Week of October 15, 2007

"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