Robinson v. Southland Produce Co.

California Court of Appeal Feb 20, 1931 No. Docket No. 6504.Published

Before: Archbald

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its prior order of dismissal because the order was not the result of mistake or inadvertence, but was a deliberate, albeit potentially erroneous, judicial act that could only be challenged via appeal or motion for a new trial.

Issues

Whether a trial court has jurisdiction to vacate a final order of dismissal on the grounds of inadvertence when the order was intentionally made.
Whether an order of dismissal that is merely erroneous, rather than void, can be set aside by the trial court after its power is exhausted.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The decisions of this court are numerous and uniform to the effect that a judgment or order once regularly entered can be reviewed and set aside only in the manner prescribed by statute.”

“The action of the court in our opinion being merely erroneous and not void, the motion to set aside the order of dismissal would seem to afford no basis for the order made.”

[107]

ARCHBALD, J.,

pro

tem.

This is an appeal by defendants Estrin and Garbns from an order made by the lower court vacating its previous order dismissing the action and also from the order granting plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint. The appeal on the ground last mentioned has been dismissed (98 Cal. App. 365 [276 Pac. 1036]).

Plaintiff filed her complaint in the court below claiming damages for alleged personal injuries against the Southland Produce Company and the Liberty Produce Company, corporations. An answer was filed by Liberty Produce Company,

“a

partnership”, and “Nick Estrin and Phillip Garbus, doing business under the firm name and style of Liberty Produce Company”, in which among other denials was one denying the alleged corporate existence of the Liberty Produce Company. At the trial plaintiff dismissed as to the Southland Produce Company, and, calling the court’s attention to the answer of defendants, asked leave to amend by striking out the word “corporation” and inserting instead the word “partnership”. This was objected to by counsel for the answering defendants, and after some argument and introduction of evidence on the question of ownership of the truck alleged to have collided with plaintiff, the following occurred: “The Court: You are not prepared to prove that this is a corporation? Mr. Graves: We take their denial that this is a corporation and rest on their statement that it is a partnership, and ask to amend, without going into the details. We took their statement and asked to amend by inserting the word ‘partnership’ in the place of ‘ corporation’, and we hold that that is not an amendment which does the defendants any injustice, and therefore it is within the allowance of our code. The Court: I will have to deny the motion. Mr. Claassen: Your Honor, I move for a dismissal. The Court: I will have to grant the motion.” A minute order was then made pursuant thereto dismissing the action. About twelve days thereafter plaintiff’s attorney filed a notice of motion to set aside said order of dismissal on the grounds of “inadvertence and by reason of an oversight on the part of said court” and that the granting of the motion “was in excess of the jurisdiction of the court”, as well as other grounds

Robinson v. Southland Produce Co.

AI Brief

ARCHBALD, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief