§Why CasetextPricing

031319 Opposition To Defendants Motion

Motion

8 Cited authorities

  1. Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court

    59 Cal.App.4th 789 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 73 times
    Filing a proof of service that complies with the applicable statutory requirements creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service

  2. Tunis v. Barrow

    184 Cal.App.3d 1069 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 43 times

    Docket No. B016404. August 26, 1986. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C-461415, Robert H. O'Brien, Judge. COUNSEL Nissenberg Nissenberg and David N. Nissenberg for Defendants and Appellants. Dominick Nardelli for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION LILLIE, P.J. Defendants appeal from order denying their motion to vacate default judgment and order denying motion for rehearing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In December 1982 Ruth Tunis purchased a 1980 Trailmobile double-drop

  3. Adoption of Aaron H

    84 Cal.App.4th 786 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 4 times

    A088653, A088656 Filed October 20, 2000; pub. order November 3, 2000 Appeal from the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, Nos. A98-00440, D99-00479, Honorable Joyce Cram. Attorneys for Appellant, Terrence W. Andrews. Attorneys for Respondents, Alexis H., Jane A. Gorman, Cassandra and Jon L., No appearance. HANLON, P. J. FACTS Aaron H. was born on September 29, 1998. His teenage mother, Alexis H., soon determined that she was unable to care for Aaron and put him up for adoption. Alexis's aunt and

  4. Brockman v. Wagenbach

    152 Cal.App.2d 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 7 times

    Docket No. 22020. July 18, 1957. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County setting aside a default judgment and allowing defendant to file an answer. Roger Alton Pfaff, Judge. Affirmed. Milton Wichner for Appellant. Dryden, Harrington, Horgan Swartz and Vernon G. Foster for Respondent. WOOD (Parker), J. Appeal by plaintiff from an order (1) granting defendant's motion to set aside a default judgment (after publication of summons), and (2) allowing defendant to file an answer

  5. Herman v. Santee

    103 Cal. 519 (Cal. 1894)   Cited 22 times
    In Herman v. Santee, 103 Cal. 519, [42 Am. St. Rep. 145, 37 P. 509], this court said: "The question then arises, did the court err in allowing the proof of service to be amended and filed nunc pro tunc as of the date of the judgment?

  6. 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

  7. Section 473 - Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473   Cited 5,940 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Allowing up to six months to challenge a judgment entered through the moving party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect

  8. Section 400 - Definitions

    Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code § 400   Cited 4 times

    For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: (a) "Armed Forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard. (b) "Military orders," with respect to a service member, means official military orders, or any notification, certification, or verification from the service member's commanding officer with respect to the service member's current or future military duty status. (c) "Military service" means, as to a member of the militia, full-time active