Milton

Milton v. Perceptual Development Corp.

Good Law

1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 212·53 Cal. App. 2d 861·53 Cal. App. 4th 861·62 Cal. Rptr. 2d 98·97 Daily Journal DAR 3887

Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 1997B101202California2,205 words

Opinion

Perez, J.

Perceptual Development Corporation, Robert Men and Helen Men appeal from orders vacating the dismissal of the complaint against them and vacating the defaults and default judgments entered against the various parties named as cross-defendants to their responsive cross-complaint. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm those orders.

Facts and Procedural History

Respondent Dr. Robert E. Milton (Milton) sued appellants Perceptual Development Corporation (PDC), Robert Men and Helen Men in a complaint filed October 26, 1992, alleging fraud and securities law violations in connection with a joint business venture for the use of certain optometric techniques. In April 1993, appellants cross-complained against Milton and respondents Spectro-Optics Corporation (SOC) and Brad Lee Brent-Chase (Brent-Chase), alleging breach of contract, fraud, trade secrets violations and other causes of action arising out of the same joint business venture.

When Milton filed his complaint, he was represented by Attorney Randy M. Hess of the firm Adelson, Hess, Christensen & Kelly. On March 24, 1993, Hess was substituted out in favor of lawyer Stephen L. Hurst, vice-president, secretary and…

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.