3-day notice conflicting with 30-day notice?

[James Qiu]

So my friend has a month-to-month lease with his tenant who hadn't paid the rent for a month. He served her the 3-day pay-or-quite notice, as well as a 30-day lease termination notice to terminate the month-to-month lease. When he went to the court to file the UD after a week has passed, he was told that he can't. Because of the 30-day notice, he must wait for 30 day before UD can be filed. I have always thought and also read from a number of websites that the two should be served at the same time if you really want to get ride of the tenant even if he/she pays this time. If assuming the Court was right (duh), when should the 30-day be served? BTW, this happened in CA.

[Mitch Kronowit]

That's a good question. My thinking is serve the 3-day notice to pay or quit first. If they don't pay, they'll get evicted precluding the need for the 30-day notice. IOW, evicting them is pretty much telling them you wish to end their tenancy!

If they do pay, then serve the 30-day notice. It's a way of saying, "Thanks, but we're done with you now".