Martin

Martin v. Cinelli

Good Law
183 Cal. App. 2d 509·1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1779·7 Cal. Rptr. 62
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 4, 1960Civ. 18813California1,065 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tobriner, J.

When a trial court refuses to set aside a default judgment upon a motion under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, this court reviews the record to determine if the court has abused its discretion. We have found no abuse of discretion in the record before us.

The case arose from this background: Respondent brought an action for breach of contract against appellant and three other persons, whose identity were then unknown and who were accordingly designated as First, Second and Third Doe, individually and as “co-partners transacting business under the firm name and style of Cinelli & Co., Inc.”; and “Cinelli & Co., Incorporated, a corporation.” The complaint alleged appellant to be sole oivner of the stock in Cinelli & Co., Inc., with whom respondent had contracted, stating that the corporation was but a “mere shell and naked corporate framework” which appellant and the other individual defendants below “fraudulently used” to avoid their alleged obligations.

Appellant and Cinelli & Co., Inc., having been served with a copy of the complaint and summons, failed to appear and plead to the complaint; accordingly, on September 19, 1958, the court entered a judgment against both of…

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.