Claudio v. U.C. Regents
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 12/13/05 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ---- MICHAEL CLAUDIO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. C046744 (Super. Ct. No. CV011331) REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING Defendant and Respondent. [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: The opinion in this matter, filed November 22, 2005, is modified in the following respect: On page 2, at the end of the fourth sentence, following the word attorney, add the following new footnote 1: In a petition for rehearing, the University contends plaintiff was never told by the University that he had been fired. However, in his letter to the University of April 17, 1999, which was admitted for the truth of matters stated therein, and which we discuss in detail, post, plaintiff wrote that the University had told him on four occasions that he had been fired. For purposes of summary judgment, we take 1 plaintiff s evidence as true. (E.g., Balen v. Peralta Junior College Dist. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 821, 825.) The University s argument fails. The addition of this new footnote 1 requires the renumbering of all subsequent footnotes. This modification does not change the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied. SIMS , Acting P.J. DAVIS , J. CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J. 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.
