Reeves v. Beazley

Full title: PATRICK REEVES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JAMES W. BEAZLEY, et al.…

Court: California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Date published: Aug 3, 2007

No. A112131 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2007)

Opinion

PATRICK REEVES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JAMES W. BEAZLEY, et al., Defendants and Respondents. A112131 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division August 3, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Napa County Super. Ct. No. 2623155

BY THE COURT:

The opinion filed July 9, 2007 is modified by adding footnote 1 to follow the reference to Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, 530 at the end of the first full paragraph on page 6. Footnote 1 reads:

¹For the same reasons, Reeves has forfeited any objection that accord and satisfaction was not before the court due to the court’s ruling on one of his motions in limine. Further, the trial court’s ruling did not actually exclude all evidence of oral modifications to the contract; instead, the court ruled that “whether there was an oral modification to this contract for the payment of Peterson wages is not properly before the court.”

Subsequent footnotes will be renumbered as appropriate.

There is no change in the judgment.

Plaintiff’s petition for rehearing is denied.