Klotz

Klotz v. Ezzes CA2/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 12, 2015B254438California6,139 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Filed 3/12/15 Klotz v. Ezzes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

ADAM M. KLOTZ et al., B254438

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC497629) v.

STEVEN EZZES,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph R. Kalin, Judge. Reversed. Fox Rothschild and Michael Eidel for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Kendall Brill & Klieger, Bert H. Deixler, Laura W. Brill and Joshua W. Sussman for Defendant and Respondent Steven Ezzes. —————————— Plaintiffs Adam M. Klotz, Richard A. Spitz, and SageMill Capital Advisors LLC appeal the trial court’s order quashing service of the summons and complaint on defendant Stephen Ezzes. Plaintiffs…

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.