Tay v. Lee
Filed 4/10/06 Tay v. Lee 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| MAGGIE TAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GRACE LEE, Defendant and Respondent. | G035532 (Super. Ct. No. 03CC14823) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Randell L. Wilkinson, Judge. Affirmed.
Ricky W. Poon for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
Maggie Tay appeals from an order denying her Code of Civil Procedure section 473[1] motion to vacate the order dismissing her action against Grace Lee following a settlement. Tay contends there was not a valid settlement agreement and, thus, the trial court abused its discretion. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS
In December 2003, Tay sued Lee for breach of contract and fraud arising out of Tay's purchase of a restaurant from Lee. Tay also named Lee's broker in the action.
By December 2004, Tay's original attorney had substituted out and she was represented by attorney Donald Townley. A bench trial was set for January 24, 2005. On December 10, 2004, Townley filed a notice of settlement stating Tay and Lee had entered into an unconditional settlement â€
