Ratings. Guidance. The Right Lawyer.
What is the law that has to do with only a named defendant(s) or its representative(s) can answer a summons.
San Diego, CA
Viewed 12 times.
Posted 30 days ago in Litigation
Flag as objectionable
It seems logical that only a named defendant(s) (or its representative) in a case can/should answer the summons or complaint, within the required time limits.
However, I can't find the law that states this. In my case, at the last hour (3 days before the deadline), a future interested party answers the summons without representing either defendants (2), without mentioning either defendants in the main body of its answer, and stated it will apply to the Court to become an interested party down the road. To me an interested party (let alone a future interested party) is not a defendant, and can't answer the summons. I asked for a default judgment because neither Defendant that I named in my complaint answered the summons within the time limits of the summons. Answers (2)
Pamela Koslyn
This attorney is licensed in California.
Posted 30 days ago.
Flag as objectionable
Without seeing anyof these pleadings, I'm just guessing that the party who answered thinks that they're an intervenor or an indispensable party required to be joined in the suit. See C.C.P. sections 387, 389.
Litigation is very complicated, even for experienced lawyers. Hire one. This won't get any easier, and you've just started, and you might have already made some mistakes. Disclaimer: Please note that this answer does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied on, since each state has different laws, each situation is fact specific, and it is impossible to evaluate a legal problem without a comprehensive consultation and review of all the facts and documents at issue. This answer does not create an attorney-client relationship. litegaard
Posted 30 days ago.
Flag as objectionable
Thankyou Pamela
CCP 387-388 Upon timely application, (not in the form of an answer) any person (company?) who has an interest in the matter in litigation may intervene in the action or proceeding. An intervention takes place when a third person (party?) is permitted to become a party to an action or proceeding between other persons, either by joining the Plaintiff or by UNITING with the defendant (not by itself) in resisting the claims of the plaintiff, and is made BY COMPLAINT, (not an answer to summons) setting forth the grounds upon which the intervention rests. Note, the parenthesis are my thoughts or clarifications. A couple of thoughts: How does a non-defendant even know about the summons or complaint to file an answer, unless notified by a named defendant. You can't transfer your defendantship and become a non-party, life isn't that easy. There sure isn't any laws allowing a non-defendant or representative to substitute their answer for the named party or defandant. What if a defendant actually meant to default the case by not filing an answer, thinking no chance for a win or satisfaction, not worth the effort. Now a non-party, non-defendant files a pathetic answer and then the real named defendants have to still be involved, stating their case, or what happened to them in the action, when they didn't want to do so. No, the only reality is that a named party or defendant must file an answer within the time frame, or lose their right to do so, and subject to default. If a Defendant even filed an answer citing CCCP 430.10(d) "defect or misjoinder of parties" and stating that they had nothing to do with the case anymore, because of such and such, that would be a sufficient answer for me, and allowing that other non-party company to enter the case through motion and hearing, presenting their case through evidence and asking the court to allow it. But only after the answer by the defendant. No answer, no case, Plaintiff wins. |
