Maxwell

Maxwell v. Cooltech, Inc.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 707·57 Cal. App. 4th 629·67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 293·97 Daily Journal DAR 11618·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7223
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 1997F025980California944 words

Opinion

Opinion

Buckley, J.

Statement of the Case

Lindemann Produce, Inc. (Lindemann), filed a complaint in the Kern County Superior Court on September 24, 1993, naming as defendants Cooltech, Inc. (Cooltech), and Phillip H. Maxwell et al. Both Maxwell and Cooltech filed answers.

On March 20, 1995, Maxwell filed and served a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief against Cooltech et al. Service was effected by serving the cross-complaint personally on Cooltech’s attorney on March 20, 1995.

On March 22, 1995, the first amended complaint and the cross-complaint were dismissed with prejudice. The dismissals were entered on October 19, 1995. Thereafter, on February 13, 1996, cross-complainant Maxwell filed a motion to vacate the dismissal of the cross-complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473 on the ground cross-complainant Maxwell never intended to dismiss the cross-complaint with prejudice. The motion was served on February 9, 1996, by mailing the motion to the attorney who represented Cooltech in the underlying action. The attorney for Cooltech appeared specially at the hearing on the motion to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to hear…

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.