History
  • No items yet
midpage
Shoemake v. Carey
199 Cal. App. 2d 796
Cal. Ct. App.
1962
Check Treatment
STONE, J.

This is a motion to dismiss appeal as to Dompe Supply Company pursuant to rule 41(c), Rules on Appeal. Appellants Dick Carey and F. H. Woodruff and Son, Inc., stated in their opening brief on appeal: “Dompe Supply Company had judgment against Shoemake and Gnesa, and there is no appeal from that judgment.” Upon receipt of the brief containing the foregoing statement, counsel for Dompe Supply attempted to secure a stipulation for dismissal as to it. Being unsuccessful, counsel for Dompe Supply filed this motion to dismiss pursuant to 41(c).

Rule 41(c) of Rules on Appeal provides:

“ [Failure to oppose motion] Failure of an appellant to appear and oppose a motion to dismiss an appeal after due service of notice of motion, or to file a written opposition to the motion, may be deemed an abandonment of the appeal authorizing its dismissal. Failure of the adverse party to serve and file written opposition to any other motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of such motion.”

The motion to dismiss was duly noticed, no opposition was filed, and no appearance was made at the time the motion was heard. Therefore the appeal as to Dompe Supply Company must be dismissed pursuant to rule 41(c) Rules on Appeal. (Adoption of Baby Williams, 106 Cal.App.2d 34 [234 P.2d 240].)

The motion to dismiss appeal as to Dompe Supply Company is granted.

Conley, P. J., concurred.

Brown, J., deeming himself disqualified, did not participate.

Case Details

Case Name: Shoemake v. Carey
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Feb 1, 1962
Citation: 199 Cal. App. 2d 796
Docket Number: Civ. No. 86
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.