Sherman

Sherman v. Hennessy Industries

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 8, 2015B252566MCalifornia7,517 words

Opinion

Opinion

Manella, J.

Filed 7/8/15 Unmodified version attached

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

B252566

MICHAEL SHERMAN et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. JCCP4674) v.

HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC., ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

Defendant and Respondent. AND DENYING PETITION FOR

REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:*

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 18, 2015 be modified as follows: On page 14, line 13, delete the sentence beginning with “Although” and substitute the following sentence: According to Levin, unconventional metallic brake “pads” were offered for use on a later Corvette model, but the AMMCO machine was not designed for use on such pads, which required no grinding. The petition for rehearing by respondent Hennessey Industries, Inc. is denied. The modification does not change the judgment. _________________________________________________________________ *EPSTEIN, P. J. MANELLA, J. WILLHITE, J. Filed 6/18/

CERTIFIED FOR…

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.