Legal Opinion
Earl W. Schott, Inc. v. Kalar
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 30, 1993No. F017514PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BUCKLEY, J.
We are presented here with the issue of whether a complaining party is required to designate and serve a corporation in its corporate capacity in order to obtain an enforceable default judgment. We conclude such a requirement exists.
Procedural History
On January 18, 1991, Earl W. Schott, Inc. (Schott), filed a complaint for breach of contract, fraud and common counts against “Gary Kalar, individually and DBA Kalar Construction Co.” (hereafter collectively called Kalar), and Does 1 to 10.
On May 20, 1991, Schott filed its first proof of service of the summons and complaint.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Chaplin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Janofsky v. GarlandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- White v. MerrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Ferry v. North Pacific StagesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Aiken v. Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1856
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Meller & Snyder v. R & T PROPERTIES, INC.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- People v. EricksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Hamlin v. JendayiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
- Hamlin v. JendayiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
- Logicease Solutions Inc. v. Softworks AI, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.