alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### City of Auburn v. John W. Mayer, Jr.

Filed February 23, 1899.

No. 8741.

Liquors: License: Suspension: Repayment oe Fee. Where a liquor license was issued, an appeal then taken and the license suspended, the appeal finally determined in favor of the applicant and the license reissued, *held,*following the principle of former cases, that the licensee was entitled to repayment of such proportion of the license fee as the time when his enjoyment of the license was suspended bore to the license year.

Error from the district court of Nemaha county. Tried below before Stull, J.

*Affirmed.*

*B. Frank Neal*and *A. J. Burnham,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. W. Cornell*and *W. H. Kelligar, contra.*

Irvine, C.

This action was begun by Mayer against the city of Auburn in the county court to recover certain unearned license money and money paid for an occupation tax. Mayer had judgment, and the city took the case on error to the district court, where the judgment was affirmed. The city now brings the case here. The facts are undisputed. Mayer applied for a license to sell intoxicating liquors. The license was granted, but subsequently an appeal was taken to the district court by remonstrators, and in consequence of mandamus proceedings, for that purpose the council was compelled to revoke the license. The application afterwards coming on to be heard in the district court there was a decision in favor of the applicant and a new license was accordingly issued. The license money here in controversy is the proportionate part of the annual charge for the period when the operation of the license was suspended by the appeal.

It has been too long and too well settled by decisions of this court to permit of any change, except through legis*162lation, that the license fee is not paid for the privilege of asking for a license, but for the license itself, and that where the license fails through no fault of the applicant, he is entitled to have refunded the unearned, portion. *(State v. Johnson,*12 Neb. 470; *Lydick v. Korner,*15 Neb. 500; *State v. Weber,*20 Neb. 467; *Chamberlain v. City of Tecumseh,*43 Neb. 221; *School District v. Thompson,*51 Neb. 857.) This rule has been applied where a license improperly issued has been ultimately revoked. Indeed, it is sought to distinguish the. present case from those cited on the ground that the rule has been laid down with reference to invalid licenses alone. No such distinction can be drawn from the cases, and it at once strikes the mind as incongruous and unjust that one who has without right enjoyed for a certain time a license should be permitted to recover the fee for the remainder of the period, while one possessing a license ultimately determined to have been rightfully issued may not recover back for a portion of the time when he has unjustly been prevented from enjoying the license. As to the occupation tax, it is conceded that the ordinance imposing it is of such a character as to make applicable whatever may be determined as to the license.

Affirmed.
#### § 76.787 What definitions apply to this subpart?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an a
FR 70340, Aug. 29, 2024.

For purposes of this subpart—

*Academic year* means the regular school year (as defined by State law, policy, or practice) and for which the State allocates funds under a covered program.

*Charter school* has the same meaning as provided in title X, part C of the ESEA.

*Charter school LEA* means a charter school that is treated as a local educational agency for purposes of the applicable covered program.

*Covered program* means an elementary or secondary education program administered by the Department under which the Secretary allocates funds to States on a formula basis, except that the term does not include a program or portion of a program under which an SEA awards subgrants on a discretionary, noncompetitive basis.

*Local educational agency* has the same meaning for each covered program as provided in the authorizing statute for the program.

*Significant expansion of enrollment* means a substantial increase in the number of students attending a charter school due to a significant event that is unlikely to occur on a regular basis, such as the addition of one or more grades or educational programs in major curriculum areas. The term also includes any other expansion of enrollment that the SEA determines to be significant.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 8065a)
**Exhibit 10.8(a)**

Schedule to Form of Indemnification Agreement between 

Ryerson Inc. and the following parties: 

Jameson A. Baxter 

Richard G. Cline

Russell M. Flaum 

James A.Henderson 

Gregory P. Josefowicz 

James R. Kackley 

Dennis J. Keller 

Jerry K. Pearlman 

Neil S. Novich 

Martha Miller de Lombera 

Anré D. Williams 

Jay M. Gratz 

Gary J. Niederpruem 

James M. Delaney 

Stephen E. Makarewicz
EXHIBIT 32.3

CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, INC

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection with the Annual Report
of California Pizza Kitchen, Inc (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Susan M. Collyns, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

March 13, 2009



By:

/s/    SUSAN M.
COLLYNSSusan M. Collyns Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer








|* | This certificate accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT AND SPLITTAIL

October 2002

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG.

