Claudio v. Regents of University

Full title: MICHAEL CLAUDIO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Yolo

Date published: Dec 13, 2005

No. C046744 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2005)

Opinion

MICHAEL CLAUDIO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. C046744 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Yolo December 13, 2005

Super. Ct. No. CV011331

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING, NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

The opinion in this matter, filed November 22, 2005, is modified in the following respect:

On page 2, at the end of the fourth sentence, following the word “attorney,� add the following new footnote 1:

In a petition for rehearing, the University contends plaintiff was never told by the University that he had been fired. However, in his letter to the University of April 17, 1999, which was admitted for the truth of matters stated therein, and which we discuss in detail, post, plaintiff wrote that the University had told him on four occasions that he had been fired. For purposes of summary judgment, we take plaintiff’s evidence as true. (E.g., Balen v. Peralta Junior College Dist. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 821, 825.) The University’s argument fails.

The addition of this new footnote 1 requires the renumbering of all subsequent footnotes.

This modification does not change the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

SIMS, Acting P.J., DAVIS, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.