Neihaus v. Superior Court

7 Citing cases

  1. Roy v. Superior Court

    127 Cal.App.4th 337 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that defendants do not waive jurisdictional arguments by concurrently filing a demurrer with motion to quash

    The answer remains solely the vehicle by which a defendant may assert defenses to the action, not to jurisdiction. (See Neihaus v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 340, 345 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 905].) We recognize that the statutory language is not as clear as it might be, but we consider our construction compelled by long precedent and common sense.

  2. People v. Green

    125 Cal.App.4th 360 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 22 times
    In Green, for example, prosecutors never obtained a preliminary injunction while a criminal case was pending, believing that an executed search warrant was sufficient to secure the assets at issue.

    It did not need to have, in addition, in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction over the property. ( Neihaus v. Superior Court (1997) 69 Cal.App.3d 340, 345-346 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 905].) Because the People never filed a petition pursuant to section 186.11, however, it lacked jurisdiction, in the sense of authority, to order the property levied on, sold, and distributed as restitution.

  3. Baker v. Boxx

    226 Cal.App.3d 1303 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 11 times
    Holding trial court's mandatory dismissal for plaintiff's delay in prosecution pursuant to section 583.250 was erroneous but discretionary dismissal for delay pursuant to section 583.410 was proper

    (Cf. Neihaus v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 340, 346 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 905] ["the question of whether or not an attorney is authorized to appear is a question of fact to be tried by a fact-finder, not by an appellate court. . . ."].) Accordingly, we shall reverse the order granting the motion to quash without prejudice to further proceedings in this regard.

  4. Guedalia v. Superior Court

    211 Cal.App.3d 1156 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 28 times

    The court in McCorkle v. City Of Los Angeles (1969) 70 Cal.2d 252 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 389, 449 P.2d 453] concluded that this statute (despite its permissive language) rendered mandamus the exclusive remedy for a party who wished to assert his jurisdictional objection while nevertheless preserving his right to defend on the merits if his challenge was unsuccessful. See also Neihaus v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 340 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 905] [filing of answer without following statutory procedure for pursuing immediate writ petition waived jurisdictional challenge]. The statutory schemes are parallel: Both deal with issues of personal jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes; both provide that challenges not promptly interposed are waived; and both provide statutory mechanisms for immediate appellate review of challenges.

  5. Kriebel v. City Council

    112 Cal.App.3d 693 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 17 times
    In Kriebel, the owners of property next to a proposed subdivision development sought a writ of mandate to set aside approval of the project by the city council, which the trial court denied, and a timely appeal was filed but the developer began work on the project and then moved to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds of mootness.

    The general appearance waives irregularities in the service of process. ( Terzich v. Medak (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 636, 639 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 323]; Neihaus v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 340 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 905].) (1c) Here, respondents answered and by affirmative defense raised the issue of jurisdiction.

  6. Terzich v. Medak

    78 Cal.App.3d 636 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 6 times

    (1) Such an appearance is general; it confers jurisdiction on the court where none existed before; and it waives irregularities in the service of process. ( McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 70 Cal.2d 252, 257-258 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 389, 449 P.2d 453]; Neihaus v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 340, 345-346 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 905]; see 1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) pp. 646-647, 651-652, 656, 657-659, 662.) As pointed out in these authorities, the court acquires jurisdiction even though the appearance was preceded by the making and denial of a motion to quash and even though it was accompanied by an attempt to disclaim submission to jurisdiction.

  7. Girard v. Hilton International Company

    2d Civil No. B162979 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2003)

    Appellants and HIC are amendable to jurisdiction in both California and South Korea. California is a suitable forum because HIC consented to Californias jurisdiction when it answered the complaint, and thus made a general appearance. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 1014; Neihaus v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 340, 345.) South Korea is also suitable because HIC has agreed to submit to jurisdiction there.