Peake

Peake v. Underwood

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 17, 2014D061267MCalifornia9,932 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

Filed 7/17/14 (unmodified opn. attached)

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JOANNE PEAKE, et al., D061267

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2010-00085519-

CU-OR-CTL)

v.

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

MARVIEL UNDERWOOD, et al., AND DENYING REQUEST FOR

REHEARING

Defendants and Respondents. [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

Appellants' petition for rehearing is DENIED.

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 25, 2014, be modified as follows:

1. On page 3, the third sentence of the second paragraph is deleted and

replaced with the following sentence:

However, as we shall explain, the court's exercise of discretion was

justified for several reasons particular to this case, including that Peake's claims

were inconsistent with the admitted facts and well-settled law, and the record

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of Discussion part II. reflects that Peake's trial counsel had no reasonable…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.