Opinion
No. C066930.
04-08-2021
ADAM C. THIEL, Respondent. TAMMY R. PHILLIPS et al., Claimants and Appellants ADAM C. THIEL, Respondent. KEVAN HARRY GILMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LENA L. DALBY et al., Defendants and Respondents
[Modification of opinion (61 Cal.App.5th 923; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___), upon denial of rehearing.]
THE COURT.—IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on March 12, 2021, be modified as follows:
The last paragraph on page 20 that begins with, "Second, Appellants assert that Respondents, ..." and ends on page 21 [61 Cal.App.5th 940, advance report, last par.], is to be modified to read:
Second, Appellants assert that Respondents, even if not notified of the lien by mail, at least had constructive notice of the lien because an electronic version of the lien was available on "the case docket through the lower court's website." But Appellants offer no facts to show that to be true. The only "evidence" they offer in support is a portion of their motion for sanctions where they argued "[t]he court file contained [Appellants'] notice of liens." But statements in motions are not evidence. (See In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 414, fn. 11 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 73 P.3d 541] ["unsworn statements of counsel are not evidence"].) And regardless, whether the court's file contained the notice and whether the court's website contained the notice are two very different things.
This modification does not affect the judgment.
The petition for rehearing is denied.