Eure v. Amster
Filed 8/30/06 Eure v. Amster CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| KRIS EURE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STEVE AMSTER, Defendant and Appellant. | E039070 (Super.Ct.No. RIC365916) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Annette M. Yettke, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Ezer, Williamson & Brown, LLP and Mitchel J. Ezer, for Defendant and Appellant Steve Amster.
Law Offices of Kenneth Lance Haddix and Kenneth Lance Haddix, for Plaintiff and Appellant, Kris Eure.
INTRODUCTION
On June 1, 2005, the trial court granted plaintiff Kris Eure's motion for a new trial. Defendant Steve Amster appeals from a portion of the trial court's subsequent order which was entered on July 28, 2005. Specifically, he appeals a determination that service in the action was impossible, impracticable or futile from and after October 2, 2002. (Code Civ. Proc.,[1] § 583.240.)
Plaintiff Eure cross-appeals from the trial court's order of February 28, 2005. That order granted defendant Amster's motion to dismiss the present action as to Amster.[2]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 22, 2001, Kris Eure (plaintiff) filed a complaint for wrongful foreclosure and seven related causes of action against a number of defendants, including â€
