Rucker v. Rucker
Filed 7/11/06 Rucker v. Rucker CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| HAROLD RUCKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TITUS RUCKER, Defendant and Respondent. | A111474 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG-03-105792) |
Following trial before the court a judgment was entered in favor of respondent in appellant's action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Appellant asserts in this appeal that respondent failed to file a verified answer, the exclusion of collateral evidence by the trial court was prejudicial to his case, the trial court was guilty of judicial bias and misconduct during the proceedings, and the finding in favor of respondent is not supported by the evidence. We find that no errors or acts of misconduct were committed by the trial court, and the judgment is supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the judgment.[1]
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Much of the evidence in the record before us is conflicting, but some underlying facts are undisputed. Respondent Titus Rucker is the uncle of appellant Harold Rucker,[2] and they both claim interests in â€
