Fear Not Law Articles: BP West Coast Products v. GVD Commercial Properties

BP West Coast Products v

BP West Coast Products v. GVD Commercial Properties

Filed 1/31/07 BP West Coast Products v. GVD Commercial Properties CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC,

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and

Respondent,

GVD COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC.,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and

Appellant.

G035269

(Super. Ct. No. 03CC07014)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jane D. Myers, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Motion to strike portions of appellant's reply brief. Judgment affirmed. Motion denied.

Grant & Morasse and Steven R. Morasse for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron, Gary C. Weisberg and Anish J. Banker, for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent.

* * *

This case concerns the parties' rights over an access easement created by a municipality when it abandoned a public street. After a nonjury trial, the court entered a judgment for plaintiff and cross-defendant BP West Coast Products LLC (plaintiff), finding it is â€

Description	This case concerns the parties' rights over an access easement created by a municipality when it abandoned a public street. After a nonjury trial, the court entered a judgment for plaintiff and cross-defendant BP West Coast Products LLC (plaintiff), finding it is "the beneficial owner of a non-exclusive 30-foot wide access easement" across parcels owned by defendant and cross-complainant GVD Commercial Properties, Inc. (defendant) and a third party not involved in this appeal. The trial court also denied defendant's request for a declaration that a cul-de-sac located at one end of the former public street, now encompassed within the boundaries of plaintiff's parcel, is also burdened by the access easement. Court affirm the trial court's judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.