Opinion
Page 1485a
146 Cal.App.4th 1485a __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ CRISTIN PEREZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RICHARD ROE 1 et al., Defendants and Respondents. B182814 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight January 26, 2007Alameda County Super. Ct. JCCP 4359
THE COURT. —good cause appearing, the opinion filed in the above entitled matter on December 27, 2006 (146 Cal.App.4th 171; __Cal.Rptr.3d___), is modified as follows:
COOPER, P.J. RUBIN, J. FLIER, J.
On page 2 [146 Cal.App.4th 175, advance report, 1st full par., lines 1-5], starting at line 7 of the FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY section, the last two sentences of that paragraph, which begin “The judgment against Howard . . .” and ends with “her appeal from the trial court’s order was dismissed.” is replaced with the following two new sentences: “The judgment against Perez became final in February 1996 after the California Supreme Court denied her petition seeking review of an appellate court decision affirming the trial court’s judgment. The judgment against Howard became final in June 1996 when his appeal from the trial court’s order was dismissed.”
On page 19 [146 Cal.App.4th 188, advance report, 2d full par., lines 5, 6], starting at line 6, the sentence that begins “Once the judgments against appellants . . .” and ends “and could not be legislatively revived.” is replaced with the following new sentence:
“Once the judgments against appellants in the previous action were upheld on appeal—for Perez when the California Supreme Court denied her petition for review, and for Howard when his appeal was dismissed—they became final for separation of powers purposes and could not be legislatively revived.”
There is no change in judgment.