From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Monroy v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Jul 17, 2008
No. B196916 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 2008)

Opinion


Page 1003c

164 Cal.App.4th 1003c __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ CESAR AUGUSTO MONROY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. B196916 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Third Division July 17, 2008

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC339263 c/w BC341030

THE COURT:

Good cause appearing, the opinion in the above entitled matter, filed on June 25, 2008 (164 Cal.App.4th 248; ___Cal.Rptr.3d___), Certified for Publication, is hereby modified as follows, and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:

On page 5, [164 Cal.App.4th 255, advance report, 7th par., lines 1-3], the first sentence of the last paragraph commencing “Prior to trial, plaintiffs brought a motion in limine” is modified to read as follows:

“Prior to trial, plaintiffs brought a motion in limine to exclude comments, argument, or reference to, any exemption from compliance with the Vehicle Code or traffic laws for police vehicles under Vehicle Code section 21055; and to preclude any jury instructions or special verdict forms on the emergency vehicle exemption under Vehicle Code section 21055.” Footnote 3 remains at the end of this sentence.

On page 6, [164 Cal.App.4th 256, advance report, 1st par., line 2], second full paragraph, third sentence commencing “Plaintiffs argued that defendants’ pretrial admissions” is modified to read as follows:

“Plaintiffs argued that defendants’ pretrial admissions made section 21055 inapplicable and precluded most of Moen’s testimony.”

On page 6, [164 Cal.App.4th 256, advance report, 1st full par., line 8], at the end of the third full paragraph ending with the words “and thus, it was proper to admit Moen’s testimony.” add the following sentence:

“Defendants also asserted that the evidentiary matters contained in the testimony had established a factual bases for the application of Vehicle Code section 21055.”

Page1003d

The petition for rehearing is denied. Defendants’ argument that plaintiffs waived their right to object to the Vehicle Code section 21055 instruction was not contained in the respondents’ brief.

There is no change in the judgment.


Summaries of

Monroy v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Jul 17, 2008
No. B196916 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 2008)
Case details for

Monroy v. City of Los Angeles

Case Details

Full title:CESAR AUGUSTO MONROY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS…

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

Date published: Jul 17, 2008

Citations

No. B196916 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 2008)