Driscoll v. CM Richard Ellis
Filed 1/21/10 Driscoll v. CM Richard Ellis CA4/1
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIAM DRISCOLL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CB RICHARD ELLIS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. | D052929 (Super. Ct. No. GIC874160) NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT |
THE COURT:
The opinion filed December 21, 2009, is modified as follows:
Discussion I, A, footnote 5, last three lines (slip opn., p. 15): after "motion," delete "as the evidence must be substantial to defeat the motion" and replace with "because in discrimination cases 'evidence of " 'pretense' must be 'specific' and 'substantial' in order to create a triable issue with respect to whether the employer intended to discriminate" on an improper basis. [Citations.]' "
Discussion I, A, footnote 5, last line (slip opn., p. 15): after "69" insert ", fn. omitted; but see also Kids' Universe v. In2Labs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 870, 880-881 [declining to apply 'more likely' standard in negligence action]"
At Discussion III, first sentence (slip opn. p. 34): delete "Driscoll concedes that" and begin sentence with a capitalized "w" in "Workers' "
At Discussion III, middle of paragraph (slip opn., p. 35): delete "He also concedes his" and replace with "The record discloses Driscoll's"
The petition for rehearing is denied.
There is no change in the judgment.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
Copies to: All parties
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
