Sobeck & Associates, Inc. v. B & R Investments No. 24
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CAPACCIOLI, Acting P. J.
In this action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, Sobeck and Associates, Inc. appeals from a judgment in favor of B & R Investments No. 24 and Bestor Engineers, Inc. 1 In the proceedings below, Sobeck, Inc. had amended its complaint under the fictitious names statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 474, to substitute a named defendant in place of a previously designated Doe defendant. B & R asserted that the action was time-barred by Civil Code section 3144 because Sobeck, Inc. amended the complaint more than 90 days after learning the true identity of the new…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Estate of McDillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- People v. BoninCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Smeltzley v. Nicholson Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Lopes v. VieiraDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2008
- Breslin v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- General Motors Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Balon v. DrostCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Winding Creek v. McGlashanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.