 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Temkin v. Kaplan2/5/2002
aplan is precluded from seeking punitive and personal injury damages because her statement of damages (separate from the cross-complaint) was not filed with the court. Temkin does not deny that the statement of damages was served on him along with the cross-complaint, as evidenced by the proof of service in the record. Due process was satisfied when Temkin was served with the statement of damages. (Parish v. Peters (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 202, 210.) No authority cited by Temkin states otherwise.
III.
After entry of judgment, the trial court issued an order assigning the proceeds of certain other actions then pending to Kaplan until the judgment in this action was satisfied. The court also enjoined Temkin from encumbering, assigning, disposing of, or redirecting in any way the proceeds from those actions. Because this order was issued to satisfy a judgment which will now be vacated, it too must be vacated. We need not discuss Temkin's contention that the assignment should be subordinated to other liens on the same proceeds.
Disposition
The denial of the motion to vacate and set aside the default and judgment is reversed, and the trial court is directed to enter a new and different order setting aside the default on the cross-complaint and vacating the judgment on both the complaint and the cross-complaint. The assignment order dated September 18, 2000 is vacated. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
We concur:
VOGEL (C.S.), P.J.
CURRY, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|