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.

Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery

Belated interpleader answer lacking factual specificity insufficient to merit trial or summary judgment motion on issues pled.





Cite as

2016 DJDAR 12295

Published

Dec. 13, 2016

Filing Date

Dec. 12, 2016


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PATRICK FLANNERY, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants;

SCOTT J. TEPPER, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 

No. B268298

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. Nos. BC503027 and BC442504)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

California Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District

Division Five

Filed December 13, 2016

 

THE COURT:

 

It is ordered that the opinion filed on November 14, 2016, is modified as follows:

On page 16, the second sentence of the first full paragraph reads:  ?Judge Wiley noted his prior January 23, 2013 order in the Sesnon Fire Case that the court in the Palimony Case ?would determine the ownership split between Murray and Flannery? and adopted the finding from the Palimony Case to award Flannery $1,225,000.?  The sentence should be replaced with:  ?Judge Wiley noted his prior January 23, 2013 order in the Sesnon Fire Case that the court in the Palimony Case ?would determine the ownership split between Murray and Flannery? and adopted the finding from the Palimony Case to award Murray $1,225,000.?

On page 29, the second sentence of the first full paragraph reads:  ?This argument is misguided because Flannery?s answer to the interpleader complaint was sufficient to place the existence, value, and enforceability of his lien at issue as against Flannery.?  The sentence should be replaced with:  ?This argument is misguided because Tepper?s answer to the interpleader complaint was sufficient to place the existence, value, and enforceability of his lien at issue as against Flannery.?

The petition for rehearing is denied.

 

 

KRIEGLER, Acting P.J.

BAKER, J.

KUMAR, J.*

 

 

 

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

#269266

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

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