IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF ... - FindLaw

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Filed 5/28/09 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DARCEE DEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PCS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. THE COURT:* SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR B186000 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. LC057263 & LC059943) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] It is ordered that the opinion in the above filed case, filed May 11, 2009, is modified as follows: 1. The following heading is added before the first paragraph: INTRODUCTION 2. The last three sentences of the Introduction are deleted. The following three sentences are inserted in their place:
In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that because Dee‟s experts relied on unsupported assumptions and inadmissible blood and brain tests, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding their opinions lacked foundation. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we find Dee‟s remaining challenges are unsupported by legal argument and thus forfeited. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.) We affirm. Good cause appearing, the opinion in the above filed case is ordered partially published in the official reports. The opinion is to be published with the following exceptions: 1. Omit the entire section of the discussion entitled “2. Exclusion of Evidence of Fear of Cancer and Denial of Instructions on Fear of Cancer” commencing on page 21 and concluding on page 24. 2. Omit the entire section of the discussion entitled “3. Alleged Instructional Error” commencing on page 24 and concluding on page 27. 3. Omit the entire section of the discussion entitled “4. Alleged Bias” commencing on page 27 and concluding on page 28. 4. Omit the entire section of the discussion entitled “5. Award of Costs” commencing on page 28 and concluding on page 29. * EPSTEIN, P.J. WILLHITE, J. MANELLA, J. 2
Page 1 and 2: Filed 5/11/09; part. pub. & mod. or
Page 3 and 4: the existence of mycotoxins, and Mi
Page 5 and 6: the technique and its application i
Page 7 and 8: excluded Ordog‟s proposed testimo
Page 9 and 10: Gutierrez “can also testify as to
Page 11 and 12: Dee met several times with PCS empl
Page 13 and 14: or around unit 307. Javier Ledezma,
Page 15 and 16: . Respondents’ Argument Responden
Page 17 and 18: Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2003
Page 19 and 20: discretion in determining that Ordo
Page 21 and 22: 2. Exclusion of Evidence of Fear of
Page 23 and 24: the evidence that was presented by
Page 25 and 26: a. Factual Background CACI No. 418
Page 27 and 28: justifiably refused to give an inst
Page 29: grounds, she has forfeited the argu

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF ... - FindLaw

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?