STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. Filed 9/12/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="394" valign="top"> STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. ALAN GRAYSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. et al., Defendants and Respondents. </td> <td width="230" valign="top"> C050296 (Super. Ct. No. 02AS00790) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] </td> </tr> </table> THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 31, 2006, be <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">modified</a> as follows: 1. On page 25, the following sentence is added to the end of the first paragraph: The Supreme Court rejected this contention in <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Californians for Disability Rights</a> v. Mervyn's, LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 227, holding "the new provisions do apply to pending cases." 2. On page 25, the second paragraph, beginning with "The majority of appellate courts," is deleted in its entirety, as is footnote 4 contained therein. 3. On page 26, the first full paragraph, beginning with "Suffice it to say," is deleted in its entirety. 4. On page 26, the last paragraph, beginning with "The only question presented," is deleted in its entirety. 5. On page 27, the first full paragraph, beginning with "Proposition 64 did not contain," is deleted in its entirety. 6. On page 27, the first sentence of the last paragraph is modified to read as follows: Nor should plaintiff be allowed to amend his complaint again. There is <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">no change in the judgment</a>. BY THE COURT: SIMS , Acting P.J. RAYE , J. HULL , J. Publication Courtesy of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">San Diego County Legal Resource Directory</a>. Analysis and review provided by <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">San Diego County Property line attorney.</a>