Paul blanco norco9/4/2023 ![]() ![]() In addition, we reiterate that a judge of the superior court generally may not overturn the order of another judge unless the record shows the other judge is unavailable. We also take the opportunity to clarify for trial courts that an order to show cause, unlike an alternative writ, does not invite the trial court to change the order challenged by the writ petition. Given the statutory language, we conclude that the Entity Defendants may file a general denial. The question is whether an unverified complaint filed by the People is deemed verified, such that a general denial is insufficient. The second issue relates to section 431.30, subdivision (d), which requires a defendant to answer each material allegation of a verified complaint with specific admissions or denials, but allows a defendant to file a general denial if the complaint is not verified. Given the plain meaning of the statutory language, we conclude that the exception applies to corporations. to a criminal prosecution” but cannot invoke the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1 The question is whether this exception to the verification requirement applies to a corporation, who can be “subject. The first issue pertains to Code of Civil Procedure section 446, subdivision (a), which provides that an answer to a civil complaint filed by certain government entities must be verified “unless an admission of the truth of the complaint might subject the party to a criminal prosecution.”1 1 All statutory references herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure. In granting their request for a peremptory writ, we decide two issues of first impression. Petitioners are several corporations (Entity Defendants) who seek writ relief from a trial court order striking their unverified answer to the civil complaint of the People of the State of California (People). RG19036081) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. The court also noted that an order to show cause, unlike an alternative writ, does not invite the trial court to change the challenged order and that superior court judges generally may not overturn the order of another judge unless the other judge is unavailable.įiled 10/20/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE PAUL BLANCO’S GOOD CAR COMPANY AUTO GROUP et al., A159623 Petitioners, v. There is no reason for deeming the state’s complaint verified. The court of appeal agreed that the exception applies to corporations and that the defendants could file a general denial under section 431.30(d), which requires a defendant to answer each material allegation of a verified complaint with specific admissions or denials, but allows a defendant to file a general denial if the complaint is not verified. After a hearing, a new judge vacated the previous order. In response to a “show cause order” following the defendants’ petition for extraordinary writ relief, the court issued an order noting that the case had been reassigned. The court concluded that section 446(a)'s exception to the verification requirement was coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a corporation may not invoke that privilege. ![]() The judge struck the answer as to the entities because they failed to verify the answer as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 446 and asserted only a general denial in contravention of section 431.30(d). ![]() The defendants filed an unverified “Answer” with a general denial of the complaint’s allegations and affirmative defenses. The state filed an unverified complaint against the entities and one of their principals, asserting unfair practices and false advertising. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |