Ponto v. County of Riverside
Filed 6/14/07 Ponto v. County of Riverside CA4/2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
CHERYL PONTO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE et al., Defendants and Respondents. | E039773 (Super.Ct.No. RIC 402377) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
Appellants petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed in this matter on May 24, 2007, is modified as follows:
1. Insert footnote 6 on page 24, line 10 as follows: interview.[6] (Gwillim, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 1266, citing Kastigar v. United States . . . .
Except for this modification, the opinion remains unchanged. This modification does effect a change in the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
s/Hollenhorst
Acting P.J.
We concur:
s/King
J.
s/Miller
J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
[6] The statute of limitations therefore did not begin running until the second interview, on November 13, 2000, when Ponto admitted she had not disclosed the true nature of her relationship with Schaaf during her first interview in 1999.
