Fox

Fox v. Radonix CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 29, 2024G062103California517 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sanchez, J.

Filed 2/29/24 Fox v. Radonix CA4/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JOHN DANIEL FOX,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G062103

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 30-2021-01201867, 30-2021-01203509) RADONIX, INC. et al.,

OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Walter P. Schwarm, Judge. Affirmed. John Daniel Fox, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. J.M. O’Connor Law Group and Joseph M. O’Connor for Defendants and Respondents.

* * * Plaintiff and Appellant John Daniel Fox appeals from an order granting a motion brought by defendants (Radonix, Inc., Shahram Tork, Maryam Golbakhsh) to set 1 aside default judgments Fox had entered…

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.