Smith v. Walter E. Heller & Co.
Citation | 82 Cal.App.3d 259,147 Cal.Rptr. 1 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Decision Date | 13 June 1978 |
Parties | C. R. E. SMITH, as Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WALTER E. HELLER & COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 40797. |
Atchison, Haile & Haight, Santa Cruz, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Orr, Wendel & Lawlor, Oakland, Walker, Schroeder, Davis & Brehmer, Monterey, for defendants-respondents.
Plaintiffs United States Overseas Airlines, Inc., Ocean Air Tradeways, Inc., Ocean Air Tradeways, a partnership, Airpower Overhaul, Inc., Canamex Corporation, C & J Aircraft Leasing, a partnership, and the trustees in bankruptcy of some of them, commenced what we shall term the "California action" against the several defendants to whom, for convenience, we shall refer in the singular, as Heller. 1 One Dr. Ralph Cox, who otherwise appears to have played a prominent part in that and related litigation, was not named as a plaintiff.
The California action alleged "willful fraud and deceit" and "conspiracy to defraud." By it, the plaintiffs sought to recover from Heller compensatory damages of $130,000,000, and punitive damages of $250,000,000. It was one of many such actions commenced by Dr. Ralph Cox and the instant plaintiffs, or some of them, or affiliated entities or persons, against Heller in relation to a 1962 loan of $1,700,000 made by Heller to plaintiff United States Overseas Airlines, Inc., upon security or guaranties of the other plaintiffs or most of them, and Dr. Ralph Cox. An abbreviated history of those proceedings may be gleaned from the following excerpts from the opinion of Judge Arnold Bauman in Walter E. Heller & Company, Inc. v. Cox (D.C.N.Y.1974) 379 F.Supp. 299, to which opinion general reference is also made:
(Pp. 302-303.)
"It seems utterly clear that no issues have been raised in the California litigation not previously raised, argued and adjudicated in the previous litigation in this court." (P. 308.)
(P. 309.) (Fns. omitted.)
Contemporaneously with the foregoing opinion Judge Bauman made and entered his injunctive decree as follows:
"Ordered, Adjudged And Decreed, that Ralph Cox, Jr. and Ocean Air Tradeways and their, officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with them to whom notice of such injunction shall come (our emphasis), be and they hereby are permanently enjoined and prohibited from: (1) instituting, maintaining or prosecuting any action or claim, either directly or indirectly, at law or in equity, against Walter E. Heller & Company, Inc. or any of its affiliates, officers, directors, agents, employees or attorneys: (a) arising from or with respect to a certain 1962 loan transaction between Heller and United States Overseas Airlines, Inc., or (b) arising from or with respect to any collection efforts heretofore pursued by Heller in connection with said loan transaction; including, without limitation of (a) and (b), that certain action pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Monterey, entitled C. R. E. Smith, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Airpower Overhaul, Inc., et al. v. Walter E. Heller & Company, Inc., et al. (emphasis in original); and (2) from instituting, maintaining or prosecuting any other litigation similar to the action heretofore adjudicated herein or taking any other further similar or different action designed or intended to deprive Heller of sums and amounts due it under the Final Judgment entered herein on June 5, 1972." 4
The foregoing decree is now final, and no contention is made that it is invalid or ineffective in any way. 5 The only dispute, as will hereafter appear, is whether the plaintiffs of the California action are among those enjoined thereby. Nor is any contention made that the trustees in bankruptcy of some of the plaintiffs stand in a more favorable, or different, position than would those plaintiffs alone.
Heller had appeared in the California action, and upon entry of the federal court's injunctive decree, had communicated with the plaintiffs as follows: (Emphasis added.) The letter went unanswered.
As contended by Heller in the superior court, and here: (Fn. omitted.) It was, and is, also contended that such irregular notice made it impossible for Heller to take steps to prevent the default's entry.
The record further discloses that contemporaneously with plaintiffs' request for entry of Heller's default, plaintiff Ocean Air Tradeways, a partnership, expressly named in the federal injunctive decree as a party, voluntarily withdrew by "dismissing" itself from the action.
Thereafter Heller moved, according to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 581a, respectively, to set aside the default and to dismiss the California action. During the proceedings on the motions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
East Bay Asian Local Development Corp. v. State of California
...itself correct in law, will not be disturbed on appeal merely because given for a wrong reason.' " (Smith v. Walter E. Heller & Co. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 259, 267, 147 Cal.Rptr. 1.) We will uphold a summary judgment if properly granted on any ground, regardless of the trial court's reasoning......
-
People v. Hayes
...of the truth of a matter which has the effect of removing it from the issues,'" as was the case in Smith v. Walter E. Heller & Co. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 259, 147 Cal.Rptr. 1, on which the dissent relies. There the party in pleadings and elsewhere on the record had conceded specific facts tha......
-
Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
... ... ( Parker v. Manchester Hotel Co. (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 446, 458, 85 P.2d 152; Smith v ... 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 885 ... Walter E. Heller & Co. (1978) 82 Cal. App.3d 259, 269, 147 ... ...
-
Roddenberry v. Roddenberry
...Mrs. Roddenberry had no right to income generated by Gene Roddenberry's post-divorce efforts. See, e.g. Smith v. Walter E. Heller & Co. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 259, 269, 147 Cal.Rptr. 1 (judicial admission by attorney is not merely evidence of a fact but rather a conclusive concession of truth......
-
Table of cases
...Cal. Rptr. 195, §22:120 Smith v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 547, 68 Cal. Rptr. 1, §20:20 Smith v. Walter E. Heller & Co. (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 259, 147 Cal. Rptr. 1, §18:40 Smith, People v. (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 1134, 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, §§2:190, 7:70 Smith, People v. (2005) 40 Cal. 4th......
-
Alternative methods of proof
...of the truth of a matter and has the effect of removing that matter from the issues in the trial. Smith v. Walter E. Heller (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 259, 269, 147 Cal. Rptr. 1; Code Civ. Proc. §2033.410(a). Judicial admissions, and admissions made in response to requests for admissions propou......