City of Oakland v. Hassey

Full title: CITY OF OAKLAND, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. KENNY D…

Court: California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

Date published: Jul 17, 2008

No. A116360 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 2008)

Opinion

Page 1003b

164 Cal.App.4th 1003b __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ CITY OF OAKLAND, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. KENNY D. HASSEY, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant; RICHARD WORD, Cross-defendant and Respondent A116360 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division July 17, 2008

Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 2007027607

THE COURT.

The opinion filed June 17, 2008 (163 Cal.App.4th 1477; ___Cal.Rptr.3d___), and modified July 15, 2008, is further modified as follows:

The following language, added by the July 15, 2008 modification order, is to be inserted as the last three sentences of the last paragraph starting on page 12 [163 Cal.App.4th 1490, advance report, 1st full par., line 18] of the filed opinion and ending on page 13 with the words "are inapplicable."

"We decline to address Hassey's argument, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that the repayment agreement violates Labor Code sections 2802 (employer shall indemnify employee for all necessary expenditures and losses) and 2804 (any contract waiving provision invalid). (Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784, 794, fn. 3 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 350] [points raised in reply brief for first time will not be considered absent good cause].) We note that Hassey’s answer to Oakland’s complaint did not rely on Labor Code sections 2802 and 2804, and his cross-complaint did not allege causes of action based on them."

The above modification does not effect any change in the judgment.