From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dan Clark Family Limited Partnership v. Miramontes

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division One
Mar 3, 2011
193 Cal.App.4th 219 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding a commerce clause violation in applying Code of Civil Procedure section 351 to a nonresident defendant where "it would force a nonresident defendant to choose between remaining in the state for several years, or returning to his or her place of residence"

Summary of this case from Brandeen v. State, Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

No. D056064.

March 3, 2011.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Imperial County, No. ECU03788, Jeffrey Bruce Jones, Judge.

Law Office of Andrew B. Kaplan, Andrew B. Kaplan and William Tucker for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Horton, Knox, Carter Foote, Margarita McKee Haugaard and Melissa Blackburn for Defendants and Respondents.

OPINION

Summaries of

Dan Clark Family Limited Partnership v. Miramontes

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division One
Mar 3, 2011
193 Cal.App.4th 219 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)

finding a commerce clause violation in applying Code of Civil Procedure section 351 to a nonresident defendant where "it would force a nonresident defendant to choose between remaining in the state for several years, or returning to his or her place of residence"

Summary of this case from Brandeen v. State, Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

concluding the Commerce Clause precluded application of section 351 to nonresident defendants who resided in Mexico

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Hays

In Dan Clark Family Limited Partnership v. Miramontes, 193 Cal. App. 4th 219, 227-31 (2011), the court of appeal reviewed the authorities following Bendix that considered whether application of section 351 violates the Commerce Clause.

Summary of this case from Galvani v. Galvani

In Dan Clark, the plaintiff asserted section 351 to toll the applicable three-year statute of limitations against the defendants who allegedly traveled between California and Mexico for personal reasons and allegedly did not engage in interstate commerce from the time of the alleged conversion until the plaintiff filed suit.

Summary of this case from Galvani v. Galvani

examining whether underlying transaction sought to be tolled was an "interstate commercial transaction"

Summary of this case from Arrow Highway Steel, Inc. v. Dubin
Case details for

Dan Clark Family Limited Partnership v. Miramontes

Case Details

Full title:DAN CLARK FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JULIETA…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division One

Date published: Mar 3, 2011

Citations

193 Cal.App.4th 219 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)
122 Cal. Rptr. 517

Citing Cases

Arrow Highway Steel, Inc. v. Dubin

( Bendix , supra , 486 U.S. at p. 893, 108 S.Ct. 2218.) Most of the cases examining section 351 have looked…

Newell v. Abouelmagd

The trial court sustained the demurrer, but this time without leave to amend. Citing Dan Clark Family Limited…

12 Citing Cases