Valentine

Valentine v. GEP Cencast CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 25, 2014B251737California4,612 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kriegler, J.

Filed 11/25/14 Valentine v. GEP Cencast CA2/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

MAX VALENTINE, B251737

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC488251) v.

GEP CENCAST, LLC, dba CENTRAL

CASTING,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Nevin Kamath and Nevin Kamath for Plaintiff and Appellant. Fisher & Phillips, John M. Polson, Steven A. Witt, for Defendant and Respondent. ________________________________ Plaintiff and appellant Max Valentine appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of defendant and respondent GEP…

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.