P.

P. v. Gomberg CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 9, 2013H033519California8,770 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

On January 6, 2005, the District Attorney of Santa Clara County (plaintiff) filed a petition to commit David Gomberg (defendant) under the SVP act, Welfare and Institutions Code sections 6600 et sequitur.1 The petition recited that defendant was an inmate of the Department of Corrections in Vacaville with a parole date of February 3, 2005. The court ordered the warden in Vacaville to produce defendant for a hearing on January 19, 2005. Five days before that date, the court ordered the warden to produce him on February 1. On February 2, the matter was apparently continued to the next day. On that day the clerk‟s minutes reflect “discussions . . . in chambers” and note that defendant was “in Solano Co[unty].” Similar notations appear in the minutes until May 6, 2005, when defendant‟s attorney filed a motion to “strike the petition in its entirety on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.” The supporting memorandum stated that the January 19 hearing date had been “vacated by the court” and “reset” to February 2, on which date defendant was not transported to the hearing, “having instead been transported to the Superior…

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.