Legal Opinion

Carol Gilbert, Inc. v. Haller

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 24, 2009No. H033193PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RUSHING, P. J.

Plaintiff Carol Gilbert, Inc., sought to join defendant Amit Haller in this action as a Doe defendant, but served a summons on him that omitted the statutory notice that he was served by that fictitious name. When Haller failed to answer, plaintiff secured a default judgment for some $40,000. The trial court denied Haller’s motion to vacate the judgment, reasoning that the papers served gave him actual notice of the suit and substantially complied with statutory requirements. We question whether such a rationale can ever sustain a default judgment over a defendant’s…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Sara A. Karlsson v. Baruch RabinowitzCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1963
  2. Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. GoodmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Tresway Aero, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Pasadena Medi-Center Associates v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Slaughter v. Legal Process & Courier ServiceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. American Express Centurion Bank v. ZaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. Edelbrock LLC v. Genesis Group International (USA), Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
  3. Gregory v. Saldana CA3California Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. J&A Mash & Barrel, LLC v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2022
  5. Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API