Court Opinion

ID: 9538754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:41:12.289849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:08.295716
License: Public Domain

VALLÉE, J.
I concur. I do so only because the Supreme Court says that literal compliance with the statute is sufficient. In my opinion, the rule stated in Irving v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App. 361 [249 P. 236], should be followed. The statute, as written, permits a proceeding brought for the sole purpose of annoying, harassing or embarrassing another, or for some ulterior object. It permits one who does not have a cause of action to indulge in a meddlesome fishing expedition. That I think is this case. It should not be permitted. But the remedy lies in the field of legislation, and not in the creation of exceptions or qualifications under the guise of interpretation of the statute.
Shinn, P. J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied January 27, 1953, and petitioners’ application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 26, 1953. Schauer, J., and Spence, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.