Morales v. Camello

California Court of Appeal Oct 27, 1970 No. Civ. 36669Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court has the discretion to require a party to file a complete, self-contained pleading rather than one that incorporates prior pleadings by reference, and that dismissal is appropriate when a party refuses to comply with such an order.

Issues

Whether a trial court may strike a complaint that incorporates substantial allegations from prior pleadings by reference.
Whether a trial court acts within its discretion in requiring a party to file a complete, self-contained amended pleading.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it does not follow that a trial court cannot, in its discretion, require a party to write out his pleadings in full.”

“In refusing to comply with the trial court’s request for a complete written pleading in one document, a request well within the bounds of the trial court’s discretion, plaintiffs fell below minimum standards of compliance”

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

Action to quiet title, for declaratory relief, and for specific performance. Plaintiffs appeal an order striking their second amended complaint in its entirety and a judgment dismissing their action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subd. 3 for failure to amend within the time allowed. This appeal is properly taken, for an appeal lies from an order striking an entire complaint

(Honan

Title Ins. & Trust Co.,

9 Cal.App.2d 675 [50 P.2d 1068]) and from a dismissal which constitutes a judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 58Id).

Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in paragraph I refers to the first amended complaint, paragraphs I to VI, and includes “the whole thereof herein thereby.” The first amended complaint in paragraph I refers to and includes the original complaint, paragraphs I to VIII, and also refers to and includes an amendment to the original complaint entitled “Addendum to Complaint.” Additionally, plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in paragraph VI refers to paragraphs I to V of the same pleading and includes “the whole thereof herein thereby.” As previously noted, paragraph I of the second amended complaint refers to the first amended complaint, which in turn refers to the original complaint and to the amend

[372]

ment to the original complaint. The trial court made the following order: “The Court . . , strikes the Second Amended Complaint in that it is improper for a pleading to refer to prior pleadings for substantial allegations or to incorporate them; each pleading must be complete in itself . . . Plaintiffs are granted twenty (20) days leave to file complete amended pleading.” Plaintiffs did not amend. Instead, they moved that the trial court vacate its order “as provided for by Section 473 C.C.P.” The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion and dismissed the action.

Plaintiffs contend the trial court exceeded its power in striking the second amended complaint, since reference to prior pleadings “is an accepted and approved manner of pleading,” and consequently they have been wrongfully denied their day in court on the merits of their cause. We disagree.

Morales v. Camello

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief