Ortiz

Stockton v. Ortiz

Good Law
120 Cal. Rptr. 456·1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1010·47 Cal. App. 3d 183
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 14, 1975Civ. 39662California5,171 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hanson, J.

Following rendition of . opinion by this court, the Supreme Court granted a hearing and thereafter transferred the cause to us for reconsideration in the light of Hurtado v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 574 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 106 , 522 P.2d 666]. Our opinion on reconsideration follows:

Pleadings

Appellant/plaintiff Richard M. Stockton’s (hereinafter Stockton) original complaint was filed on March 21, 1966. The fourth amended complaint, upon which the action proceeded to trial, was filed July 11, 1967. It named as individual defendants Pablo Ortiz (hereinafter P. Ortiz), Louis Federico (hereinafter Federico), John Bonfante (hereinafter Bonfante), Joaquin Rodriquez (hereinafter Rodriquez), Don Johnson (hereinafter Johnson) and Juventino Ortiz (hereinafter J. Ortiz). It also named three Mexican corporations: Loma Linda, S. A., Inversiones Mulege, S.A. de C.V. (hereinafter Inversiones, S.A.) and Club Aereo Mulege, S.A. (hereinafter Club Aereo, S.A.). The theories of the nine causes of action contained therein were not set forth in its caption. Respondents/defendants P. Ortiz, J. Ortiz and Bonfante each/filed an answer and counterclaim. The other named defendants were not served…

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.