Artucovich v. Arizmendiz

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBISHOP; FILES, P.J., and JEFFERSON
Citation256 Cal.App.2d 130,63 Cal.Rptr. 810
PartiesJuan ARTUCOVICH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Michael ARIZMENDIZ and Cecilia Arizmendiz, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 31482.
Decision Date20 November 1967

Page 810

63 Cal.Rptr. 810
256 Cal.App.2d 130
Juan ARTUCOVICH, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Michael ARIZMENDIZ and Cecilia Arizmendiz, Defendants and Respondents.
Civ. 31482.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.
Nov. 20, 1967.

[256 Cal.App.2d 131] Hall, Moore & Olson and Joseph E. Hall, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Clausen, Gilliland & Fernandes and Charles E. Finney, Placerville, for defendants and respondents.

BISHOP, Associate Justice. *

We are interpreting plaintiff's Notice of Appeal as effecting an appeal from the Summary Judgment filed and entered November 23, 1965, after the trial court had made an order granting defendant Michael Arizmendiz' motion for such a judgment. The notice of appeal, addressed to defendant 'Michael Arizmendiz, et al., and to Clausen & Gilliland, his attorneys,' bids them take notice that he 'hereby intends to appeal from Order of Summary Judgment * * *.' Had he appealed from the order And from the judgment, we would doubtless dismiss the appeal from the order on the authority of Integral Land Corporation v. Anderson (1944) 62 Cal.App.2d 770, 145 P.2d 364; Chilson[256 Cal.App.2d 132] v. P.G. Industries (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 613, 616, 344 P.2d 868, 870; Sinks v. Merrill (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 200, 205, 35 Cal.Rptr. 113, 116; and Saunders v. New Capital for Small Businesses Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 324, 326, 41 Cal.Rptr. 703, 705.

Page 811

But, although technically, the order is not appealable in those cases where the appeal is only from the order but where there is a judgment to which it may be applied, that course is followed and the appeal is honored as one taken from the judgment (in obedience to Rule 1 of Rules on Appeal, admonishing that 'A notice of appeal shall be liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency.' (Helfer v. Hubert (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 22, 24--25, 24 Cal.Rptr. 900, 901.)

Turning now, not to but toward, the merits of the appeal, we note that the present action is one by Juan Artucovich to recover damages in the sum of $20,000.00 because of injuries arising out of a collision between the vehicle in which the plaintiff was an occupant and one owned by defendant Michael Arizmendiz which was being driven negligently under conditions that imposed liability for the accident on him. In his answer, Michael, as we shall identify the defendant-appellant, admitted that at the time of the accident his vehicle was being operated by Cecilia Arizmendiz (to be referred to as Cecilia). By way of a second and separate defense, Michael alleged that Cecilia had brought an action, naming our present plaintiff as a defendant, to recover damages for the injuries she had sustained in the collision upon which this suit was brought. Further, with respect to Cecilia's suit, Michael alleged in his answer that our plaintiff, there a defendant, neither counterclaimed nor filed a cross-complaint, but obtained a dismissal of the action, with prejudice, 'in exchange for a valuable consideration moving from' our plaintiff to Cecilia.

We interrupt our progress to our discussion of the merits of this appeal to state that the pleading, just reviewed, alleged the two facts that ultimately stand between the plaintiff and success: (1) his failure to avail himself of the opportunity his position as defendant in the action brought by Cecilia, gave...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Saltares v. Kristovich
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 1970
    ...§ 452, subd. (d); Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 487, 15 Page 870 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263; Artucovich v. Arizmendiz (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 130, 133--134, 63 Cal.Rptr. 810). These matters are likewise to be judicially noticed by a reviewing court. (Evid.Code, § 459, subd. In drafti......
  • Hooks v. Southern Cal. Permanente Medical Group
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1980
    ...order is not appealable. (Crookham v. Smith (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 773, 775, fn. 1, 137 Cal.Rptr. 428; Artucovich v. Arizmendiz (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 130, 132, 63 Cal.Rptr. 810; see Johnson v. Hydraulic Research & Mfg. Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 675, 685, 139 Cal.Rptr. 136.) However, because th......
  • Ahmanson Bank & Trust Co. v. Tepper
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 1969
    ...41 Cal.Rptr. 703; Integral Land Corp. v. Anderson (1944) 62 Cal.App.2d 770, 771, 145 P.2d 364; and cf. Artucovich v. Arizmendiz (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 130, 131--132, 63 Cal.Rptr. Issue on Appeal The respective claims to the fund, which Gottlieb and Tepper assert, are both equitable in charac......
  • Wolfrich Corp. v. United Services Automobile Assn.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 1983
    ...the appeal was noticed, we may apply the appeal to those judgments and treat it as if timely filed. (Artucovich v. Arizmendiz (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 130, 132, 63 Cal.Rptr. 3 The attorneys contend plaintiffs first raise the conspiracy issue on appeal and we are barred from considering this is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Saltares v. Kristovich
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 1970
    ...§ 452, subd. (d); Flores v. Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492, 487, 15 Page 870 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263; Artucovich v. Arizmendiz (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 130, 133--134, 63 Cal.Rptr. 810). These matters are likewise to be judicially noticed by a reviewing court. (Evid.Code, § 459, subd. In drafti......
  • Hooks v. Southern Cal. Permanente Medical Group
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1980
    ...order is not appealable. (Crookham v. Smith (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 773, 775, fn. 1, 137 Cal.Rptr. 428; Artucovich v. Arizmendiz (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 130, 132, 63 Cal.Rptr. 810; see Johnson v. Hydraulic Research & Mfg. Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 675, 685, 139 Cal.Rptr. 136.) However, because th......
  • Ahmanson Bank & Trust Co. v. Tepper
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 1969
    ...41 Cal.Rptr. 703; Integral Land Corp. v. Anderson (1944) 62 Cal.App.2d 770, 771, 145 P.2d 364; and cf. Artucovich v. Arizmendiz (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 130, 131--132, 63 Cal.Rptr. Issue on Appeal The respective claims to the fund, which Gottlieb and Tepper assert, are both equitable in charac......
  • Wolfrich Corp. v. United Services Automobile Assn.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 1983
    ...the appeal was noticed, we may apply the appeal to those judgments and treat it as if timely filed. (Artucovich v. Arizmendiz (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 130, 132, 63 Cal.Rptr. 3 The attorneys contend plaintiffs first raise the conspiracy issue on appeal and we are barred from considering this is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT