Noble

Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Good Law
109 Cal. Rptr. 269·1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 922·33 Cal. App. 3d 654·73 A.L.R. 3d 1164
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 25, 1973Civ. 40771California3,537 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kingsley, J.

Plaintiff Noble sued Sears, Roebuck and Co., Sears’ attorneys, Sam Pruitt Investigations, and certain persons working for Sam Pruitt Investigations, charging 10 counts. The 10 counts alleged: Trespass; battery; fraud; negligently caused physical, mental and emotional injuries; invasion of attorney-client relationship; invasion of privacy; negligent entrustment of agents (two counts); conspiracy; violation of statutory duties; and violation of attorneys’ ethics. We are here concerned only with the counts which charged respondents. Sears and its attorneys, namely the fifth; sixth and seventh causes of action. Respondents’ demurrers to those causes of action were sustained and plaintiff has appealed from the resulting order of dismissal.

I

Preliminarily, we note that the respondents ask us to take judicial notice, in support of the order below, of certain statements made by plaintiff in depositions taken during the time the pleadings were being settled. They rely on the language in Saltares v. Kristovich (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 504 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 866 ], and on authorities cited in that case. We do not think it necessary, in this opinion, to explore the extent to which judicial…

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.