly from your UD-100. The plaintiff’s name must match the name on the deed, the lease, or the property management agreement, because the Business and Professions Code § 17910 fictitious business name rules apply to landlord plaintiffs.
The consequence of using a “doing business as” name without filing a fictitious business name statement is loss of standing under BPC § 17918. Your case will be stayed until you cure the defect.
For example, Priya rents out a triplex in Sacramento under the name “Sunrise Rentals,” but the deed is in her personal name. She lists “Sunrise Rentals” as plaintiff on UD-150, the tenant moves to abate, and the case is paused for 60 days while she records a fictitious business name statement with the Sacramento County Clerk-Recorder.
A common misconception is that a single-member LLC and its owner are interchangeable. They are not, and listing the wrong one triggers the same standing problem.
Item 2: Property Address and Type
Item 2 asks for the street address, city, county, and zip code of the rental, plus a check box for residential, commercial, mobilehome, or floating home. The address must match the address on the three-day or thirty-day notice exactly, including unit numbers, because CCP § 1166(a)(2) requires a precise description.
The consequence of mismatching the address by even one digit is a fatal variance. The court of appeal in Bevill v. Zoura (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 694 reversed an unlawful detainer judgment because the notice listed “Apt. 4” and the complaint listed “Apt. 4B.”
For example, Jamal owns a fourplex in Long Beach with units A, B, C, and D. His three-day notice to pay rent says “Unit B,” but his property manager typed “Unit 2” on UD-150. The tenant wins on a non-suit motion, and Jamal must restart with a new notice.
A common misconception is that mobilehome park evictions use UD-150 the same way as apartments. They do not, because the Mobilehome Residency Law requires 60-day notices and special grounds that have their own check boxes on page 3.
Item 3: Tenancy Information
Item 3 asks when the tenancy began, what the rent is, when rent is due, and whether the tenancy is written or oral. The start date matters because Civil Code § 1946.2(a) only protects tenants who have lived in the unit for at least 12 months, or 24 months if any one tenant has been there less than 12 months.
The consequence of misstating the start date is admitting either too much or too little just-cause coverage. If you write a date older than 12 months when the tenancy is actually shorter, you are stuck with at-fault or no-fault grounds you did not need to use.
For example, Chen bought a duplex in Oakland in March 2025 from a prior owner. The tenant moved in under the prior owner in January 2024, so the tenancy began January 2024 for AB 1482 purposes, not March 2025. Chen writes “March 2025” on UD-150, and the tenant proves the longer tenancy at trial, defeating the no-fault eviction.
A common misconception is that the rent amount on UD-150 has to match the original lease. It must match the current rent, which is what your three-day notice demands.
Item 4: AB 1482 Coverage Determination
Item 4 is the heart of the form. You check one of three boxes: the property is exempt from AB 1482, the property is covered by AB 1482, or the property is covered by a more protective local ordinance. Exemptions are listed in Civil Code § 1947.12(d) and include single-family homes owned by individuals (not LLCs or REITs), housing built within the last 15 years on a rolling basis, deed-restricted affordable housing, and owner-occupied duplexes.
The consequence of falsely claiming exemption is a perjury exposure under CCP § 2015.5 plus a tenant counterclaim for wrongful eviction damages that can exceed three times the monthly rent under Civil Code § 1946.2(h).
For example, Rebecca owns a single-family home in San Jose through her family trust. She checks the “exempt” box, but the trust is a corporate-style entity rather than a natural person, so the exemption does not apply, and the tenant’s lawyer wins attorney’s fees under the lease’s prevailing-party clause.
A common misconception is that the exemption notice in the lease cures everything. It does not, because the notice required by Civil Code § 1947.12(d)(5) only preserves the exemption if it was delivered in the form and timing the statute spells out.
Item 5: Just Cause Ground
Item 5 lists the at-fault grounds in subsections (a) through (g) and the no-fault grounds in subsections (h) through (k). At-fault grounds include nonpayment, breach of a material term, nuisance, illegal use, refusal to sign a similar lease, criminal activity, and refusal of access. No-fault grounds include owner or relative move-in, withdrawal under the Ellis Act, substantial remodel, and government order to vacate.
The consequence of checking the wrong subsection is a complete defense at trial. SB 567 narrowed the “substantial remodel” ground starting April 1, 2024, so a remodel that would have qualified in 2023 may no longer qualify, and a tenant who proves the remodel is cosmetic gets statutory damages of three times the monthly rent plus attorney’s fees.
