From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex rel. Orloff v. Pacific Bell

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Jul 5, 2001
No. A089528 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 5, 2001)

Opinion


Page 529d

90 Cal.App.4th 529d THE PEOPLE ex rel. THOMAS J. ORLOFF, as District Attorney, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PACIFIC BELL et al., Defendants and Respondents. A089528. California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division July 5, 2001

[Modification of opinion (89 Cal.App.4th 844 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 48) on denial of petition for rehearing.]

This modification requires movement of text affecting pages 859-860 in the bound volume report.

[REVIEW GRANTED BY CAL. SUPREME COURT]

OPINION

THE COURT.

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 5, 2001, be modified in the following particulars:

1. Change the first sentence of the first paragraph [89 Cal.App.4th 847, advance report, 1st par. of opn., lines 1-4] to read:

The district attorneys of three Northern California counties—Alameda, San Mateo, and Monterey—appeal from a judgment dismissing their suit for injunctive relief and civil penalties under the unfair competition law (UCL).

2. Delete the fifth and sixth sentences of the third paragraph [89 Cal.App.4th 848, advance report, 2d par., lines 12-15] (retaining fn. 3 at the end of the new sentence) under the heading designated Background to read:

Both the ALJ's proposed ruling and a competing tentative ruling by assigned commissioner Neeper, recommending somewhat different remedies, were appealed to the full commission, where they are pending review.

3. Insert the following new footnote number 12 at the end of the fourth sentence of the fifth paragraph [89 Cal.App.4th 859, advance report, line 8] under the heading designated III:

In his second proposed decision, Commissioner Neeper ruled the utility had violated section 2896, bringing his conclusion on this point in line with that of the ALJ. His revised decision, however, continued to reach other conclusions at odds with those of the ALJ.

Page 529e

Renumber the existing footnote 12 to footnote 13 [89 Cal.App.4th 859, advance report, 1st par., last line]

The above modification does not effect any change in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.


Summaries of

People ex rel. Orloff v. Pacific Bell

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Jul 5, 2001
No. A089528 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 5, 2001)
Case details for

People ex rel. Orloff v. Pacific Bell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE ex rel. THOMAS J. ORLOFF, as District Attorney, etc., et al.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

Date published: Jul 5, 2001

Citations

No. A089528 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 5, 2001)