Opinion
Page 1425b
172 Cal.App.4th 1425b __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ NICHOLAS A. FRANKE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BAM BUILDING COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants. B204830 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Sixth Division April 16, 2009THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 17, 2009, (172 Cal.App.4th 224; ___Cal.Rptr.___3d ) be modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
1. On page 5, the first full paragraph after the second sentence ending with "financial management," [172 Cal.App.4th 229, advance report, 2d full par., line 4], add as footnote 5 the following text, which will require renumbering of all subsequent
BAM did not object to Franke's expert qualifications. BAM did move in limine to preclude Franke from offering legal opinions with respect to such things as interpretation of statutes or the legal validity of the lien. The court declined to rule on the issue in limine, determining that the issue should instead be raised by specific objection "on a question and answer basis" and refusing a standing objection. BAM did not make specific objections to Franke's expert testimony concerning bankruptcy administration and the handling of bankruptcy claims. BAM's single objection to a legal opinion was sustained.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellants' and respondent's petitions for rehearing are denied.