Pietak

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Pietak

Bad Law
109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 256·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 532·2001 Daily Journal DAR 7213·90 Cal. App. 4th 600·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5883
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 11, 2001C028694California5,289 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

Defendant Gary P. Pietak appeals from a trial court ruling denying his motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to “reopen” an interpleader action dismissed by plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (State Farm) so that he may file a cross-complaint against State Farm.

In a published opinion issued on February 22, 1999, this court reversed, concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the requested relief. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Pietak (Feb. 22, 1999, C028694).) State Farm filed a petition for rehearing, arguing, among other things, that we decided the case on an issue not briefed by the parties and we failed to address other dispositive issues. State Farm also took issue with our conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion. We granted State Farm’s petition.

Having reconsidered the matter, we again conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to reopen the proceedings. We reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

In 1994, Pietak purchased a homeowners insurance policy (the policy) from State Farm protecting his house and property located in Garden Valley. Bank of America, the mortgage…

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.