Provost

Provost v. Regents of University of California

Good Law
135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591·201 Cal. App. 4th 1289·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1565
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 14, 2011No. G043523California5,862 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

Plaintiff Glenn Provost appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a stipulation for settlement reached at mediation with defendant Regents of the University of California (Regents). He asserts the stipulation was not binding for a host of reasons, including that it was not properly executed by Regents or executed by defendants Peter H. Breen and Cindy Anderson at all, conditions precedent to its finality were not satisfied, it did not contain all material terms, it was obtained by duress and coercion, evidence on which he might have relied in considering whether to settle was fraudulently concealed, and it was not enforceable because protected by mediation confidentiality. None of these arguments persuade and we affirm the judgment.

We grant Regents’s request to take judicial notice of its bylaw 21. (Kashmiri v. Regents of University of California (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 809, 822, fn. 7 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 635 ].) We deny plaintiff’s request for judicial notice. It was not filed with the opening brief but with an amended reply brief. We rejected the original reply brief because it exceeded the word limitation, and we reminded plaintiff he could not raise new issues or…

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.