Rough

Rough v. Berris CA2/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 18, 2021B309228California3,174 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 11/18/21 Rough v. Berris 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SANDEE ROUGH, as Trustee, etc., B309228

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCP01095) v.

NORMAN BERRIS et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie Bowick, Judge. Affirmed. Loeb & Loeb and William M. Brody for Defendants and Appellants. Baker & McKenzie, Perrie M. Weiner, Edward D. Totino and Benjamin W. Turner for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________ Respondent Sandee Rough initiated arbitration against individual and corporate entities with whom she (and her late husband) participated in a real estate venture. She alleged accounting…

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.