Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
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.
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.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: B233918, B235664
Decided: April 26, 2012
Court: Court of Appeal, Second District, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)