Opinion
Page 736a
104 Cal.App.4th 736a ___Cal.Rptr.2d___ MARJORIE GAUSS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. GAF CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. CARTER HAUGHT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GAF CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. In re COMPLEX ASBESTOS LITIGATION. Nos. A091299, A091308, A092647 California Court of Appeal, First District, Third Division December 23, 2002[Modification of opinion (103 Cal.App.4th 1110; 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 370) on denial of petition for rehearing.]
This modification requires the movement of text affecting pages 1118-1124 of the bound volume report.
OPINION
THE COURT.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 25, 2002, be modified as follows:
1. On page 8 [103 Cal.App.4th 1118, advance report], the parenthetical citations at the end of the second paragraph are amended to read as follows:
(Levy v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 583, italics added; see also Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37 [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 400] [agreement belatedly signed by corporate officer did not satisfy Levy's party-signature requirement]; Burckhard v. Del Monte Corp., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1914-1915 [Levy rule barred enforcement under § 664.6 of settlements not signed by plaintiffs claiming asbestos-related injury or the corporate defendant].)
2. On page 12 [103 Cal.App.4th 1121, advance report], the parenthetical citations following the second sentence of the second paragraph are amended to read as follows:
(See Levy v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 584 [the Legislature intended § 664.6 as an enforcement mechanism for settlements entered by
Page 736b
the litigants themselves]; Murphy v. Padilla, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 716 [Levy "appear[s] to reject traditional agency analysis ..."]; see also Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 37 ["Because of its summary nature, strict compliance with the requirements of section 664.6 is prerequisite to invoking the power of the court to impose a settlement agreement"].)
There is no change in judgment.
Respondents' petition for rehearing is denied.