Tri-State Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
Decision Date | 30 January 1964 |
Docket Number | TRI-STATE |
Citation | 224 Cal.App.2d 442,36 Cal.Rptr. 750 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, SIERRA FIREWORKS COMPANY, a corporation, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 27822. |
Blase A. Bonpane, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Los Angeles, for real party in interest.
Tri-State Manufacturing Company, an Ohio corporation, petitions for a writ of mandate requiring the Superior Court to annul its order for service of summons upon it by substituted service and to quash service made by delivering process to the Secretary of State. The summons was issued upon the cross-complaint of Sierra Fireworks Company, defendant in an action brought against it by Ronald Parsons.
The substituted service was attempted to be made upon Tri-State as a foreign corporation doing business in California pursuant to Section 411, Subdivision 2, Code of Civil Procedure and Section 6501 of the Corporations Code. The latter section authorizes service by delivery of process to the Secretary of State when it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court or judge that the corporation sought to be served is doing business in the state and that service cannot be made by personal delivery of process to a person authorized to be served as stated in Section 6500. Having filed a cross-complaint against Tri-State, Sierra, in applying for an order for substituted service, filed a document containing introductory statements as follows:
With respect to the matters necessary to be shown in order to obtain an order for substituted service, the statements of fact are prefaced by such as the following: 'From the file it appears,'--'The following facts are offered from the file,'--'It further appears from the file,'--'The file further reflects' etc. Presumably, the references are to the file in the office of the attorneys, although this is not so stated. Although the document was subscribed by Mr. Baker, it bears no jurat and no prepared form of jurat to be executed by an officer authorized to administer oaths. The statement contains no certificate or declaration under penalty of perjury as authorized by Section 2015.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Tri-State appeared specially and made a motion for an order vacating the order for substituted service and quashing the purported service consisting of delivery of process to the Secretary of State. The ground of the motion was that there was an insufficient showing on behalf of Sierra to support an order for the substituted service. The motion was based upon an affidavit of Arthur Rozzi and all the papers and documents on file and upon evidence to be introduced upon the hearing. Affidavits were filed on behalf of the parties relating to the question whether Tri-State...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yamada Brothers v. Agricultural Labor Relationship Bd.
...v. Journeymen Barbers etc. Union (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 499, 503, 199 P.2d 400, 403; see also, Tri-State Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 442, 445, 36 Cal.Rptr. 750; Baron v. Mare (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 304, 120 Cal.Rptr. 675; Jeffers v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc. (1955) 134 Cal.......
-
Nagel v. P & M Distributors, Inc.
...authorized by statute. (Eagle Electric Mfg. Co. v. Keener, 247 Cal.App.2d 246, 251, 55 Cal.Rptr. 444; Tri-State Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court, 224 Cal.App.2d 442, 444, 36 Cal.Rptr. 750.) According to plaintiff's second Declaration of Service Ljungberg was served, not as an officer of P & M Dis......
-
Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye
...service upon a foreign corporation may be made only in the manner and form authorized by statute." Tri-State Mfg. Co. v. Super. Crt. for Los Angeles Cty., 224 Cal. App. 2d 442, 444 (1964). "An indispensable requisite is an affidavit showing that the corporation sought to be served is subjec......
-
Cannon v. American Hydrocarbon Corp.
...Inc., 273 Cal.App.2d ---, ---, 78 Cal.Rptr. 65 *; Eagle Electric Mfg. Co. v. Keener, 247 Cal.App.2d 246, 251; Tri-State Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court, 224 Cal.App.2d 442, 444.) An entirely new section 6408 of the Corporations Code was enacted in 1963 and is in its present form (set forth in pe......