Reeves v. Beazley
Filed 8/3/07 Reeves v. Beazley CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
PATRICK REEVES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JAMES W. BEAZLEY, et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A112131 (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 2623155) |
BY THE COURT:
The opinion filed July 9, 2007 is modified by adding footnote 1 to follow the reference to Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, 530 at the end of the first full paragraph on page 6. Footnote 1 reads:
1 For the same reasons, Reeves has forfeited any objection that accord and satisfaction was not before the court due to the courts ruling on one of his motions in limine. Further, the trial courts ruling did not actually exclude all evidence of oral modifications to the contract; instead, the court ruled that whether there was an oral modification to this contract for the payment of Peterson wages is not properly before the court.
Subsequent footnotes will be renumbered as appropriate.
There is no change in the judgment.
Plaintiffs petition for rehearing is denied.
Date_____________________ __________________________P.J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.