I had the defendants substitute served. They filed a motion to quash service which was granted, their appearance being a special appearance. I filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motion to quash service. The defendants have opposed the motion for reconsideration. Their opposition states "special appearance." Is the fact that they filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration in fact a "special appearance"? It would follow from the order for the motion to quash service the court still has no jurisdiction over the defendants. Instead, is their opposition to the motion for reconsideration in fact, legally, a general and formal appearance on the matter? If so, then I'd have to point that out in my reply to their opposition. If their response in my case is considered a general appearance what law and case law is there on that point?
In a previous post Mr. Chen suggested that "An opposition would not constitute a special appearance." http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-does-no-opposition-to-a-motion-for-reconsider-747755.html In other words, an opposition would mean that technically they consent to jurisdiction and are in the case now?
No, the opposition to your motion for reconsideration of the granting of the motion to quash service of summons does not constitute a general appearance.
The following documents, if filed with the court, constitute a general appearance which prevents the entry of default against that defendant:
Motion to Strike
Motion to Quash Service of Summons (not a general appearance, but prevents default)
Motion To Dismiss or Stay for Forum Non Conveniens
In contrast, the following documents, if filed with the court, do not constitute a general appearance. As such, the plaintiff may seek file a Request for Entry of Default against that defendant:
Ex Parte Application For Provisional Remedy
Motion to Transfer
Motion to Reclassify
Notice of Related Case
Motion For Summary Judgment
See California Code of Civil Procedure sections 418.10-418.11, 430.10-430.90, 435-437, and 437c.
Frank W. Chen has been licensed to practice law in California since 1988. The information presented here is general in nature and is not intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. This posting does not create any attorney-client relationship with the author. For specific advice about your particular situation, consult your own attorney.
1 found this helpful
1 lawyer agrees