Delta Smelt Splittail Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined In CFS In Acre Feet

DATE Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day

SWP CVP Total Average SWP CVP Total Average

1-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 2485 4327 6812 4929 8583 13512

2-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 2285 4323 6608 4532 8574 13106

3-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1836 4313 6149 3642 8554 12196

4-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1974 4289 6264 3916 8508 12424

5-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1359 4313 5671 2695 8554 11249

6-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1249 4298 5547 2478 8525 11003

7-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 992 4275 5267 1968 8480 10448

8-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 867 4270 5137 1720 8470 10190

9-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 921 4432 5353 1827 8791 10618

10-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 921 4351 5271 1826 8630 10456

11-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 916 4225 5141 1817 8380 10197

12-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 837 4300 5138 1661 8530 10191

13-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1111 4254 5365 2204 8438 10642

14-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 4301 4802 992 8532 9524

15-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 905 4292 5197 1795 8513 10308

16-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 908 4200 5108 1801 8330 10131

17-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 915 4189 5104 1815 8309 10124

18-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1172 4341 5513 2325 8611 10936

19-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1060 4278 5338 2102 8486 10588

20-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1050 4246 5296 2083 8421 10504

21-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1581 4293 5874 3135 8516 11651

22-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2251 3770 6020 4464 7477 11941

23-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1952 4494 6446 3872 8914 12786

24-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 4291 6309 4002 8511 12513

25-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1764 4286 6050 3498 8502 12000

26-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1775 4301 6076 3520 8531 12051

27-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2411 4511 6922 4782 8948 13730

28-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2834 4217 7051 5621 8364 13985

29-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4465 2210 6675 8856 4383 13239

30-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4147 2203 6350 8225 4370 12595

31-Oct-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4117 2098 6215 8167 4161 12328

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 0 0 0 XXXX 53577 126492 180069 106270 250896 357166

Delta Smelt Take Levels

Below Normal Water Year Type

Yellow Light Level = 400 (14-day Average)

Red Light Level = 6,440 (October-Below Normal)

Banks Tracy Combined Banks Tracy Combined
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

In re: CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., et al., Case No. 08-35653-KRH 

Debtors. Chapter 11 

(Jointly Administered) 

____________________________________ 

ALFRED H. SIEGEL, Trustee of the 

Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Adv. Pro. No. 19-03091-KRH 

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE PROGRAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

_____________________________________ 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

On August 30, 2022, the Court conducted a pre-trial conference in the above-captioned 

adversary proceeding (this “Adversary Proceeding”). Counsel for Alfred H. Siegel, Trustee of 

the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust (the “Trustee”) and counsel for the United States 

Trustee Program, Clifford J. White, III, Director, John P. Fitzgerald, III, Acting United States 

Trustee for Region 4 (collectively, the “Defendants” and, together with the Trustee, the 

“Parties”) the parties appeared at and participated in the pre-trial conference.1

 For the reasons 

stated on the record in open court, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: 

1. The Defendants shall file their answer(s) no later than October 4, 2022. 

2. The Defendants may file a motion(s) to dismiss (the “Motion to Dismiss”). In the 

event that the Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss, the following briefing schedule shall apply: 

1

 Upon issuance of the Fourth Circuit’s mandate, the Court intends to consolidate this Adversary Proceeding with 

Adversary Proceeding No. 19-03060-KRH. 

Case 19-03091-KRH Doc 41 Filed 08/31/22 Entered 08/31/22 10:32:24 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2 

a. The Defendants shall file the Motion to Dismiss no later than October 4, 

2022; provided, however, that this paragraph shall not supersede or 

otherwise affect the provisions of paragraph 1 of this order. The Motion 

to Dismiss shall not exceed 6,000 words. 

b. The Trustee shall file his response (the “Response”) to the Motion to 

Dismiss no later than October 18, 2022. The Response shall not exceed 

6,000 words. 

c. The Defendants may file a reply (the “Reply) to the Response, which 

Reply shall be filed no later than October 25, 2022. The Reply shall not 

exceed 2,500 words. 