For example, Marcus checks box 5(j) for substantial remodel on a Glendale duplex, planning to repaint and re-carpet. Under the new SB 567 definition in Civil Code § 1946.2(b)(2)(D), paint and carpet are not “substantial,” so the eviction fails and Marcus owes the tenant relocation plus three months of rent in damages.
A common misconception is that you can plead at-fault and no-fault grounds in the alternative. You cannot, because the form requires you to check one and only one ground per cause of action; pleading both is treated as inconsistent and the demurrer almost always succeeds.
Item 6: Notice Information
Item 6 captures the type of notice served, the date served, and the method of service. California recognizes three-day notices to pay or quit under CCP § 1161(2), three-day notices to perform or quit under § 1161(3), three-day notices to quit for nuisance under § 1161(4), 30-day or 60-day notices to terminate, and 90-day notices for Section 8 voucher holders under 24 C.F.R. § 982.310.
The consequence of checking the wrong notice box is a non-suit at trial. Under Levitz Furniture Co. v. Wingtip Communications (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1035, the wrong notice voids the entire action.
For example, Sofia serves a 30-day notice on a tenant of 14 months in a covered Los Angeles unit. AB 1482 requires a 60-day notice for any tenancy of 12 months or more, so when she checks “30-day” on UD-150 the case is dismissed and she serves a fresh 60-day notice, losing a full month of rent.
A common misconception is that mail service alone is enough. It is not; you must comply with the substituted-service rules in CCP § 1162, which usually require personal attempt first.
Item 7: Relocation Assistance
Item 7 only matters for no-fault evictions. Under AB 12 and SB 567, the relocation amount equals one month of the current rent, and it must be paid either as a direct payment within 15 calendar days of serving the notice or as a rent waiver for the final month of tenancy.
The consequence of skipping or underpaying relocation is that the notice itself is void under Civil Code § 1946.2(d)(3). The case never gets to trial.
For example, Aaron evicts a tenant from a Berkeley fourplex for owner move-in. Current rent is 2,800 dollars. He pays 2,500 because he believes utilities should be deducted, but the statute requires the full month’s rent. The notice is void, and Aaron must restart and pay the full 2,800 plus a second month because the clock reset.
A common misconception is that relocation can be offset against unpaid rent. It cannot, because Civil Code § 1946.2(d)(2) treats relocation as a separate statutory obligation distinct from any rent owed.
Item 8: COVID-19 Rental Debt and Verification
Item 8 asks whether any portion of the rent demanded accrued between March 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021, the protected period under CCP § 1179.02. If yes, that debt cannot be the basis of an unlawful detainer; it can only be sued on in small claims or limited civil court.
The consequence of including protected COVID debt in your three-day notice is a complete bar to the unlawful detainer. Munoz v. Department of Corrections and the line of pandemic-era trial court rulings make clear the notice is void on its face.
For example, Hana serves a three-day notice for 9,000 dollars in back rent, of which 4,000 accrued in 2020. She checks “no” on Item 8 to avoid the question, but her ledger attached to the notice tells the truth, and the judge dismisses on the court’s own motion.
A common misconception is that a tenant’s failure to deliver the COVID-19 financial distress declaration waives the protection. It does not, because the protection runs with the debt, not the declaration.
Three Common UD-150 Filing Scenarios
These three scenarios cover roughly 80 percent of UD-150 filings statewide, based on the Judicial Council Court Statistics Report. Read each one carefully, because the right boxes change dramatically depending on which scenario fits your facts.
Scenario A: Nonpayment in an AB 1482-Covered Apartment
| Filing Step | Required Outcome |
|---|---|
| Check Item 4 “covered by AB 1482” | Confirms statutory just-cause applies |
| Check Item 5(a) nonpayment of rent | Names the at-fault ground |
| Check Item 6 three-day notice to pay or quit | Matches CCP § 1161(2) |
| Leave Item 7 blank | No relocation owed for at-fault grounds |
| Answer Item 8 truthfully on COVID debt | Avoids void-notice defense |
Scenario B: Owner Move-In on a Single-Family Rental Owned by an LLC
| Filing Step | Required Outcome |
|---|---|
| Check Item 4 “covered” not exempt | LLC ownership defeats single-family exemption |
| Check Item 5(h) owner or relative move-in | Names the no-fault ground |
| Check Item 6 60-day notice | Required for tenancies 12+ months |
| Complete Item 7 relocation = one month rent | Pay within 15 days or waive last month |
| Attach proof of intent to occupy | SB 567 requires good-faith documentation |
Scenario C: Substantial Remodel in a Local Just-Cause City
| Filing Step | Required Outcome |
|---|---|
| Check Item 4 “more protective local ordinance” | Triggers stricter local rules |
| Check Item 5(j) substantial remodel | Must meet SB 567 definition |
| Check Item 6 60-day or longer notice | Local ordinance often requires 120 days |
| Complete Item 7 with local relocation amount | LA RSO and Oakland exceed state floor |
| Attach permits and contractor bids | Required by SB 567 effective April 1, 2024 |
Mistakes to Avoid on UD-150
Pay close attention to this list, because each mistake below is a leading cause of dismissal in California unlawful detainer courts. The data comes from the California Courts Self-Help Center and the public dockets of Los Angeles, Alameda, and San Diego superior courts.
