City of Bell v. Superior Court (Rizzo)

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 25, 2013

ORDER

(1) MODIFYING OPINION
      (2) DENYING PETITION

FOR   REHEARING

[No Change in Judgment]

BY THE COURT:

      It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 4, 2013, and modified on October 9, 2013, is further modified as follows:

      (1) On page 3, under the second full paragraph under the heading ?2?, The Underlying Actions, line 4, the sentence ending, ?still in office, a fact which prevented the City from taking action in its own name.?  Please add a footnote at the end of sentence which reads:

Rizzo challenges this fact, relying on press releases and newspaper articles which purportedly show the City had begun to retake control of itself prior to the filing of the AG?s action.  None of these documents are properly before this court.

      (2) On page 20, in the first full paragraph, line 4, the clause ending ?both the City?s action and the AG?s action were brought on behalf of the City, . . . .?  Please add a footnote after the comma, which reads:

Rizzo argues that the AG?s action was not brought entirely on behalf of the City, and that some of the claims in the AG?s action were brought on behalf of the State itself, rendering them third-party claims.  At oral argument, however, Rizzo conceded that the AG?s action was brought solely on behalf of the City.  When asked to identify the third-party claims at issue in this action, Rizzo identified only the criminal actions.  He conceded that the claims at issue in the AG?s action were brought ?standing in the shoes of the City,? and specifically argued that ?civil claims made by the AG? were to be defended by the City as ?first-party claims.?

      (3) All footnotes are to be renumbered accordingly.

      (4) In our modification order of October 9, 2013, we modified the opinion to add a footnote on page 31.  The first line of that footnote includes the reference ?(see fn. 6, ante).?  That reference should be modified to read:  ?(see fn. 7, ante).

      The Petition for Rehearing filed herein on October 18, 2013 on behalf of Real Party in Interest, Robert A. Rizzo, is denied.