Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015)

Citation
Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015)
Parent Document
Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2015-11-23

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text

642 chars
3
jurisdictional defects without making a general appearance.” (Borsuk v. Superior
Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4.) The court therefore directed the trial
court to vacate its order denying Borsuk’s motion to quash and to hold further
proceedings. (Ibid.) One member of the panel, Judge Kumar, authored a
concurring opinion in which he agreed that Delta controlled the result, but
suggested that the decision should be revisited. (Id. at pp. Supp. 5-10 (conc. opn.
of Kumar, J.).) We ordered the matter transferred to this court pursuant to
California Rules of Court, rules 8.887 and 8.1008. As we explain, we agree with
Judge Kumar.