Kumar

Kumar v. Ramsey

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 29, 2021C092610California6,036 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 11/29/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(El Dorado) ----

ROY KUMAR, C092610

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. SC20180225)

v.

KELLY RAMSEY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of El Dorado County, Dylan Sullivan, Judge. Reversed.

Alling & Jillson, Ltd., and Richard J. McGuffin for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Martel Law Office and Mark Martel for Defendants and Respondents.

In this dispute over property rights, plaintiff Roy Kumar appeals the trial court’s order imposing terminating and monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. 1 The trial court found that Kumar’s first amended complaint was factually

Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1 and legally frivolous because no reasonable attorney could conclude that Kumar’s claims against defendants Kelly Ramsey and Elizabeth Pintar (together, Ramsey) were timely under the applicable four-year limitations period. (§ 128.7, subd. (b)(2), (3).) On appeal, Kumar argues…

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.