Birnbaum

facts raised during oral argument that were purportedly offered as amendments to the first amended complaint (complaint). Upon our review of the oral transcript of the argument, the first fact, that is, “Birnbaum was required to work exclusively for Medical Group,” was raised in argument by Medical Group’s counsel, and rebutted by Birnbaum’s counsel, but not offered as an amendment. The second fact, stating “independent contractors that worked for [Medical Group] had different terms” than Birnbaum was offered as an amendment, however, when questioned further, Birnbaum’s counsel conceded this conclusory fact was specifically alleged as Birnbaum’s restrictive vacation schedule, which was a term in the partnership offer executed by Medical Group and Birnbaum. These facts do not cure the pleading defects in the complaint.

The petition for rehearing is denied. There is no change in the judgment.

2 Filed 12/16/14 (unmodified version)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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…