3. The Court will conduct a continued pre-trial conference and hearing on the 

Motion to Dismiss on November 1, 2022, at 11:00 A.M. (Eastern Time) (the “Hearing”). The 

Hearing shall be conducted both in-person and by Zoom for Government. Persons wishing to 

appear at the Hearing may participate by either, at their option, appearing in person at Judge 

Huennekens’ Courtroom, 701 E. Broad St., Courtroom 5000, Richmond, Virginia, or registering 

in advance at: 

https://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJItcuuprT0pEh1RN0yHLI0nlkkqMJgNuHs 

DATED: August 31, 2022 /s/ Kevin R. Huennekens 

 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 

 

 Entered on Docket: ____________________ Aug 31 2022

Case 19-03091-KRH Doc 41 Filed 08/31/22 Entered 08/31/22 10:32:24 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
failed to afford him an opportunity to pursue discovery and because the

motion to dismiss failed to comply with NRCP 12(b)(5) and NRCP 56(e). 2

Having considered appellant's appeal statement and the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed appellant's complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim. See Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 227-28, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (providing that this court reviews a district court order dismissing a case under NRCP 12(b)(5) rigorously, accepting all factual allegations as true and reviewing legal conclusions de novo); see also Stalk v. Mushkin, 125 Nev. 21, 28 n.2, 199 P.3d 838, 843 n.2 (2009) (recognizing that the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct do not provide an individual with a private right of action); Morgano v. Smith, 110 Nev. 1025, 1029, 879 P.2d 735, 737 (1994) (explaining that in order to overcome a motion to dismiss a legal malpractice action, "the plaintiff must plead that he or she has obtained appellate or post-conviction relief'). Because dismissal was appropriate based on the complaint, without reference to any additional evidence, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint without ordering discovery and without treating the motion as an NRCP 56 motion for summary judgment. See NRCP 12(b) (explaining that it is appropriate to treat a motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP

2 To the extent that appellant also contends that the district court's decision violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, those rules are not applicable in this state court action. Compare NRCP 1 (explaining that the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure "govern the procedure in the district courts in all suits of a civil nature"), with FRCP 1 (providing that the Federal Rules of Civil procedure "govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts").

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2J.

. 64.x Parraguirre 12(b)(5) as a motion for summary judgment if "matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court").

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

Hardesty

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Anthony D. Bailey Bellon & Maningo, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

3 In our October 18, 2012, order granting rehearing, we determined that no action was necessary with regard to appellant's notice of possible confession of error. Thus, we further conclude that no action is necessary as to appellant's November 13, 2012, letter seeking a status update as to the notice of possible confession of error.

3
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
To Heller Financial, Inc.
   
  As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report dated January 23, 1998 (except with respect to the matters
discussed in Note 20, as to which the date is February 24, 1998) included in
this Form 10-K/A at page 48, into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements on Form S-3 No's. 33-62479 and 333-38545 and Form S-2 No. 333-
46915.     
 
/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Chicago, Illinois
   
April 27, 1998
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 967

 952

 964

 916

 879

 832

 787

 734

 731

 745

 752

 773

 834

 998

 1,010

 1,030

 954

 948

 891

 889

 870

 882

 899

 888

 841

 872

 905

 795

 848

 845

 865

 798

 740

 724

 701

 685

 689

 681

 687

 692

 701

 723

 953

 897

 872

 818

 788

 751

 773

 762

 760

 739

 718

 755

 755

 726

 892

 908

 915

 877

 825

 776

 737

 710

 711

 708

 713

 742

 788

 837

 983

 988

 908

 884

 832

 816

 815

 818

 822

 801

 774

 805

 830

 760

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 6, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 567

 577

 581

 558

 526

 496

 471

 455

 455

 454

 457

 475

 503

 533

 623

 627

 577

 562

 530

 520

 520

 522

 524

 511

 494

 513

 529

 486

TOTAL 22,975

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-KSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                  395,695
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,219,186
<ALLOWANCES>                             11,788
<INVENTORY>                              25,660
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      2,417,272
<PP&E>                                1,020,818<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        8,905,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                11,931,773
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                             (3,927,770)
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          8,905,983
<SALES>                               2,429,275
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      2,429,275
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        20,865,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        (44,684)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     (244,694)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (18,976,917)
<INCOME-TAX>                              1,390
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (18,871,065)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                        (18,871,065)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.67)
        
<FN>
----------
<F1> Net of depreciation.
</FN>

</TABLE>
Note: Shaded area not verified with CDFW data Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Delta Smelt Splittail Longfin Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined Daily In CFS In Acre Feet

Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day Total

SWP Larval 

Yor N CVP Larval Yor N Total Average SWP CVP Total Average SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N

