Legal Opinion
Gitmed v. General Motors Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 7, 1994No. B066739PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HASTINGS, J.
— In this opinion, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing an action after appellant filed his amended complaint one day late. We also hold that where the amended complaint has been served on the defendant before the defendant moves to dismiss the action, the defendant must give notice of any application or motion to dismiss or strike to the opposing party.
Facts
On September 10, 1986, appellant Jerry Gitmed purchased a new automobile from respondent General Motors Corporation (GMC). In January of 1987, the car experienced engine and electrical system…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Dominguez v. City of AlhambraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- A & B METAL PRODUCTS v. MacArthur Properties, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1970
- Harding v. CollazoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Munoz v. Florentine GardensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Sadler v. TurnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Datig v. Dove Books, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Bliss v. City of Indio CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Briggs v. Select Portfolio Servicing CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Haidet v. Del Mar Woods Homeowners Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2024
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.