Mendoza v. Lane
This is the third time appellant has brought an appeal arising from his malpractice claims against his former physicians. As with his first two appeals, appellant's third appeal is without merit.
The litigation underlying these appeals began six years ago when appellant sued defendants, alleging medical malpractice and other claims. Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment, and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. Appellant then moved to vacate the judgment, claiming the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because it did not comply with the summary judgment statute and there was extrinsic fraud. The trial court denied the motion, and court affirmed this order in a second unpublished opinion.
Appellant then brought a second motion to vacate the judgment, again claiming the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because it did not comply with the summary judgment statute (although on a different ground) and there was extrinsic fraud. The trial court denied this motion. Appellant now appeals from this denial. Court affirmed.
Comments on Mendoza v. Lane