California Court of Appeal

In plaintiff's suit claiming fraud and related theories against various defendants for their roles in alleged securities fraud activities in the 1990's that allegedly ruined plaintiff's career by drawing him into the schemes in the role of a salesman of worthless bonds to private clients, trial court's orders vacating certain judgments of dismissal is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court's order granting plaintiff's motion to set aside judgments and orders of dismissal and to file a second amended complaint is reversed, as because the dismissal orders were not void on their face, this was not a proper method of collateral attack on them, nor an appropriate exercise of trial court's equitable powers; 2) trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion as to the change in the factual predicate for the dismissals that occurred in October 2008, when the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion restricting the proper scope of the Bar orders, did not undermine or void the otherwise proper dismissals, and this change does not justify the current orders granting plaintiff relief from the judgments; and 3) plaintiff's arguments in his cross-appeal must fail as he cannot show that the trial court erroneously failed to grant his motion as to the Clarey defendants, who were previously dismissed at both the trial and appellate levels.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/22/2010
• Published 12/22/2010

Judges

• HUFFMAN

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Keith R. Heitz, Robert Scott Dreher