Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2002)

STEVE CARVER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents.

[Modification of opinion (97 Cal.App.4th 132) on denial of petition for rehearing.]

THE COURT.-

The opinion filed March 27, 2002 is modified as follows:

1. Page 2, lines 10-11 [97 Cal. App. 4th 136, advance report, 1st par., line 3], the words "and the individual defendants" are deleted. The sentence shall now read: "On remand, Chevron obtained an award of attorney fees and costs against Dealers under the lease's attorney fees clause, in conjunction with section 16750, the attorney fees provision of the Cartwright Act, and Code of Civil Procedure section 998, allowing an award of expert fees and costs. Chevron was deemed the prevailing party in the action as a whole."

2. Page 4, line 5 [97 Cal. App. 4th 137, advance report, 2d par., line 9], the words "both as to" are deleted and replaced with the words "as to the defense of both." The sentence shall now read: "However, the attorney fees and costs award is well supported on the contract and related tort theories arising out of the lease agreement, as to the defense of both Chevron and the individual defendants, and under Code of Civil Procedure section 998."

3. Page 5, line 4 [97 Cal. App. 4th 138, advance report, line 2], in the parenthetical phrase, the words "but who was a party to the instant fee proceedings" are deleted. The sentence shall now read: "(The complaint also names a third individual defendant who was not found liable at trial.)"

4. Page 30, lines 16-17 [97 Cal. App. 4th 154, advance report, 2d par., line 13], the words "were largely attributable to" are deleted and replaced with the word "included." The sentence shall now read: "The fact that the [97 Cal. App. 4th 1269b] expert fees included the Cartwright Act defense does not make any difference in light of Murillo, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1000.

There is no change in judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.