Veterinary Management Services v. Imaging Services
Filed 9/7/06 Veterinary Management Services v. Imaging Services CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| VETERINARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IMAGING SERVICES, INC., etc., Defendant and Appellant. | B180233 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS 091681) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Mary Ann Murphy, Judge. Affirmed.
Stern & Goldberg, Alan N. Goldberg and Kien C. Tiet; Richard Daily for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Law Offices of Richard D. Farkas and Richard D. Farkas for Defendant and Appellant.
_________________________
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Imaging Services, Inc.[1] appeals from the order of the trial court denying its motion to vacate entry in California of a sister state judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.40)[2] obtained by plaintiff Veterinary Management Services, Inc. in Colorado. We affirm the order.[3]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The Colorado proceedings.
Plaintiff sued defendant in Arapahoe County Colorado District Court seeking damages for defendant's breach of contract to lease a mobile x-ray
imaging machine, and breach of express and implied warranties and warranty for fitness for intended use, and fraud and misrepresentation in the inducement of contract. Plaintiff also sought recission, restitution, and attorney fees.
After being served, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a â€
