From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romero v. Leon Max, Inc.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Feb 16, 2012
B226820 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)

Opinion

B226820 B230313

02-16-2012

ALEXA ROMERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LEON MAX, INC., Defendant and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC400145)


ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 25, 2012, is modified in the following particular:

On page 20, in the first full paragraph after the first sentence ending "any attorney fees under the FEHA," the following is added as footnote 8:

8 Plaintiff contends the trial court also "abused its discretion in refusing to award any fees whatsoever" because Labor Code section 218.5 makes an award of attorney fees mandatory for her success on 12 of her meal and rest period claims in the amount of $168. But plaintiff has forfeited this claim of error by failing to present this issue to the trial court in the first instance and obtaining a ruling on her claim. "Because no ruling was actually made below, 'no review can be conducted here.' [Citations.]" (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 826; see also Guidotti v. County of Yolo (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1552, 1567 [no trial court ruling, no ruling to review].) Similarly, "'[i]t is a general rule of appellate review, early established and long adhered to, that questions not raised in the trial court
will not be considered on appeal.' [Citation.]" (Stockton Theatres, Inc. v. Palermo (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 353, 365; see also Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1784, 1794 ["It must appear from the record that the issue argued on appeal was raised in the trial court. If not, the issue is waived"]; City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego Holding Co., Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 668, 685 ["Contentions or theories raised for the first time on appeal are not entitled to consideration"].)

There is no change in the judgment.

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

___________

MALLANO, P. J.

___________

ROTHSCHILD, J.

___________

CHANEY, J.


Summaries of

Romero v. Leon Max, Inc.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Feb 16, 2012
B226820 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)
Case details for

Romero v. Leon Max, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ALEXA ROMERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LEON MAX, INC., Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Date published: Feb 16, 2012

Citations

B226820 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)