Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)

[No. S086738. July 11, 2001.]

[Modification fn. * of Opinion (25 Cal. 4th 826; 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 841, 24 P.3d 493).]

THERESA AGUILAR et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants.

THE COURT.-

The opinion of the court herein, filed on June 14, 2001, and appearing at 25 Cal. 4th 826, is modified as follows:

1. On page 845 of 25 Cal.4th, the text in the second paragraph that reads, “point out through argument,” is revised to read, “point out.”

2. On page 847 of 25 Cal.4th, the text in the second paragraph that reads, “point out through argument,” is revised to read, “point out.”

3. On page 854 of 25 Cal.4th, the text in the first paragraph that reads, “point out through argument,” is revised to read, “point out.”

4. On page 855 of 25 Cal.4th, the text in the second paragraph of footnote 23 that reads, ” ‘point[]’ out, through argument,” is revised to read, ” ‘point[]’ out.”

5. On page 855 of 25 Cal.4th, the text in lines 11-12 that reads, “Whereas, under federal law, ‘pointing out through argument’ is sufficient, under state law, it is not. (Id. at p. 532.),” is revised to read, “Whereas, under federal law, ‘pointing out through argument’ (id. at p. 532) may be sufficient (see generally Schwarzer et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2001) ?? 14:137-14:137.6, pp. 14-32-14-33 [setting out the ‘disagree[ment]’ of the ‘[c]ourts’ on the issue]), under state law, it is not.”

This modification does not affect the judgment.

FN *. This modification requires movement of text affecting pages 854-856 of the bound volume report.