Osornio v. Weingarten

Full title: SIMONA OSORNIO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LAWRENCE WEINGARTEN, as…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Dec 16, 2004

No. H027258 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2004)

Opinion

Page 1462d

124 Cal.App.4th 1462d __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ SIMONA OSORNIO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LAWRENCE WEINGARTEN, as Personal Representative, etc., Defendant and Respondent. H027258 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, December 16, 2004

Monterey County Super.Ct. No. M65034

THE COURT:

Walsh, J.

It is hereby ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 22, 2004 (124 Cal.App.4th 304, [___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___]), be modified as follows:

1) On page 28 [124 Cal.App.4th 332, advanced report], delete footnote 28 and replace it with the following new footnote 28: Weingarten also asserts that Osornio “nowhere alleges that she retained (or paid) Mr. Weingarten to prepare the Independent Certification.” This argument misses the mark, and, indeed, makes no sense because it is the client, not the beneficiary, who is required to retain independent counsel under section 21351(b).

The application of nonparty California Bankers Association for leave to file as amicus curiae a petition for rehearing is denied.

There is no change in the judgment.

Premo, Acting P.J., Bamattre-Manoukian, J.