VITRANO v. WESTGATE SEA PRODUCTS CO (1939)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

VITRANO et al. v. WESTGATE SEA PRODUCTS CO. et al.

Civ. 2085

Decided: June 14, 1939

A.T. Procopio, of San Diego, for appellants. Wright, Monroe, Harden & Thomas, of San Diego, for respondent.

The respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that no brief was filed by the appellants within the time provided for in the rules governing this court and that there was an unreasonable delay in this respect. After notice of the motion was filed but prior to the time set for making the motion, an opening brief was filed on behalf of the appellants. Similar circumstances have been held sufficient to justify the denial of such a motion. Toth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 113 Cal.App. 55, 297 P. 564; Graybiel v. Consolidated Ass'ns, Ltd., 14 Cal.App.2d 547, 58 P.2d 665; Hall v. Wolford, 22 Cal.App.2d 537, 71 P.2d 596. While the delay here was longer than that in the cases cited we are inclined to apply the same rule in view of certain circumstances which here appear.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

BARNARD, Presiding Justice.

I concur: MARKS, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network