McMillin

McMillin v. Eare

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 2022B298990MCalifornia10,783 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stratton, J.

Filed 2/23/22 (unmodified opn. attached)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

SHARON MCMILLIN, B298990

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC060255) v.

ORDER

SOM RATHMENY EARE,

Defendant and Appellant;

JOSHUA NATHAN MCMILLIN,

Defendant and Respondent.

The parties’ joint motion filed February 17, 2022, to recall the remittitur and modify the opinion is granted. The remittitur, filed December 29, 2021, is recalled for the purpose of modifying the opinion to correct a clerical error. While the general rule is that an appellate court loses all control and jurisdiction over a cause after the remittitur has been issued (Rare Coin Galleries, Inc. v. A-Mark Coin Co., Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 330, 336), on a party’s or its own motion and for good cause, the court may order recall of a remittitur (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(2)). The recall may be ordered for the correction of clerical error or on the ground of fraud, mistake, or inadvertence. (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 165.)…

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.