Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court

Good Law
132 Cal. App. 4th 1101·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1470·2005 Daily Journal DAR 11527·34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8460
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 19, 2005B181881California3,954 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curry, J.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioners Shapell Industries, Inc. and Shapell Industries Escrow challenge the respondent superior court’s order granting a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint adding a new plaintiff as an individual and as the representative plaintiff of an uncertified class. Shapell contends the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to allow the second amended complaint to be filed to add a new plaintiff, real party in interest Allan Stark, because the original plaintiff, Steven J. Borecki, had voluntarily dismissed himself as a party to the action, after attempting to name Stark as a coplaintiff in a first amended complaint without first obtaining leave of court. According to Shapell, Borecki dismissed the entire action, thus divesting the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Shapell further contends that neither Stark nor Borecki had standing to seek leave to file a second amended complaint because the voluntary dismissal removed Borecki from the action and Stark was never properly made a party to the action.

We issued an order to show cause in this original proceeding. We now conclude that the order of dismissal pertained to Borecki…

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.