Black v. Lukens

Full title: DOMINIQUE S. BLACK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM M. LUKENS et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 17, 2009

No. A120828 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2009)

Opinion

DOMINIQUE S. BLACK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM M. LUKENS et al., Defendants and Respondents. A120828 California Court of Appeal, First District, Second Division March 17, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-05-439073

Haerle, Acting P.J.

COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 20, 2009, be modified as follows:

1. On page 2, the following sentence should be added at the end of the second paragraph. “(It is provided, however, in respondents’ appendix.)”

2. On page 2, in the last sentence of footnote 1, the words “nothing whatsoever” are deleted and replaced with the words “almost nothing.”

3. On page 4, in the first line of footnote 5, the words “appellant” and “his” are deleted and replaced with the words “ASI” and “its.” It should now read “The counsel subsequently retained by ASI to represent its interests . . . .” In the fifth line of footnote 5, the word “appellant” is deleted and replaced with the words “appellant’s business interests.” It should now read “altercation between appellant’s business interests and counsel.”

4. On page 5, the second sentence of footnote 7 should be deleted and replaced with the sentence “ASI, a ‘business entity of Plaintiff,’ recovered a default judgment for over $12 million against defendant AMS in July 2006.”

5. On page 14, in the sixth line of footnote 17, the words “may well have been bias” are deleted and replaced with the words “was ‘an appearance of impropriety.’ ” In the last sentence of footnote 17 the words “judicial bias” are deleted and replaced with the words “ ‘an appearance of impropriety’ by a judicial officer.”

This modification does not effect a change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.