Dill

Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.

Bad Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 453·24 Cal. App. 4th 1426·29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 746·94 Daily Journal DAR 6186·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3269
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 5, 1994E011158California10,732 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKINSTER, J.

A plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing his action against two defendants. We affirm.

Procedural Background

In March of 1987, plaintiff Jim Dill filed a complaint seeking the recovery of damages for personal injuries for which the defendants were allegedly liable under theories of negligence and strict liability. Among the defendants named were Berquist Construction Company and Strata America (hereinafter, Berquist and Strata, respectively, and collectively defendants).

On June 7, 1988, Dill mailed a copy of the summons, complaint, and statement of damages (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.II ), return receipt requested, addressed to “Berquist Construction Co." at an address in Oregon. Also enclosed was a cover letter stating that the defendant was being served pursuant to section 415.40. The postal receipt returned to Dill bears the signature of a Kelly Nofziger on the line labelled “Signature—Addressee.” On the same date, Dill mailed copies of the same documents by the same means, addressed to “Strata America” at an address in Utah. That receipt was returned bearing the signamre of an L. Warner on the line labelled “Signature—Agent.”

No responsive pleadings were filed by…

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.