Odell v. Ferrari
Filed 10/8/10 Odell v. Ferrari CA6
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
TIM ODELL et al.,
Cross-Complainants
and Respondents,
v.
BERNARDO FERRARI et al.,
Cross-Defendants
and Appellants.
H034385
(Santa Clara
County
Super. Ct. No. 1-08-CV-119109)
This appeal arises in the larger context of an inter- and
intra-family dispute among Ferrari and Odell family members over two apartment
complexes and the limited partnerships that own and manage them.[1] In January 2009, a majority of the limited
partners in each partnership voted to remove appellants Bernardo and Dominic
Ferrari (appellants) as general partners and to elect Mary Jane Ferrari and
respondent Tim Odell in their stead.
Maria Ferrari Mapps retained her status as the third general partner of
each limited partnership. The new
general partners then terminated appellants' services as offsite property
managers of the two apartment complexes.
Appellants refused to accept their removal as general partners or their
termination as offsite property managers and continued to maintain what respondents
and others describe as a â€
| Description | This appeal arises in the larger context of an inter- and intra-family dispute among Ferrari and Odell family members over two apartment complexes and the limited partnerships that own and manage them.[1] In January 2009, a majority of the limited partners in each partnership voted to remove appellants Bernardo and Dominic Ferrari (appellants) as general partners and to elect Mary Jane Ferrari and respondent Tim Odell in their stead. Maria Ferrari Mapps retained her status as the third general partner of each limited partnership. The new general partners then terminated appellants' services as offsite property managers of the two apartment complexes. Appellants refused to accept their removal as general partners or their termination as offsite property managers and continued to maintain what respondents and others describe as a †|
| Rating |
