Chan v. Lund
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 10/28/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT BILL CHAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, H034196 (Santa Clara County Super.Ct.No. CV072392) v. CRAIG T. LUND et al., Defendants and Respondents. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION NO CHANGE IN THE JUDGMENT PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED THE COURT: It is hereby ordered that the opinion filed September 29, 2010, be modified as follows: On page 8 at the end of the first full paragraph after Conduct, add the following footnote number 7 (with the remaining footnotes renumbered accordingly): Chan filed a petition for rehearing, arguing, inter alia, that, evidence of coercive statements allegedly made at the mediation was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1119, subdivision (a). No party asserted an objection below, nor did Chan challenge this evidence (from his own declaration) in his briefs on appeal. We need not consider Chan s argument or his belated evidentiary objection. (Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075, 1092.) Without this evidence, Chan s factual showing in opposition to enforcement of the Settlement would evaporate; the result in this case would therefore be the same had we not considered it. Accordingly, in addressing Chan s claims, post, we will assume, arguendo, that Chan s evidence is not inadmissible. There is no change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied. Dated: Duffy, J. Rushing, P.J. Premo, J.
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.
