Rollins v. Hall
Filed 6/1/06 Rollins v. Hall CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| GUY ROLLINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHARLENE HALL, Defendant and Respondent. | B180685 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GC031856) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, C. Edward Simpson, Judge. Affirmed.
Mazur & Mazur, Janice R. Mazur, William E. Mazur, Jr., for Plaintiff and Appellant Guy Rollins.
Law Offices of Carl J. Klunder, Carl J. Klunder, for Defendant and Respondent Charlene Hall.
INTRODUCTION
In a first amended complaint, plaintiff and appellant Guy Rollins (Rollins) and his parents, Lucie Loe Rollins and Henry M. Rollins, brought an action against defendant and respondent Charlene Hall (Hall) and others alleging causes of action for general negligence and fraud arising out of damages the Rollinses claim their downstairs condominium suffered as a result of a fire in Hall's upstairs condominium.[1] The parties apparently agree that after one or more demurrers, the only remaining cause of action from the first amended complaint was Rollins's general negligence cause of action against Hall.
Rollins's action was tried to the court. After Rollins rested his case, Hall moved for nonsuit, arguing that Rollins had failed to show she owed him a duty, that she breached any such duty, or that â€
