Opinion
Page 1278c
197 Cal.App.4th 1278c __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ SANDRA CROSS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN COOPER et al., Defendants and Appellants. H033164 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District August 4, 2011Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV104910
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
RUSHING, P.J.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 11, 2011 (197 Cal.App.4th 357;___Cal.Rptr.3d___), be modified as follows:
1. On page 30, line 15 [197 Cal.App.4th 386 advance report, 1st par., lines 8-10], the sentence beginning “In her” and ending with “rent for August18” is deleted along with footnote 18 and the following sentence is inserted in its place:
In her declaration, Cross stated that she believed Cooper was threatening to tell prospective buyers that a registered offender lived nearby unless she waived rent for August or increased his property rights.
2. On page 30, line 19 [197 Cal.App.4th 386 advance report, 1st full par., lines 3-5], the sentence beginning “However, the” and ending with “matter of law” is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place:
However, the evidence before the trial court did not conclusively establish attempted extortion as a matter of law.
3. On page 32, the first full paragraph [197 Cal.App.4th 386 advance report, 1st full par.], beginning “Clearly, the e-mails” is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:
Clearly, the e-mails that Cooper sent to Cross did not threaten to physically harm anyone or property, accuse anyone of a crime, or expose or impute to Cross some deformity or disgrace. Moreover, they do not, as a matter of law, explicitly or implicitly threaten to disclose the location of the registered offender unless Cross complied with his demands. And neither they nor Cross’s declaration conclusively establish that the emails were adapted to convey that message. The fact that Cross inferred as much and believed they conveyed an extortionate message does not establish that message or that Cooper’s intent to convey it as a matter of law.
Page 1278d
Respondent’s petition for rehearing is denied.
There is no change in the judgment.
WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.