 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rochin v. Johnson11/19/1998
As modified December 9, 1998. There is no change in the judgment. Petition for rehearing denied.
JOE ROCHIN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
PAT JOHNSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS.
Law Offices of William K. Pratt, and Girardi and Keese, and John A. Girardi for Plaintiff and Appellant. Donahoe, Carroll & Dunn Llp, Douglas G. Carroll, and Barbara E. Dunn for Defendants and Respondents.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
(Super. Ct. No. BC162313)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dzintra Janavs, Judge. Reversed.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and appellant Joe Rochin appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend. The present action is one for equitable relief by which plaintiff seeks to vacate an amended judgment entered in a prior action for personal injury brought by plaintiff against defendant and respondent Pat Johnson Manufacturing Company ("PJMC"). Also named as a defendant in the present action is respondent George Ellis, who was trial counsel for PJMC in the prior action.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the amended judgment should be vacated and declared void for lack of jurisdiction, and the original judgment should be reinstated. Plaintiff argues that the amended judgment was entered on an ex parte basis without notice to plaintiff, as a result of extrinsic fraud, thus depriving him of due process and rendering the amended judgment void.
Defendants contend that even if the amended judgment was entered in an irregular manner, the present action to set it aside is barred by the statute of limitations governing actions based on fraud, and also by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court agreed and sustained defendants' demurrer without leave to amend on these bases.
As we will discuss, we find that the amended judgment was and is void, as is the order denying plaintiff's subsequent motion to vacate the amended judgment, and that a void judgment or order may properly be attacked at any time, directly or collaterally. We also conclude that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to void judgments or orders. We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrer and dismissing the present action, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of dismissal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
At the outset, we note that pursuant to plaintiff's request, we take judicial notice of the files in the previous related appeal (B074091), and plaintiff's prior petition for writ of mandate (B103863).
Plaintiff filed suit against defendant PJMC for personal injuries he suffered when he fell from a ladder manufactured by defendant. On December 14, 1992, a jury found by special verdict that defendant was negligent and that plaintiff's damages were $800,000. However, they found plaintiff to be contributorily negligent. Question No. 7 on the special verdict form and the jury's response were as follows:
"[If there was contributory negligence], what was the percentage of
the total amount of the damages attributed to each of the following:
To the Plaintiff: 25%
To Pat Johnson Manufacturing Company: 25%
To others: 50%
Total: 100%"
The court's minute order of December 14, 1992, after setting forth the questions and answers on the special verdict form, and the results of polling the jury, then stated: "The Court and bo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|