Legal Opinion
Espindola v. Nunez
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 31, 1988No. G004174PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WALLIN, J.
Stanley and Shirley Espindola appeal the trial court’s order granting Jose Nunez’s motion to quash service of summons based on the Espindolas’ failure to exercise due diligence before resorting to substituted service. We reverse.
I
On January 26, 1983, the Espindolas filed a complaint for damages based on negligence, breach of contract, fraud and conspiracy against Jose Nunez, his wife Dayle, and others. An amended complaint was filed January 10, 1986. That same month the Espindolas’ lawyer hired an investigator to locate the Nunezes, as his own attempts to find them since late…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Donel, Inc. v. BadalianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Pasadena Medi-Center Associates v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Evartt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Luti v. Graco, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1985
3Cited by34 opinions
- Watts v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Hearn v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Bonita Packing Co. v. O'SullivanDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1995
- TRACKMAN v. KenneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.