From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franke v. BAM Building Co.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Apr 16, 2009
No. B204830 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2009)

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, 2009

THE 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.


Summaries of

Franke v. BAM Building Co.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Apr 16, 2009
No. B204830 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2009)
Case details for

Franke v. BAM Building Co.

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLAS A. FRANKE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BAM BUILDING COMPANY et…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: Apr 16, 2009

Citations

No. B204830 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2009)