Summary judgment was granted to defendants when plaintiff failed to present controverting evidence after being granted a continuance for that purpose and instead used the continuance time period to file a request to dismiss the action without prejudice to reasserting the same claims challenged on the summary judgment motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 437c, subd. (h), 581, subds. (b)(1), (c).)
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
MARY MORGAN, INC. v. MELZARK
Docket No. A073240.
49 Cal.App.4th 765 (1996)
MARY MORGAN, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DONALD R. MELZARK et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
September 24, 1996.
September 24, 1996.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Vincent M. Spohn for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Richard V. Day and Aaron M. Kamins for Defendants and Respondents.
Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
