Cassel

Cassel v. Sullivan, Roche & Johnson

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 1080·76 Cal. App. 4th 1157·90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 899·99 Daily Journal DAR 12473·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9679
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 9, 1999A085955California2,793 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

In this procedurally involved case, Robert M. Cassel twice obtained judgment in the amount of $305,690 plus interest and attorney fees in his action for an accounting, valuation and payment of his interest in the Sullivan, Roche & Johnson partnership from which he withdrew in September 1994. Cassel first secured judgment by obtaining an entry of default against Sullivan, Roche & Johnson (the partnership), then by proving up his damages and obtaining a default judgment on April 14, 1998. This default judgment (but not the default itself) was thereafter set aside because Cassel had not served a statement of damages on the partnership. A second “prove-up” hearing was held, in which the partnership fully participated by presenting its own witnesses and evidence, and cross-examining Cassel’s witnesses. This hearing resulted in the November 12, 1998, entry of a second judgment against the partnership for $305,690, the same principal amount as the original vacated default judgment.

The partnership appeals, claiming that the default entered against it, from which both judgments ultimately flowed, was void for failure to serve a statement of damages and should have been vacated…

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.