"PG&E takes the position that it could infer Romero was properly joined from the fact that he was named a defendant pursuant to section 382. We disagree. No inference of proper service necessarily can be drawn from the mere fact that a party is named as a defendant, and service could not have been alleged in the complaint because it would have occurred subsequent to the filing of the complaint."
Acting Presiding Justice Cole Blease
Romero v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Oct. 18, 2007, C053700)
p. 10
About Me
- Pamela Fasick
- I am a member of the California bar who provides research and writing services to other attorneys on a contract basis. The vast majority of my work has been in civil litigation. As a result I'm interested in new developments in a broad range of subject areas and, of course, any changes in civil procedure.
Subscribe Now:
