Rudolph

Rudolph v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc.

Good Law
15 Cal. Rptr. 685·195 Cal. App. 2d 318·1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 1454
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 1, 1961Civ. No. 25326California1,505 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wood, J.

The demurrer to the second amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal will be regarded as a notice of appeal from the judgment of dismissal which was based on the order sustaining the demurrer.

At the beginning of the second amended complaint there is a heading entitled, “Statement of the Case.” Under that heading plaintiffs quoted a statement which allegedly was made by defense counsel in the case of “Rudolph v. Fulton in the District Court of Appeal at San Francisco. 1 Then plaintiffs alleged that said statement indicates that the defendant herein is not entitled to immunity “from a civil suit” by a citizen; that proof of said statement “is based” on certain exhibits which are a part of the complaint; that even if plaintiff Rudolph was a member of defendant company while his firm was “run out of the business” by defendant through fraud and deceit, the defendant cannot hold him to “their disciplinary procedures with their assumption” that defendant is an agency of the federal government; that said statement of defense counsel was “discarded” (disregarded) and the judgment on appeal was based only on the record of the superior court. Then…

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.