Deocampo v. Ahn (2002)
Annotate this CaseJOE DEOCAMPO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RICHARD S. AHN, et al., Defendants and Appellants.
[Modification of opinion (101 Cal.App.4th 758) on denial of petition for rehearing.]
THE COURT.-
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 29, 2002, be modified in the following particulars:
Page 2, line 9 [101 Cal. App. 4th 766, advance report, 2d par., line 5], change the word "non-periodicized" to read: non-periodized
Page 2, line 10 [101 Cal. App. 4th 766, advance report, 2d par., line 7], change the word "periodicized" to read: periodized
Page 2 line 16 [101 Cal. App. 4th 766, advance report, 2d par., line 14], change the word "periodicized" to read: periodized
Page 7, line 10 [101 Cal. App. 4th 769, advance report, 1st par., line 16], change the word "periodicized" to read: periodized
Page 10, footnote 13 [101 Cal. App. 4th 771, advance report], change the word "periodicizing" to read: periodizing
Page 12, line 10 [101 Cal. App. 4th 772, advance report, 3d par., line 5], change the word "periodicizing" to read: periodizing
Page 17, line 7 [101 Cal. App. 4th 775, advance report, 2d par., line 17], change the word "periodicized" to read: periodized
Page 23, line 8 [101 Cal. App. 4th 779, advance report, 2d par., line 3], change the word "periodicizing" to read: periodizing
Page 32 [101 Cal. App. 4th 785, advance report], delete footnote 22. [102 Cal. App. 4th 655b]
The respondents' petition for rehearing is denied.
There is a change in the judgment.
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.
