Barnett

Barnett v. Delta Lines, Inc.

Bad Law
137 Cal. App. 3d 674·187 Cal. Rptr. 219·1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 2157
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 23, 1982Civ. 64418California4,201 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Brien, J.

This is an appeal from judgment following an order granting summary judgment for defendant on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the superior court.

Facts

The record is somewhat confusing because only the answer to the original complaint is present, whereas the operative complaint in this record is the second amended complaint. Not only is the record lacking a description of who are the plaintiffs, there is no way of ascertaining precisely what respondent denied or admitted in its answer. The briefs are of little help. Respondent’s brief refers to and discusses certain paragraphs of “The Third Cause of Action in the complaint dated February 5, 1976,” yet that complaint is not part of the record. The “stipulation to amend complaint” filed July 31, 1979, is of little help except to note that the “amended complaint shall be deemed answered with a full denial and with all applicable affirmative defenses.” No one knows what the “applicable affirmative defenses” are. Also, the stipulation refers to additions to the “third cause of action” and to certain pages and lines, none of which are reflected in the record. One could surmise that the “Second Amended Complaint” filed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.