For example, the CLRA (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1782, 1750, et seq.) requires notice of demand 30 days prior to the commencement of an action in certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, otherwise the case shall not remain.
That clearly allows an affirmative defense to the servee, if they didn’t receive service of process as required by the statute, otherwise, liberally construed — also supported by similar general treatment for any other services of process requirements for around the past 50 years in California.
Does it mean that asserting e.g. a confidential settlement communications privilege as the serving part will give the defense to the servee if you tried to prove in court that you, in fact, complied with such a notice requirement pursuant to the above-example statute? Would they be able to say the serving party cannot even show it to the judge that compliance was duly made?
Or would that simply mean that the judge, as a matter of law, reviews the notice, if the judge affirms compliance, the jury will be instructed that compliance is affirmed and not the content because of the confidentiality privilege?
Or could you assert the opposite and say you prove substantial compliance with the notice rule with a redacted version shifting the burden of proof on the servee and there it becomes a potential sanctionable matter if the servee moves to exclude the evidence of sufficient compliance based on an otherwise frivolous claim that there was no compliance?