From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yang v. Union Bank of California

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Apr 7, 2009
No. E043696 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009)

Opinion


KEVIN JEN-KANG YANG et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants and Respondents. E043696 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Second Division April 7, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. RCV092365

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

RICHLI J.

Appellants’ petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed in this matter on March 9, 2009 is modified as follows:

In the last paragraph starting on page 17 and continuing on page 18, the last three sentences, as follows, are deleted:

Whatever document defendants filed on May 15 is not in the record. From its caption, however, it appears to have been a proof of service of the ex parte application, not of the motion. If it was a proof of service of the motion, it was redundant and duplicative.

The deleted sentences are replaced with:

On May 15, defendants filed an additional proof of service, relating to both the ex parte application and the motion. As a proof of service of the motion, it was merely duplicative.

Other than this modification, the opinion remains unchanged. This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.

We concur, HOLLENHORST Acting P.J.,GAUT J.


Summaries of

Yang v. Union Bank of California

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Apr 7, 2009
No. E043696 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009)
Case details for

Yang v. Union Bank of California

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN JEN-KANG YANG et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. UNION BANK OF…

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

Date published: Apr 7, 2009

Citations

No. E043696 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009)