![]() Finally, February 10, 1965, after James Di Giuseppe had again contacted the attorneys, an answer, as well as a cross-complaint seeking damages of $20,000, was filed on behalf of defendant Denham and Glens Falls. Thereafter, the attorneys asked for additional time because of a past illness. James Di Giuseppe subsequently wrote the attorneys twice, requesting that an answer be filed. The attorneys for defendant Denham and Glens Falls contacted James Di Giuseppe, plaintiffs' attorney, to ascertain whether they should answer all three causes of action stated in the complaint, and a further continuance was agreed upon. The demurrer was overruled November 30, 1964. Defendant Denham and Glens Falls were granted an extension to plead to November 16, 1964, and they thereafter filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint. October 30, 1964, it was stipulated that the answer filed by the board of supervisors July 3, 1964, to the original complaint would be deemed an answer also to the amended complaint. The hearing was continued to September 22, 1964, at which time the demurrer was sustained and plaintiffs given 30 days in which to amend.Īn amended complaint was filed October 22, 1964. August 31, 1964, a demurrer was filed on behalf of defendant Denham and Glens Falls, and the hearing thereon was set for September 8, 1964. The board of supervisors filed an answer July 3, 1964, and extensions of time to appear were granted defendant Denham and Glens Falls at their request. At the time the action was filed, plaintiffs were represented by the law firm of Lyle, Yudelson & Di Giuseppe, with James Di Giuseppe handling the matter.īy July 13, 1964, a copy of the summons and complaint had been served on each of the defendants. Prior thereto, a stop notice had been delivered to the board of supervisors on behalf of plaintiffs, pursuant to section 1190.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (hereinafter referred to as "Glens Falls") to collect $21,334.63 and enforce a labor and material bond after construction by plaintiffs of a certain vivarium (animal housing and testing annex). Respondent court denied his motion, and he here seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent court to dismiss the action for failure to diligently prosecute.įacts: June 19, 1964, real parties in interest (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiffs") filed an action against defendant Denham, the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County (hereinafter referred to as "the board of supervisors"), and Glens Falls Insurance Co. Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "defendant Denham") moved in respondent court, under section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for dismissal of an action not brought to trial within two years of the date of the filing thereof. Pollock and Leonard Sacks as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest. Lascher for Real Parties in Interest.Įdward I. ![]() ![]() Robinow and Acret & Perrochet for Petitioner. (Opinion by McComb, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent MARSH & KIDDER et al., Real Parties in Interest. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |