LiMandri

LiMandri v. Judkins

Bad Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 56·52 Cal. App. 4th 326·60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 539·97 Daily Journal DAR 1037·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 690
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1997D022106California7,376 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

Plaintiff Charles S. LiMandri appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained defendant Greg D. Judkins’s demurrer to LiMandri’s complaint without leave to amend as to all causes of action.

Factual and Procedural Background

Because this is an appeal of a judgment of dismissal entered after the sustaining of a general demurrer, . . we accept as true all the material allegations of the complaint.” (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 7 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 303 , 801 P.2d 1054 , 20 A.L.R.5Ü1 1016].) LiMandri’s complaint discloses the following facts.

LiMandri represented multiple plaintiffs in litigation arising out of environmental contamination of 34 acres of real property owned by the plaintiffs. The litigation consisted of a state court action, Sesi v. Signal Landmark, Inc. (Super. Ct. San Diego County, No. 624243), and an action brought by the same plaintiffs against Signal Landmark, Inc., and others in federal district court under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). ( 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.) Among the plaintiffs represented by LiMandri were Wadie and Mary-Lynn Deddeh (the Deddehs). The plaintiffs…

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.