In Maier Brewing Co. v. Flora Crane Service, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal. App. 2d 873, plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco for malicious prosecution and conspiracy. Plaintiff later served defendants Flora and Kopp as Doe I and II, respectively. Defendant moved to quash service on the ground plaintiff knew their names and relevant acts at the time it filed the original complaint. The trial court granted the motion to quash, plaintiff appealed, and the First District Court of Appeal affirmed, stating: "If the terms of Code of Civil Procedure section 474 have not been complied with, the purported defendant has not been named as such in the complaint. A service upon one not named in a complaint does not confer jurisdiction to proceed upon the complaint against him, and a motion to quash is proper. If such a proper motion is not granted, he is entitled to mandamus. "It would appear that a motion for dismissal, or for summary judgment or a demurrer may likewise be employed. (, where the motion was both to quash the service of summons and to dismiss; , change of venue based upon purported service under Code of Civil Procedure section 474, reversed; , demurrer to amended complaint, the original complaint on its face showing name and capacity of purported Doe; ....) Regardless of the form of proceeding, the ruling should be affirmed...." (Maier Brewing Co. v. Flora Crane Service, Inc., supra, 270 Cal. App. 2d at pp. 875-876.)