Leo

Leo v. Dunlap

Bad Law
1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 1817·260 Cal. App. 2d 24·66 Cal. Rptr. 888
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 12, 1968Civ. 30418California1,594 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aiso, J.

pro tem. —In this personal injury action, originally filed in the municipal court, plaintiffs Ross Leo and Mary Leo appeal from a judgment of the superior court entered upon jury verdicts finding against each of them and in favor of defendant Nina Dunlap, and from an order (of the municipal court) granting defendant’s motion to set aside the ‘ ‘ default judgment. ’ ’

In limine the attempted appeal " from the order of the court made on August 9, 1963, granting defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment” must be dismissed. Although both the notice of motion and the order use the respective terms "setting aside the default judgment” and "set aside Default Judgment,” no default judgment appears in the record. Apparently there was none. The request for entry of default was filed by plaintiffs on July 9, 1963, and the notice of motion to vacate by defendant on July 24, 1963. Treating the order of August 9, 1963, as an order granting a motion to vacate a default upon which no judgment was given (as the parties and the municipal court apparently did), it is not an appealable order. (Davis v. Taliaferro (1963) 218 Cal. App.2d 120, 122 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 208 ]; Esquivel v. Raney…

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.