Opinion
Page 941d
103 Cal.App.4th 941d ___Cal.Rptr.2d___ WILLIAM YU et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SIGNET BANK/VIRGINA et al., Defendants and Appellants. WILLIAM YU et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SIGNET BANK/VIRGINA et al., Defendants and Respondents. Nos. A094519, A095102 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division November 25, 2002[Modification of opinion (103 Cal.App.4th 298; 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 516) on denial of petition for rehearing.]
This modification requires the movement of text affecting pages 311-312 of the bound volume report.
OPINION
THE COURT.
It is ordered that the opinion filed October 30, 2002, be modified as follows:
1. On page 2, the first sentence of the second paragraph [103 Cal.App.4th 305, advance report, 2d par.] that begins, "The Yus filed this class action suit against Signet ..." is modified to begin:
The Yus filed this suit as a class action against Signet ...
2. On page 9 [103 Cal.App.4th 311, advance report], at the end of the second full paragraph, after the sentence that reads: "Nor are we persuaded by any of Banks' authorities, which do not remotely consider the question, that creditors have a First Amendment right or other privilege to commit distant forum abuse," the following footnote is added as footnote 2, with the subsequent footnote renumbered accordingly:
2 This observation also applies to the decision in Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d 19], which is cited in Banks' petitions for rehearing.
3. On page 21, the third paragraph [103 Cal.App.4th 322, advance report, line 5] that reads, "Thus, Banks have not established that the Yus cannot recover any damages," is modified to read:
Thus, Banks' argument that the Yus cannot recover any damages fails.
Page 941e
These modifications do not change the judgment. The petitions for rehearing are denied.