Legal Opinion

Sobeck & Associates, Inc. v. B & R Investments No. 24

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 14, 1989No. H004354PublishedCited by 11 opinions

[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

  1. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Estate of McDillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  4. People v. BoninCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Smeltzley v. Nicholson Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Lopes v. VieiraDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2008
  2. Breslin v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  3. General Motors Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. Balon v. DrostCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  5. Winding Creek v. McGlashanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996

6 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