Monroy v. City of LA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 7/17/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CESAR AUGUSTO MONROY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. B196916 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC339263 c/w BC341030) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING [THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE JUDGMENT] THE COURT: Good cause appearing, the opinion in the above entitled matter, filed on June 25, 2008, Certified for Publication, is hereby modified as follows: On page 5, the first sentence of the last paragraph commencing Prior to trial, plaintiffs brought a motion in limine is modified to read as follows: Prior to trial, plaintiffs brought a motion in limine to exclude comments, argument, or reference to, any exemption from compliance with the Vehicle Code or traffic laws for police vehicles under Vehicle Code section 21055; and to preclude any jury instructions or special verdict forms on the emergency vehicle exemption under Vehicle Code section 21055. Footnote 3 remains at the end of this sentence. On page 6, second full paragraph, third sentence commencing Plaintiffs argued that defendants pretrial admissions is modified to read as follows: Plaintiffs argued that defendants pretrial admissions made section 21055 inapplicable and precluded most of Moen s testimony. On page 6, at the end of the third full paragraph ending with the words and thus, it was proper to admit Moen s testimony. add the following sentence: Defendants also asserted that the evidentiary matters contained in the testimony had established a factual bases for the application of Vehicle Code section 21055. The petition for rehearing is denied. Defendants argument that plaintiffs waived their right to object to the Vehicle Code section 21055 instruction was not contained in the respondents brief. There is no change in the judgment. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
