LISA KERNER v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeal, Second District, California.

LISA KERNER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;

RICHARD M. WIDOM, Real Party in Interest. STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WIDOM, WOOLVERTON & MUEHL et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; RICHARD M. WIDOM, Real Party in Interest.

B233918, B235664

Decided: April 26, 2012

before the word “on,” so the phrase reads, “a ‘substantial probability’ of prevailing on his claim for punitive damages.” Cohon & Pollak, Jeffrey M. Cohon, Henry Nicholls;  Sedwick, Robert F. Helfing and Heather L. McCloskey for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Katten Muchin Rosenman, Steve Cochran, Stacey McKee Knight and Melissa S. Glousman for Real Party in Interest.

We Concur:

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

LISA KERNER,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

RICHARD M. WIDOM,

Real Party in Interest.

B233918, B235664

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC415845)

STOCKWELL, HARRIS, WIDOM, WOOLVERTON & MUEHL et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

RICHARD M. WIDOM,

Real Party in Interest.

B234423, B236927

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC415845)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION

The opinion filed herein on April 26, 2012, is modified as follows:

1. On page 25, paragraph 1, line 10, insert the words “of prevailing”

2. On page 27, paragraph 3, line 2, delete the word “the,” so the phrase reads, “with respect to Defendants' first writ petition․ “

3. On page 30, paragraph 3, line 2, delete the word “order” where it first appears on that line and insert in its place the word “orders,” so the phrase reads, “the orders compelling the production of documents․ “

4. On page 40, paragraph 3, line 4, insert a comma after the word “report,” so the phrase reads, “his report, which included the recommendation․ “

5. On page 46, paragraph 3, line 12, insert after the period following the word “contrary”:  “Kerner and Woolverton were never directly questioned about the existence of an attorney-client relationship between them, previously had no compelling reason to disclose the existence of such a relationship and did not contradict their prior testimony.”

6. On page 48, paragraph 3, line 6, delete the closing quotation mark after “(ibid.),” and insert a closing quotation mark before “(ibid.),” so the phrase reads, “ ‘ ․ reviewable pursuant to [statutes governing writs of mandate],’ (ibid.), with certain exceptions that do not apply here.”

There is no change in the judgment.

The opinion herein filed on April 26, 2012, was not certified for publication in the Official Reports.   Good cause appearing, the opinion is hereby certified for publication in the Official Reports.

_ _

CROSKEY, J.

KLEIN, P. J. KITCHING, J.

Copied to clipboard