§Why CasetextPricing

Citibank South Dakota N.A. vs. David A Gutierrez

Opposition

15 Cited authorities

  1. Reichardt v. Hoffman

    52 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 620 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that absent an exceptional showing of good cause, an appellate court will not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief

  2. Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.

    24 Cal.App.4th 1426 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 265 times
    Holding that service of process fails when sent generally to a business's address

  3. American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh

    10 Cal.App.4th 1446 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 212 times
    In American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446, the Court of Appeal held that "where a matter is within the purview of the ABC, an action seeking a judgment which will interfere with the agency's prospective disciplinary orders is beyond the jurisdiction of the superior court," even though the licensee styles the action as one for injunction or declaratory relief.

  4. Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores

    10 Cal.4th 424 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 175 times
    In Howard, supra, 10 Cal.4th 424, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 362, 895 P.2d 469, we held that the parallel statute governing judicial arbitration (§ 1141.17) “restricts the amount of time that can be tolled automatically as the result of submitting an action to arbitration,” thus effectively preempting automatic tolling under section 583.310 for arbitration conducted in the first four and a half years of the litigation.

  5. Trackman v. Kenney

    187 Cal.App.4th 175 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 108 times
    Reversing order vacating default judgment where defendant argued he was not served with summons and complaint because proof of service was not facially void

  6. Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc.

    67 Cal.App.4th 295 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 132 times
    Holding a suspended domestic corporation without a designated agent for service of process-but that continues to operate as an ongoing business during the suspension-may be validly served pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10

  7. In re Marriage of Stevenot

    154 Cal.App.3d 1051 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 157 times
    Giving examples of acts constituting extrinsic fraud

  8. Rogers v. Silverman

    216 Cal.App.3d 1114 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 45 times

    Docket No. B035791. December 20, 1989. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C516193, Charles E. Jones, Judge. COUNSEL John F. Dunne, Jr., and Michelle Rodenborn for Defendant and Appellant. Sidney F. Rogers, Ettie Lou Rogers and Darren J. Rogers, in pro. per., and Barbara Springer Perry for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OPINION McCLOSKY, Acting P.J. Defendant Gilbert Silverman appeals from the "order made and entered by the court [which] vacated that same court's previous order .

  9. Misic v. Segars

    37 Cal.App.4th 1149 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 35 times
    Analyzing what constitutes a "trial" for purposes of § 583.320 and concluding a default judgment does not

  10. Severn v. Adidas Sportschuhfabriken

    33 Cal.App.3d 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 8 times

    Docket No. 31658. August 1, 1973. Appeal from Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. P15940, John M. Brenner, Judge. COUNSEL Richard G. Mansfield for Plaintiff and Appellant. Broderick, McNeil Spencer and John R. Broderick for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION ELKINGTON, J. Plaintiff Clifford Severn, doing business as Clifford Severn Sporting Goods, commenced an action in California against the three defendant European corporations named in the caption and defendant Horst Dassler, a resident

  11. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 71,368 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  12. Section 606 - Effect of presumption affecting burden of proof

    Cal. Evid. Code § 606   Cited 190 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Addressing presumptions affecting the burden of proof

  13. Section 3:1 - Terms defined

    La. Stat. tit. 3 § 1   Cited 1 times

    As used in this Title, the terms defined in this Section have the meanings herein given to them, except where the context expressly indicates otherwise: (1) "Applicant" means a person or place of business that makes a formal application for a license, permit, certification, registration, or certificate issued pursuant to this Title. (2) "Commissioner" means the Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry. (3) "Department" means the Department of Agriculture and Forestry. (4) "Encumbrance"