Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert T. Hafif
Filed 1/29/07 Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert T. Hafif CA2/5
Opinion following remand from Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
PEGGY J. SOUKUP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT HAFIF et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B152759 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC247941) |
PEGGY J. SOUKUP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD C. STOCK, Defendant and Appellant. | B154311 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC247941) OPINION AFTER REMAND FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT |
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gregory OBrien, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, Greg K. Hafif, Jeanne A. Sterba; Law Offices of James J. Moneer, James J. Moneer; Aitken Aitken & Cohn, Darren O. Aitken and Wylie A. Aiken for Defendants and Appellants the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, Herbert Hafif, Cynthia D. Hafif, and Greg K. Hafif.
Ronald C. Stock, in pro. per. for Defendant and Appellant Ronald C. Stock.
Peggy J. Soukup in pro. per.; Law Offices of Gary L. Tysch, Gary L. Tysch; DellArio & LeBouef and Alan Charles DellArio for Plaintiff and Respondent Peggy J. Soukup.
These appeals were consolidated in the Supreme Court. They are before us on remand from that court. Plaintiff, Peggy J. Soukup, sued defendants, the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, Herbert Hafif, Cynthia D. Hafif, Greg K. Hafif, and Ronald Stock. The trial court denied defendants special motions to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, and we reversed. The Supreme Court granted review, reversed the judgment of this court, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. (Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 298.) The remittitur states, Costs, if any, shall be awarded by the Court of Appeal. The parties have not filed any supplemental briefs as permitted by California Rules of Court rule 8.200(b). This matter has now been submitted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256(d)(2).) Consistent with the Supreme Courts opinion in Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, supra, 39 Cal.4th at pages 278-298, we affirm the orders denying defendants Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 special motions to strike. Plaintiff, Peggy J. Soukup, is to recover her costs on appeal, jointly and severally, from defendants, the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, Herbert Hafif, Cynthia D. Hafif, Greg K. Hafif, and Ronald C. Stock.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER, P. J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG, J. MOSK, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
