Modification: Ridec LLC v. Hinkle

RIDEC LLC,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant,

v.

OCY HINKLE et al.,

Defendants, Cross-defendants and Respondents.

No. B317420

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC560228)

California Court of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Two

Filed July 27, 2023

ORDER MODIFYING

OPINION AND DENYING

REHEARING

NO CHANGE IN THE

JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 29, 2023, be modified as follows:

1. At the end of the first paragraph on page 29, after the sentence which ends with "to second-guess such a finding" in line 9, insert footnote 15 as follows:

¹⁵ Ocy filed a petition for rehearing in which he disputes our analysis on some of these points. Ocy's petition is procedurally improper. Ocy elected not to file a respondent's brief and not to participate in oral argument. In such instances, we may---and in this case, did---decide the appeal without his involvement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) Ocy now appears on rehearing requesting that we vacate the opinion so he can file a respondent's brief; this request is not well taken. We decline to permit rehearing to be used as a "reset button" for litigants who, in hindsight, regret their decision not to participate in the appellate process. What is more, Ocy's petition on the merits does nothing more than express disagreement with our analysis without adding any new authority or citation to the record. Thus, it is both procedurally improper and without merit.

There is no change in the judgment.

Respondent Ocy Hinkle's petition for rehearing is denied.

LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.