Opinion
D050795
7-30-2008
EMERALD BAY FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. PETAR STOJSAVLJEVIC et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Not to be Published
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 2, 2008, be modified as follows:
At the end of the first paragraph on page 21, after the sentence ending "at all times," add as footnote 4 the following footnote:
4 Plaintiffs objected to these statements in Trucchis declaration, and the court granted the objection to the first statement on hearsay grounds, and to the second as lacking foundation. However, Trucchis statement as to what Judith and Petar told her was not hearsay as it was relevant to their intent and state of mind in filing and pursuing the action. (Evid. Code, § 1250; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 205.) The second statement was admissible as Trucchi, the attorney charged with the principal role in representing Judith and Petar, did not lack foundation to make that statement. Attorney Trucchis full statement was: "During the investigation of the underlying lawsuit, facts that were uncovered confirmed that [Judith and Petar] disclosed all of the relevant facts of which they were aware to me at all times," and Petar and Judith made statements to the same effect. Moreover, plaintiffs did not object to Petar and Judiths statements they disclosed all relevant facts to their attorneys.
There is no change in the judgment.
Respondents petition for rehearing is denied.