Chapman

Chapman v. City of Palmdale CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 2015B251913California2,637 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 1/13/15 Chapman v. City of Palmdale CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

WAYNE CHAPMAN et al., B251913 (c/w B254125) Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. BC502011)

CITY OF PALMDALE et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed.

Geoffrey M. Faust for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak and William Litvak for Defendants and Respondents.

______________________________ Plaintiffs and appellants Wayne and Cheryl Chapman challenge a trial court order granting defendants and respondents City of Palmdale, Richard Kite, Susan Koleda, and Stacey…

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.