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.

Dell'Oca v. Bank of New York Trust Co.

Order granting new trial unless plaintiffs consented to substantial reduction in damages is affirmed.





Cite as

2008 DJDAR 2707

Published

Feb. 24, 2008

Filing Date

Feb. 21, 2008


Filed 2/22/08

CONRAD J. DELL'OCA et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK

TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 

Nos. A111267 & A112153

(Marin County

Super. Ct. No. CV 012912)

California Court of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division One

Filed February 22, 2008

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING

 

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

 

THE COURT:

 

     It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 29, 2008, be modified as follows:

 

     1.  The last sentence on page 2, which continues onto page 3, should be modified to delete the phrase at the end of the sentence that reads "which, presumably, has been distributed," so that the sentence will now read:

 

   "In the end, trust receivables were auctioned off for approximately $4.4 million, which, after expenses were deducted, left $1.5 million."

 

     2.  The first sentence after the heading "The Plaintiffs and Their Claims Against the DFS Defendants" on page 3 is modified to add a reference to Trust I, so that the sentence will now read: 

 

   "Plaintiff Conrad J. Dell'Oca, trustee of the Dell'Oca Family Trust, had purchased notes from Trusts I and IV."

 

     3.  The last sentence on page 9, which continues onto page 10, is modified to read:

 

   "Mr. Randlett stated that if damages were calculated using June 23, 1998, as the operative date, the plaintiffs' damages were between $35 and $36 million, representing $30,730,500 that had been invested after June 23, 1998, plus 25 cents on the dollar on existing investments (as of June 23, 1998) of $20 million.

 

     4.  The second to the last sentence on page 19 is modified to read:

 

   "It is not fatal that the court did not characterize its ruling as a finding of lack of causation of the damages sought by plaintiffs."

 

     There is no change in the judgment.

     Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing is denied.

 

Dated:________,

Marchiano, P. J.

 

 

#261401

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

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424