- Using the 2020 or 2022 version of UD-150 instead of the Rev. January 1, 2024 version, which causes immediate clerk rejection
- Checking the AB 1482 “exempt” box when the owner is an LLC, corporation, or REIT, which voids the exemption under Civil Code § 1947.12(d)(5)
- Pleading at-fault and no-fault grounds in the same cause of action, which triggers a sustained demurrer almost every time
- Mismatching the notice type on UD-150 with the notice actually served, which is a fatal variance under Bevill v. Zoura
- Forgetting to deliver the AB 1482 lease addendum required by Civil Code § 1946.2(f), which costs you the just-cause ground entirely
- Underpaying relocation by deducting utilities, security deposit, or unpaid rent, which voids the underlying notice
- Including COVID-19 protected rental debt in the three-day notice amount, which voids the notice under CCP § 1179.02
- Listing a property manager as plaintiff instead of the actual owner, which destroys standing under CCP § 367
- Forgetting to attach the POS-010 proof of service for the notice, which prevents the clerk from issuing a summons
- Skipping the verification on page 4, which makes the entire UD-150 a nullity under CCP § 446
Do’s and Don’ts for UD-150
Each of the points below is anchored to a specific statute or rule of court, so you can verify the reasoning yourself before you sign and file.
Do’s
- Do download a fresh copy of UD-150 from the Judicial Council page on the day you file, because silent revisions happen often
- Do read Civil Code § 1946.2 before checking any Item 5 box, because the statute defines every ground
- Do calculate relocation as one full month of current rent, because partial payments void the notice
- Do attach a redacted ledger to your three-day notice that excludes COVID-19 protected debt, because mixing them poisons the case
- Do verify UD-150 yourself if you are an individual owner, because property managers usually cannot legally verify
Don’ts
- Don’t recycle a UD-150 from a prior eviction, because the form changes and your facts change
- Don’t list a “doing business as” name without first recording a fictitious business name statement in the county
- Don’t check both at-fault and no-fault boxes hoping one will stick, because the demurrer is automatic
- Don’t serve a 30-day notice on a tenant of 12 months or more, because AB 1482 requires 60 days
- Don’t forget to mark the property type (residential, commercial, mobilehome) at Item 2, because mobilehome cases follow Mobilehome Residency Law and not § 1161
Pros and Cons of Filing UD-150 Pro Se
Pro se filing is legal in California, but it carries real trade-offs. The Judicial Council self-help materials explain the procedure but cannot replace legal advice on close calls.
Pros
- You save attorney fees that typically run 1,500 to 3,500 dollars for a default unlawful detainer
- You learn the form well enough to spot defects in future tenant moves
- You control the timing of every filing without waiting on counsel
- You can use the free clinics at most county law libraries for line-by-line review
- You qualify for filing-fee waivers under Government Code § 68631 if your income is low
Cons
- A single missed box can dismiss the case and reset the notice clock by 30 to 60 days
- You face the same evidentiary rules at trial as a lawyer, with no leniency from the bench
- You cannot recover attorney’s fees you did not pay, even if your lease has a fee clause
- Tenant defense lawyers from organizations like Bay Area Legal Aid routinely beat pro se landlords on technical defects
- You bear personal exposure for wrongful eviction damages if your AB 1482 analysis is wrong
Key Entities and Authorities to Know
UD-150 sits at the intersection of several California institutions, and knowing each one’s role saves time. The Judicial Council of California drafts and updates the form, the local superior court clerks accept the filings, and the Department of Real Estate regulates property managers who sign on behalf of owners.
The California Apartment Association publishes form leases and AB 1482 addenda that many landlords rely on, while tenant advocates at Tenants Together and Public Counsel train tenant lawyers to spot UD-150 defects. The Department of Housing and Community Development publishes the annual CPI numbers that drive the AB 1482 rent cap and indirectly the relocation amount.
