ASAP Copy and Print v.
Ringgold
Filed 7/3/12
ASAP Copy and Print v. Ringgold CA2/2
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
ASAP COPY AND
PRINT et al.,
Plaintiffs, Cross-complainants,
and Appellants;
NINA RINGGOLD,
Appellant,
v.
CANON BUSINESS
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Cross-defendants, and
Respondents;
GENERAL ELECTRIC
CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Defendant, Cross-complainant, and
Respondent;
HEMAR ROUSSO
& HEALD,
Cross-defendant and Respondent.
B224295, B225702
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
PC043358)
OPINION
THE COURT:*
GOOD
CAUSE appearing, the opinion filed in the above entitled matter on June 4, 2012, is modified as follows:
On
page 46, the second paragraph that begins with:
“Next, ASAP contends that the 25 percent . . . .†is deleted. The following paragraph is inserted in its
place.
Next, ASAP
contends that the 25 percent limitation in the attorney’s fees clause prevents
the respondents from receiving more than 25 percent of the damages sought by
CFS’s assignee, GE, in its cross-complaint.
The 25 percent limitation clause, on its face, applies only if CFS
brings an action. In this case, of course,
it was ASAP who brought the original action and thus the clause is inapplicable. To the extent ASAP’s argument is that the
“mutuality of remedy†created by Civil Code section 1717 means that since
CFS would be limited to 25 percent of damages sought on a suit
should be limited to 25 percent of the damages sought by GE on its
cross-complaint in defense of a suit
brought by ASAP, it is not persuasive.
No
change in judgment.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI TODD, Acting P. J.
CHAVEZ, J. SORTINO, J.
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