1-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 4 N 819 984 1,803 1,625 1,952 3,577 0.0 0.0

2-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 N 406 984 1,389 805 1,951 2,756 0.0 0.0

3-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 1 0 1 0 8 4 N 397 984 1,381 788 1,951 2,739 0.0 0.0

4-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 N 606 981 1,587 1,202 1,946 3,148 0.0 0.0

5-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 N 1,262 982 2,244 2,503 1,948 4,451 0.0 0.0

6-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 N 1,145 984 2,129 2,272 1,951 4,223 0.0 0.0

7-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 N 612 983 1,595 1,214 1,949 3,163 0.0 0.0

8-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 N 394 985 1,378 781 1,953 2,734 0.0 0.0

9-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 N 495 988 1,482 981 1,959 2,940 0.0 0.0

10-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 N 611 989 1,600 1,211 1,962 3,173 0.0 0.0

11-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 N 715 988 1,703 1,418 1,960 3,378 0.0 0.0

12-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 713 954 1,668 1,415 1,893 3,308 0.0 0.0

13-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 710 895 1,605 1,408 1,776 3,184 0.0 0.0

14-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 615 892 1,507 1,220 1,770 2,990 0.0 0.0

15-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 736 892 1,628 1,459 1,770 3,229 0.0 0.0

16-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 1,142 890 2,032 2,266 1,765 4,031 0.0 0.0

17-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 N 369 902 1,271 731 1,790 2,521 0.0 0.0

18-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 897 897 0 1,779 1,779 0.0 0.0

19-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 895 895 0 1,776 1,776 0.0 0.0

20-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 895 895 0 1,775 1,775 0.0 0.0

21-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 901 901 0 1,787 1,787 0.0 0.0

22-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 901 901 0 1,787 1,787 0.0 0.0

23-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 902 902 0 1,790 1,790 0.0 0.0

24-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 842 906 1,748 1,670 1,797 3,467 0.0 0.0

25-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 639 902 1,541 1,268 1,789 3,057 0.0 0.0

26-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 605 907 1,512 1,200 1,799 2,999 0.0 0.0

27-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 499 903 1,402 989 1,791 2,780 0.0 0.0

28-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 622 903 1,525 1,233 1,791 3,024 0.0 0.0

29-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 549 903 1,451 1,088 1,791 2,879 0.0 0.0

30-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 N 377 905 1,282 747 1,795 2,542 0.0 0.0

31-May-20 0 0 N 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 N 573 906 1,479 1,136 1,798 2,934 0.0 0.0

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 1 8 9 XXXX 324 28 16,451 28,884 45,335 32,630 57,291 89,921 XXXX XXXX

Official data is posted on CDFW's webpage.

Banks

Delta Smelt Daily 

Density

Tracy Combined SWP CVP

CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT, SPLITTAIL and LONGFIN REPORT

MAY 2020

DATE

Banks Tracy Combined
EXHIBIT
23
 
 
 Consent
Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statements (No.
333-06371, No. 333-19833, No. 333-90652, and No. 333-130994) on Form S-8 of
Cavalier Homes, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated February 19, 2009,
relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements and the financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cavalier
Homes, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2008.
 
 /s/ Carr,
Riggs & Ingram, LLC
 
 Birmingham,
Alabama
 February
19, 2009
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-00000, Form S-8 No. 333-112365, Form S-8 No. 333-72444 and Form S-8 No.333-42904) pertaining to the California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. 2004 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, the California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1998 Stock-Based Incentive Compensation Plan and 1990 Employee Stock Option Planof our report dated March 29, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 2, 2005. 

 

/s/    ERNST &YOUNG LLP 

 

Los Angeles,California 

March 31, 2005
### **CHAPTER 8—AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—STATEMENT OF PURPOSES

Sec.
2001.
Congressional declaration of purposes.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—BASIC AUTHORITIES

2011.
Implementation of the Agreement.
2012.
Omitted.
2013.
Effective date of proclamations.
2014.
Termination of proclamations.
2015.
Special reports to Congress.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—TARIFF ADJUSTMENT AND OTHER ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

2021.
General authority.
2022, 2023. Omitted.
2024.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS

2031.
Authorities; delegation of functions; rules and regulations.
2032.
Annual report to Congress.
2033.
Applicability of antidumping provisions and antitrust laws.