legal news


Register | Forgot Password

EmeraldBay Financial v. Stojsavljevic

EmeraldBay Financial v. Stojsavljevic
08:02:2008



EmeraldBay Financial v. Stojsavljevic







Filed 7/30/08 Emerald Bay Financial v. Stojsavljevic CA4/1



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS







California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION ONE



STATE OF CALIFORNIA



EMERALD BAY FINANCIAL, INC., et al.,



Plaintiffs and Respondents,



v.



PETAR STOJSAVLJEVIC et al.,



Defendants and Appellants.



D050795



(Super. Ct. No. GIN051368)



ORDER DENYING REHEARING AND MODIFYING OPINION



NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT



THE COURT:



It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 2, 2008, be modified as follows:



At the end of the first paragraph on page 21, after the sentence ending "at all times," add as footnote 4 the following footnote:



4 Plaintiffs objected to these statements in Trucchi's declaration, and the court granted the objection to the first statement on hearsay grounds, and to the second as lacking foundation. However, Trucchi's statement as to what Judith and Petar told her was not hearsay as it was relevant to their intent and state of mind in filing and pursuing the action. (Evid. Code,  1250; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 205.) The second statement was admissible as Trucchi, the attorney charged with the principal role in representing Judith and Petar, did not lack foundation to make that statement. Attorney Trucchi's full statement was: "During the investigation of the underlying lawsuit, facts that were uncovered confirmed that [Judith and Petar] disclosed all of the relevant facts of which they were aware to me at all times," and Petar and Judith made statements to the same effect. Moreover, plaintiffs did not object to Petar and Judith's statements they disclosed all relevant facts to their attorneys.



There is no change in the judgment.



Respondents' petition for rehearing is denied.





NARES, Acting P. J.



Copies to: All parties



Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.



Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.



San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com





Description A modification decision.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale