Legal Opinion
Optical Surplus, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 19, 1991No. B049894PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DEVICH, Acting P. J.
Introduction
In this case, the trial court not only erred in denying a motion which should have been granted, it also imposed sanctions against the moving party, a codefendant which had not joined in the motion, and their attorney.
MBS Optics, Inc. (MBS), Optical Surplus, Inc. (Optical), and their attorney, Terrance McKnight (collectively appellants), appeal from the trial court’s order imposing sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 1 following Optical’s unsuccessful motion to quash service of summons. We reverse, with directions to the trial…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Munoz v. PurdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Scherer v. MarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Branham v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Dover v. SadowinskiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Woo v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- General Motors Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. SparksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Simonian v. PattersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.