Modification: Eith v. Ketelhut

FELIPA RICHLAND EITH et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

JEFFREY KETELHUT et al.,

Defendants and Appellants;

LOS ROBLES HILLS ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

2d Civil No. B272028

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2011-00403140-CU-OR-VTA)

(Ventura County)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Six

Filed January 14, 2019

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 17, 2018, be modified as follows:

1. The certified portion of the opinion is expanded so that the double-brackets ("[["), reflecting portions of the opinion to be deleted from publication, are inserted at page 17 before the heading "Plaintiffs Were Not Denied their Right to a Jury Trial" ("[[Plaintiffs Were Not Denied ...."). The double brackets ("[[") on page 13 are deleted.

2. On page 4, line 2, the following sentence is inserted after the sentence ending "as a matter of law, it is not a prohibited business or commercial use":

In addition, we reject plaintiffs' claim that the judgment is void because the trial judge did not disclose contributions made by defendants' counsel to his campaign for re-election to the superior court.

3. On page 14, on line 5 in the second full paragraph, the following is inserted after the sentence ending "had not disclosed them to plaintiffs":

Eith alleged, "Recent inspection of recorded and filed election documents (Form 460) establishes that during the pendency of the instant action Judge Walsh solicited, accepted and kept secret from Plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel, monetary contributions to his campaign from defense counsel [firm, partners, or staff attorneys] in the amount of $2,600.00 . . . ." (Brackets in original.)

4. On page 15, on line 3 in the first paragraph under the heading "B. Analysis," the following sentence is inserted after the sentence ending "disclose contributions made by defendants' counsel":

If Judge Walsh were so disqualified, the judgment would be void.

5. At the end of the first paragraph on page 16, after the sentence ending "would be able to be impartial," the following is inserted: (Italics added.)

There is no change in the judgment.