Linder

Linder v. Vogue Investments, Inc.

Good Law
1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1764·239 Cal. App. 2d 338·48 Cal. Rptr. 633
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 1966Civ. 28100, 28237California2,987 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kaus, J.

Frustrated in several attempts to intervene in an action between E. Joseph Linder, as plaintiff, and Crescent Homes, as defendant, Vogue Investments Inc., the purported intervener, has filed two appeals, which were consolidated by order of this court.

On June 11, 1963, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint against Crescent Homes, designated as a limited partnership, for money loaned in the sum of $29,940. The complaint alleged that one Jack Katz was the general partner and Vogue Investments, Inc. (Vogue), the limited partner. Summons was served on Katz ivho did nothing to cause Crescent Homes to appear and a default was entered on July 2. When Vogue learned that Katz would not defend the action it filed a motion to intervene and to vacate the default with unquestioned diligence. The motion was denied on July 30, 1963, and a motion for reconsideration was denied September 24, 1963. These two rulings form the basis of the first appeal. The second appeal was taken from an order made December 9, 1963, denying a motion of Vogue to vacate a default judgment entered on October 6, 1963. The basis for that motion will be discussed later.

Vogue sought leave to intervene for a…

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.