Letter,Correspondence: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ARCHERN0RRI5                                    PAGE        02/03
11/19/2010      16:14           916G4B5696




                                             ARCHERNORRIS
                                                         Q
                                             A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      301 UfliverBity Avenue, Suite 11P                                                       GREGORY K. FEDERICO
      Sacramento. CA 95825-8747                                                              gfedericoaercnemcirria coin
      916 646.2480
      916 64S seee (pax)
      www.archemorris.conrt



                                                    November 19,2010


      VIA FACSIMILE ONLY
                                                                                              l i t , Deputy Clerk
      Stephanie Finclli, Esq.
      Law Offices of Stephanie J, FinelH
      1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500
      Sacramento, CA 95814

                 Re:        Rodney and Florentine Abbott v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et ah
                            Sacramcnto County Superior Court Case No. 07AS04456
                            My Client:     Richard Ruybalid, individually and dba CA Construction
                            Our File No.:  NlC-341

      Dear Mrs. Finelli:

             Wc are in receipt of your Proposed Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the
      Pleadings in the above-referenced matter. Wc request the following changes be made to the
      proposed order pursuant to Califorma Rule of Court, Rule 3.1312(a):

                 (1)        Page 1, Line 19: It should read "...Richard Ruybalid, individually and dba CA
                            Construction's Cross-complaint (hereinafter "CA Constnjction") .."

                 (2)        Page 2, Line 2: It should read "... defendant subcontractor" and not contractor.

                 (3)        Page 2, Line 6: It should read as "Plaintiffs hired CA Construction to be the
                            foundation subcontractor for the home."

                 (4)        As indicated by the Court at the conclusion ofthe hearing yesterday, Plaintiffs are
                            the prevailing party on this motion only. No other issues related to your clients'
                            underlying complaint, or your clients' responsibility for their own damages, have
                            been determined. As such, the following sentence should be inserted at the end of
                            the order: "Plaintiff is a prevailing party on this motion only,"

             Please make the aforementioned changes to the proposed order and submit the same to
      the Court. In the event you choose not to incorporate my requested changes, submit my



                 WALNUT            CREEK     SACRAMENTO         NEWPORT     BEACH       LOS A N G E L E S
      NrC341/t052Wi5.|
                                                       ARCHERNORRIS
U/lS/2010   ie:14      9168465B36



      Stephanie Finelli, Esq.
      Law Offices of Stephanie J. Fmelli
      November 19,2010
      Page 2


       Califorma Rule of Court, Rule 3.1312.

              Thank you for your attention lo this matter.

                                                        Very truly yours,
                                                        ARCHERNORRIS



                                                         Gregory K. Federico

        GKF/ci




             NIC341/1052M6-1