Billings

Plaintiff appeals from an order under section 581a of the Code of Civil Procedure dismissing her complaint as against respondent defendants for failure to serve and return summons within three years.

I

The complaint was filed and summons issued on October 8, 1974. In November 1974 after a phone conversation with a representative of the defendants’ insurance carrier, plaintiff’s counsel by letter granted an *829 open extension to “answer or otherwise plead.” Plaintiff contends that that stipulation amounted to a general appearance sufficient to bring her within the exception to section 581a. We need not here pass on the conflict between Woodruff v. McDonald’s Restaurants (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 655 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 367 ], which held that a stipulation must have been between attorneys to have the effect of a general appearance, and Knapp v. Superior Court (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 799 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 154 ], because the stipulation herein involved would have been ineffective even had it been entered into between attorneys. In Owen v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 566 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 378 ] we held that, although a stipulation giving time to answer avoided the…

I concur in the judgment.

I agree with the majority in its reversal of the trial court’s order of dismissal, but I do not reach the two grounds relied upon by the majority for its holding. In part II of the majority opinion, the majority holds that the plaintiff effected substituted service — a good nonpersonal delivery service of the summons and complaint upon the natural defendants, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20. In part III of the majority opinion, the majority holds that plaintiff effected a good service of the summons and complaint on the corporate defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10.

*832 I do not reach the question of whether plaintiff effected a good service of summons and complaint on all defendants under Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.20 and 416.10 as set forth in parts II and III of the majority opinion. I place my concurrence with the majority’s decision reversing the trial court’s order of dismissal on the ground discussed and rejected in part I of the majority opinion.

In part I of the majority opinion, the majority rejects the plaintiff’s contention that a stipulation entered into by the parties granting…

KINGSLEY, Acting P.J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order under section 581a of the Code of Civil Procedure dismissing her complaint as against respondent defendants for failure to serve and return summons within three years.

(1) The complaint was filed and summons issued on October 8, 1974. In November 1974 after a phone conversation with a representative of the defendants' insurance carrier, plaintiff's counsel by letter granted an open extension to "answer or otherwise plead." Plaintiff contends that that stipulation amounted to a general appearance sufficient to bring her within the exception to section 581a. We need not here pass on the conflict between Woodruff v. McDonald's Restaurants (1977) 75 Cal. App.3d 655 [ 142 Cal. Rptr. 367 ], which held that a stipulation must have been between attorneys to have the effect of a general appearance, and Knapp v. Superior Court (1978) 79 Cal. App.3d 799 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 154 ], because the stipulation herein involved would have been ineffective even had it been entered into between attorneys. In Owen v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works (1977) 68 Cal. App.3d 566 [ 137 Cal. Rptr. 378 ] we held that, although a stipulation giving time…