COHEN v. COHEN (1951)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

COHEN v. COHEN.

Civ. 18324.

Decided: April 05, 1951

Jones & Wiener, Norman Soibelman and Irvin G. Freeman, Los Angeles, for appellant. Paul Gordon, Los Angeles, for respondent.

This is a second motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeal taken in this case. On the first motion we declined to dismiss the appeal because the grounds therein set forth were inadequate to warrant the dismissal. Cal.App., 228 P.2d 54. The motion now before us sets forth a new and distinct ground which was known by the respondent and available to him at the time he filed his first motion. Respondent offers no excuse for not presenting in the first motion the ground he now relies upon in his present motion. We do not view with favor this piecemeal method employed by respondent which has unnecessarily required an additional hearing and an additional opinion. That such a procedure is not to be tolerated is indicated by a host of cases, see 42 C.J. 521, 60 C.J.S., Motions and Orders, § 45.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

HANSON, Justice pro tem.

DORAN, Acting P. J., and DRAPEAU, J., concur.

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Out of date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