Opinion
Page 1003a
164 Cal.App.4th 1003a __ 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 15, 2008Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 2007027607.
THE COURT.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed June 17, 2008 (163 Cal.App.4th 1477; ___Cal.Rptr.3d___), is modified as follows, and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
Add, as the last three sentences of the eleventh paragraph in part II.A.2. of the opinion, [163 Cal.App.4th 1490, advance report, 1st full par., line 18], "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.