This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


City of Bell v. Superior Court (Rizzo)

City of Bell does not have to defend Robert Rizzo in civil or criminal lawsuits against him after he stole from the city for nearly 17 years.



Cite as

2013 DJDAR 13613

Published

Oct. 10, 2013

Filing Date

Oct. 9, 2013


CITY OF BELL,

CITY OF BELL,

Petitioner,

v.

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

Respondent;

 

ROBERT A. RIZZO,

Real Party in Interest.

 

No. B247362

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC445497)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Three

Filed October 9, 2013

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
[No Change in Judgment]

 

BY THE COURT:

 

     It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 4, 2013, is modified as follows:

 

     (1) On page 5, line 2, sentence beginning ?a public record (Gov. Code . . . ) . . .  misappropriation of public funds.?  Please add a footnote at end of sentence which reads: 

 

This court takes judicial notice (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (d) & (g)) that, on October 3, 2013, Rizzo entered a plea of nolo contendere to each count alleged in the three criminal proceedings.  It appears that, at some point prior to Rizzo?s plea, the second criminal complaint was amended to charge one count of conflict of interest and six counts of perjury (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a)).  Rizzo pleaded nolo contendere to, and was convicted of, a total of 69 counts.

 

     (2) On page 18, under the first full paragraph under the heading ?e?, The Instant . . . , line 2, delete the words  ?duty to defend is, in any way, broader than the duty to indemnify.  Clearly, it is not.? and replace with the following:

    

   duty to defend is dependent upon the scope of the duty to indemnify.

    

(3)On page 18, under the first full paragraph under the heading ?e?, The Instant ? , line 11, delete the entire line beginning ?tender, allege facts which would fall within the scope of the indemnity.? and replace with the following:

    

tender, allege facts which would, at least potentially, fall within the scope of the duty to indemnify.

 

     (4)On page 31, under the heading ?3.  Public Policy Supports our Conclusion,? line 4, following the sentence ending ?a period of 17 years,? please add a footnote which reads:

 

   As we have previously noted (see fn. 6, ante), the criminal charges against Rizzo have been resolved by his plea of nolo contendere on October 3, 2013.

 

#231078

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390