Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2024 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchigreen2 sentences2021(Sakaguchi, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 862 [finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment under section 473.5 where the defendant did not declare that he lacked actual knowledge of the action, show that any lack of knowledge was caused by excusable neglect and submit an answer, motion or other pleading with his motion].) Because he did not satisfy the requirements for relief under section 473.5, we reject Singh’s claim that the trial court erred in denying him relief under that statute. 2021(Sakaguchi, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 862 [finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment under section 473.5 where the defendant did not declare that he lacked actual knowledge of the action, show that any lack of knowledge was caused by excusable neglect and submit an answer, motion or other pleading with his motion].) Because he did not satisfy the requirements for relief under section 473.5, we reject Singh’s claim that the trial court erred in denying him relief under that statute. | 2 | 2 |
Calvert v. Al Binaligreen2 sentences2021The trial court dropped Singh’s motion from its calendar due to the lack of notice. 7 DISCUSSION I Singh argues the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because Rios did not properly serve the summons and complaint; therefore, all orders by the trial court are void. “ ‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.] . . . [A] default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’ ” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 (Ellard); acc 2021The trial court dropped Singh’s motion from its calendar due to the lack of notice. 7 DISCUSSION I Singh argues the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because Rios did not properly serve the summons and complaint; therefore, all orders by the trial court are void. “ ‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.] . . . [A] default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’ ” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 (Ellard); acc | 2 | 2 |
Tanguilig v. Valdezgreen2 sentences2021(Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 (Tanguilig); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1245, fn. 14 (Nwosu); Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785 (Badie).) Singh also challenges the declarations filed in support of Rios’s application for publication. 2021(Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 (Tanguilig); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1245, fn. 14 (Nwosu); Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785 (Badie).) Singh also challenges the declarations filed in support of Rios’s application for publication. | 2 | 2 |
Ellard v. Conwaygreen2 sentences2021The trial court dropped Singh’s motion from its calendar due to the lack of notice. 7 DISCUSSION I Singh argues the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because Rios did not properly serve the summons and complaint; therefore, all orders by the trial court are void. “ ‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.] . . . [A] default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’ ” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 (Ellard); acc 2021The trial court dropped Singh’s motion from its calendar due to the lack of notice. 7 DISCUSSION I Singh argues the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because Rios did not properly serve the summons and complaint; therefore, all orders by the trial court are void. “ ‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.] . . . [A] default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’ ” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 (Ellard); acc | 2 | 2 |
Nwosu v. Ubagreen2 sentences2021(Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 (Tanguilig); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1245, fn. 14 (Nwosu); Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785 (Badie).) Singh also challenges the declarations filed in support of Rios’s application for publication. 2021(Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 (Tanguilig); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1245, fn. 14 (Nwosu); Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785 (Badie).) Singh also challenges the declarations filed in support of Rios’s application for publication. | 2 | 2 |
Giorgio v. Synergy Management Group CA2/5green2 sentences2021(Calvert, at pp. 961-962; Giorgio v. Synergy Management Group, LLC (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 241, 247 (Giorgio).) Section 415.10 et seq. governs the manner of service of a summons. 2021(Calvert, at pp. 961-962; Giorgio v. Synergy Management Group, LLC (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 241, 247 (Giorgio).) Section 415.10 et seq. governs the manner of service of a summons. | 2 | 2 |
Badie v. Bank of Americagreen2 sentences2021(Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 (Tanguilig); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1245, fn. 14 (Nwosu); Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785 (Badie).) Singh also challenges the declarations filed in support of Rios’s application for publication. 2021(Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 (Tanguilig); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1245, fn. 14 (Nwosu); Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785 (Badie).) Singh also challenges the declarations filed in support of Rios’s application for publication. | 2 | 2 |
Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chowgreen1 sentence2024(See Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 1020 [court only reviewed order appointing elisor, not issues regarding underlying judgment from which the appellant did not appeal].) The existence and validity of the 2015 lease are matters beyond the scope of this appeal.1 1 Singh requests that we take judicial notice of the trial court’s order in San Joaquin County Superior Court case No. STK-CV-UCC-2021-0011339 confirming an arbitrator’s award that declared the 2015 lease void and invalid, in addition to an opposition brief 7 DISPOSITION The trial court’s July 6, 2022, o | 1 | 1 |
People v. DeLeongreen1 sentence2022(See People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 408, fn. 8 ; see also People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 645 .) 3 We do not state the facts regarding Singh’s offense because they are not relevant to the issues raised in this appeal. 2 On January 14, 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement, Singh pleaded no contest to count 1. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morangreen1 sentence2022(See People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 408, fn. 8 ; see also People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 645 .) 3 We do not state the facts regarding Singh’s offense because they are not relevant to the issues raised in this appeal. 2 On January 14, 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement, Singh pleaded no contest to count 1. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carr v. Kamins
green
2 sentences2021The trial court dropped Singh’s motion from its calendar due to the lack of notice. 7 DISCUSSION I Singh argues the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because Rios did not properly serve the summons and complaint; therefore, all orders by the trial court are void. “ ‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.] . . . [A] default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’ ” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 (Ellard); acc 2021The trial court dropped Singh’s motion from its calendar due to the lack of notice. 7 DISCUSSION I Singh argues the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because Rios did not properly serve the summons and complaint; therefore, all orders by the trial court are void. “ ‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.] . . . [A] default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’ ” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 (Ellard); acc | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. West
green
1 sentence2023At sentencing on January 25, 2023, the trial court denied probation and sentenced Singh to four years, four months as follows: on count 1, the lower term of 16 months with 1 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). 2 People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 . 2. a consecutive three years for the great bodily injury enhancement; on count 2, the lower term of 16 months with a consecutive three years for the great bodily injury enhancement, stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654; and on count 3, the middle term of two years, to run concurrent. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2023At sentencing on January 25, 2023, the trial court denied probation and sentenced Singh to four years, four months as follows: on count 1, the lower term of 16 months with 1 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). 2 People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 . 2. a consecutive three years for the great bodily injury enhancement; on count 2, the lower term of 16 months with a consecutive three years for the great bodily injury enhancement, stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654; and on count 3, the middle term of two years, to run concurrent. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence2021Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 698 , also relied on by Singh, is distinguishable. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Woodman Investment Group
green
1 sentence2013In its minute order the court expressly noted that this court had held “the trial court may order a rehearing pursuant to CCP 4 section 1287.” On March 1, 2012, after receiving opposition and reply memoranda and hearing argument, the court granted in part and denied in part Singh’s motion for fees and costs. 5 The court awarded Singh $27,000 in attorney fees as the prevailing party in the post- arbitration petition proceedings in the superior court, citing this court’s decision in Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Woodman Investment Group (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 508 (Ma | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.