Appearance Itself May ''Prevent'' Complaint of Insufficient Notice
"It is well settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion.
This rule applies even when no notice was given at all.
Accordingly, a party who appears and contests a motion in the court below cannot object on appeal or by seeking extraordinary relief in the appellate court that he had no notice of the motion or that the notice was insufficient or defective." (Tate v. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal. App. 3d 925, 930 [119 Cal. Rptr. 835]; see also Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7-8 [207 Cal. Rptr. 233].)
In De Luca v. Board of Supervisors (1955) 134 Cal. App. 2d 606, 609 [286 P.2d 395], the court stated that the "general rule is that one who has been notified to attend a certain proceeding and does do so, cannot be heard to complain of alleged insufficiency of the notice; it has in such instance served its purpose.
This rule applies to one who appears in a lawsuit after defective service of process upon him, to one who responds to a notice of motion without adequate notice."