Legal Opinion
Nickell v. Matlock
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 4, 2012No. B230321PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MALLANO, P. J.
It is hornbook law that a defaulting defendant cannot participate in a prove-up hearing. (See 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Proceedings Without Trial, § 175, p. 617; 46 Am.Jur.2d (2006) Judgments, § 304, pp. 629-630; 40A Cal.Jur.3d (2006) Judgments, § 40, pp. 75-76.) In California, however, there is a statutory exception to this rule in quiet title actions (Code Civ. Proc., § 764.010; all undesignated section references are to that code). Here, the trial court did not allow the defaulting defendants in a quiet title action to put on evidence at a prejudgment…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Garcia v. McCutchenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- City of Lincoln v. BarringerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Dep't of Forestry & Fire Prot. v. Howell, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Good v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Bailey v. Citibank, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2021
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.