Prado

Prado v. County of Riverside CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 17, 2014E058796California2,524 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 11/17/14 Prado v. County of Riverside CA4/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THOMAS PRADO,

Plaintiff and Appellant, E058796

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC473510)

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE et al. OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John W. Vineyard, Mac

R. Fisher, and Daniel A. Ottolia, Judges.1 Affirmed.

Aviles & Associates and Moises A. Aviles for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs, Bruce E. Disenhouse, and Janine L. Highiet-Ivicevic

for Defendants and Respondents.

1 Judge Vineyard sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. Judge Fisher ordered the entire action…

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.