Armato

Armato v. City of Manhattan Beach CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 29, 2014B252338California2,663 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 10/29/14 Armato v. City of Manhattan Beach CA2/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

NANCY ARMATO et al., No. B252338

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. BS142266) v.

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH et al.,

Defendants and Respondents;

JOSEPH M. PAUNOVICH,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joanne O’Donnell, Judge. Affirmed.

Luna & Glushon and Robert L. Glushon for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Richards, Watson & Gershon and Ginetta L. Giovinco for Defendants and Respondents.

Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, Benjamin M. Reznik and Matthew D. Hinks for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Nancy and Rosario Armato…

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.