Pearl

Pearl v. Shore

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 3d 608·1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1507·95 Cal. Rptr. 157
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 1971Civ. 37050California4,546 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kaus, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant-respondent, entered pursuant to the granting of a “motion to strike and dismiss” the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. Out of nine plaintiffs, only Mr. Pearl has chosen to appeal the trial court’s determination, which, we also add, relates only to the single defendant, Mr. Shore, and not to the various other defendants named in the instant action.

On December 20, 1963, the plaintiff became involved in a limited partnership investment whereby nine limited partners invested a total of $60,000, $30,000 of which was contributed by Mr. Pearl. The general partner, it was agreed, was to be S.K.R. Enterprises, Incorporated (“S.K.R.”), whose principal and equal shareholders were the defendants in the instant action, Philip Shore, Irving C. Rubin, Morton L. Rubin and Elliot Kalt. These four were also treasurer, president, second vice president and secretary, respectively, and, except for Morton L. Rubin, directors of the corporation. The limited partnership was called “S.K.R.—Lindley.”

In Pearl’s initial complaint the defendant Shore was not named! Tlie original summons was lost and an “alias summons” was issued for…

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.