In Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, the plaintiff claimed in his opposition papers that there was inadequate notice of and improper service for the motion for summary judgment and he appeared and argued that same claim at the hearing on the summary judgment motion. (Id. at pp. 697-698.) Nevertheless, he also argued the merits of the summary judgment motion. (Ibid.) He did not request a continuance of the hearing or claim any prejudice because of insufficient notice or service. (Ibid.) Carlton concluded the plaintiff had waived any claim of insufficient notice or service. (Ibid.) In Csum, the appellant challenged the granting of summary judgment for the defendant in a legal malpractice action. He contended he was not properly served and did not receive sufficient notice of the hearing. (Carlton v. Quint, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 693-694, 696.) The court disagreed and found, as a matter of fact, that he had received the requisite notice. (Id. at p. 696.) The court added, even if he had received inadequate notice, reversal was not required. Although he raised the issue of inadequate notice, he filed opposition to the motion for summary judgment eight days before the hearing and argued at the hearing. He did not request a continuance or contend he was prejudiced by inadequate notice. Under the circumstances, he waived any inadequate notice. (Id. at pp. 697-698.) The appellate court held that, even if the plaintiffs had not been properly served, reversal of the summary judgment was not required. The court explained: ". . . 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. " (Id. at p. 697.) Because the plaintiffs had opposed the motion on the merits (as well as raising the notice issue), appeared and argued at the hearing, never requested a continuance of the hearing due to the notice issue, and never claimed prejudice by reason of insufficient notice, they could not contend the notice was insufficient or defective. (Id. at p. 697.)