Two cases anchor the modern UD-150 landscape. Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381 confirms that unlawful detainer is statutory and strict, and Drouet v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 583 governs the good-faith requirement for owner move-in evictions that now lives in SB 567.
Filing, Service, and Post-Filing Steps
After you complete UD-150, you file it with UD-100, the UD-110 summons, and your filing fee through your county’s e-filing portal. Filing fees run from 240 to 450 dollars depending on the amount in controversy, under Government Code § 70613. The clerk issues the summons usually within one business day, and you then have 60 days to serve under CCP § 583.210.
Service must follow CCP § 415.45, which permits posting and mailing only after a court order. The tenant has five business days to answer under CCP § 1167, and if no answer arrives you request a default with form CIV-100. If the tenant answers, the case is set for trial within 20 days under CCP § 1170.5.
The plain-English consequence is speed: an uncontested California unlawful detainer with a perfect UD-150 closes in roughly 30 to 45 days from filing, while a defective UD-150 can stretch the case past 120 days. A common misconception is that the sheriff serves the lockout the day judgment is entered; in fact, CCP § 1170.5(c) gives the tenant five additional days after the writ of possession is posted.
Local Ordinance Overlays You Cannot Ignore
State law sets the floor, and many cities raise the ceiling. The Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance requires relocation amounts of 9,900 to 24,650 dollars depending on tenant category, far above the AB 1482 one-month figure. The Oakland Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance requires registration of the unit and a separate notice filing with the Rent Adjustment Program before any UD-150 may be filed.
The San Francisco Rent Ordinance administered by the San Francisco Rent Board requires that every termination notice be filed with the board within 10 days, and failure to file is itself a defense in court. Berkeley’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance requires registration and pre-eviction mediation in some cases.
The consequence of ignoring a local ordinance is the same as ignoring AB 1482: the case dies on demurrer or summary judgment. For example, Diego files UD-150 in Los Angeles for a no-fault eviction and pays the AB 1482 one-month relocation, but the LA RSO requires 17,080 dollars for an elderly tenant. The tenant moves to quash, the court agrees, and Diego must pay the higher LA amount before refiling.
FAQs
Is UD-150 mandatory in every California unlawful detainer case?
Yes. California Rules of Court, rule 3.220 requires UD-150 with every unlawful detainer complaint, residential or commercial, in every superior court statewide.
Do I file UD-150 if my property is exempt from AB 1482?
Yes. You still file the form, but you check the “exempt” box at Item 4 and identify the exemption category from Civil Code § 1947.12(d).
Can a property manager sign UD-150 for an owner?
No. Verification of pleadings under CCP § 446 requires the party or someone with a written power of attorney, and most management agreements do not grant that power.
Is the January 1, 2024 version of UD-150 still current in 2026?
Yes. The Rev. January 1, 2024 version remains the operative form, though always confirm on the Judicial Council forms page before filing.
Do I owe relocation for a nonpayment eviction?
No. Relocation under Civil Code § 1946.2(d) is owed only for no-fault evictions, not for at-fault grounds like nonpayment, breach, or nuisance.
Can I include COVID-19 protected rental debt in my three-day notice?
No. CCP § 1179.02 bars COVID-19 protected debt from the unlawful detainer process, and including it voids the entire notice.
Does AB 1482 cover my single-family home if I own it through an LLC?
No. The single-family exemption in Civil Code § 1947.12(d)(5) requires individual ownership, so LLC, corporate, or REIT ownership defeats the exemption.
Can I plead at-fault and no-fault grounds in the alternative?
No. UD-150 requires one ground per cause of action, and pleading both produces an automatic demurrer for inconsistency.
Must I file a fictitious business name statement before filing UD-150?
Yes. Business and Professions Code § 17918 stays your case until you record an FBN with the county clerk if you are using a “doing business as” name.
Do local ordinances like the LA RSO override AB 1482?
Yes. When a local ordinance is more protective, Civil Code § 1946.2(g) requires you to follow the local rule, including higher relocation amounts and longer notice periods.
Can I e-file UD-150 separately from UD-100?
No. California superior courts require both documents to be bundled in the same filing transaction; otherwise the clerk rejects the package.
Is there a fee waiver available for UD-150 filings?
Yes. Government Code § 68631 allows a full or partial fee waiver if your household income falls below 125 percent of the federal poverty line, applied through form FW-001.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-100 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-101 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-105 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-110 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-115 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-116 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Washington Form LT 01 (w/Examples) + FAQs