Filed 11/3/14 (pub. order 11/18/14; see end of opn.) 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

BRIAN L. GWARTZ et al., 

 Plaintiffs and Respondents, 

 v. 

MICHAEL WEILERT et al., 

 Defendants and Appellants. 

F066581 

(Super. Ct. No. 09CECG01032) 

OPINION

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kristi C. 

Kapetan, Judge. 

 Wild, Carter & Tipton and Steven E. Paganetti for Defendants and Appellants. 

 Law Offices of Daniel B. Spitzer, Daniel B. Spitzer; and Cheryl A. Skigin for 

Plaintiffs and Respondents. 

-ooOoo- 
2. 

 This appeal follows a highly publicized jury trial of a fraud claim arising from a 

$2.3 million sale of 15 acres of land that included a residence, riding arena and associated 

buildings, located on South Kings Canyon Road, Parlier, California. The plaintiffs who 

purchased the property obtained a judgment for $1,553,800, which included $850,000 in 

punitive damages. 

 Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in attempting to collect the judgment and moved for 

various postjudgment orders. The trial court granted these motions and the orders issued 

have been referred to as the freeze order, the turnover order, the assignment order and the 

charging order. Among other things, the orders enjoined defendants and their agents 

from selling, spending, transferring or dissipating any of their assets, which included 

money in any deposit account. When plaintiffs learned that defendants had violated the 

orders, they filed a motion to dismiss the appeal under the doctrine of disentitlement. 

Plaintiffs’ moving papers identified 47 different transfers of money that violated the trial 

court’s orders. 

 The motion to dismiss presents a threshold question that must be decided before 

reaching the merits of the appeal. Based on our review of the motion and opposition 

papers, including a declaration from defendant Michael Weilert that did not deny any of 

the 47 transactions took place, and argument by counsel, we conclude the balance of the 

equitable considerations relevant to the disentitlement doctrine favor dismissal. It would 

be unjust to allow defendants to seek the benefits of an appeal while willfully disobeying 

the trial court’s valid orders and frustrating plaintiffs’ legitimate efforts to enforce the 

judgment. 

 We therefore grant plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal. 

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 

The Parties 

 The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are Brian L. Gwartz and his wife, Cheryl A. Skigin, 

cotrustees of the Pendragon Trust. 
3. 

 Michael Weilert, M.D. (Weilert) and his wife, Genevieve Weilert, who also is 

known as Genevieve de Montremare (Genevieve),1 are the defendants in this action. The 

following entities are owned or controlled by Weilert and Genevieve. 

Defendants’ Related Entities 

 The M&G Weilert Family, L.P. (Weilert FLP) is a limited partnership owned 10 

percent by Weilert, 40 percent by Genevieve, and 50 percent by the Madonna della Pieta 

Trust, which is a living trust established in February 2009 with Genevieve as its sole 

trustee.2 It appears that the Weilert FLP has become the owner of many of the assets of 

Weilert and Genevieve including the next three entities discussed. In addition, 

defendants transferred investment real estate located in Clovis and Arroyo Grande to the 

Weilert FLP after the judgment was entered, but before the motions for a new trial and 

judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied. 

 Michael Weilert, M.D., Inc. (MD Inc.), is a California corporation that has been in 

the business of providing medical service since 1981. Weilert once was the sole 

shareholder of MD Inc. Now, Weilert FLP is the sole shareholder of MD Inc. Weilert 

remains an employee of, and performs all the services associated with, the corporation. 

Those services are provided to Pathology Associates, the business under which Weilert 

conducts his medical practice as a pathologist. 

 Pathology Associates is a California general partnership that provides pathology 

services to physicians and hospitals. Weilert FLP is one of the general partners and holds 

 

1 In responses to form interrogatories, Genevieve stated her name was (1) 

Genevieve Marie Anna Sanders from birth in 1962 until she was married in February 

1988, (2) Genevieve Marie Anna Hoffman from February 1988 until 1991, when it was 

legally changed to Genevieve Marie de Montremare. Genevieve verified the responses 

on May 7, 2010, using the name Genevieve Weilert. During a June 2010 independent 

medical examination conducted to determine if Genevieve was capable of being deposed, 

she stated she was Genevieve Sanders, not Genevieve Weilert. 

2 Weilert testified that the property held within the trust was Genevieve’s sole and 

separate property. 
4. 

a 10 percent ownership interest in Pathology Associates. Also, Weilert is the managing 

partner of Pathology Associates and, compared to the other partners, receives an 

additional draw of $2,000 per month for acting in that capacity. At one time, MD Inc. 

received partnership draws from the Pathology Associates. 

 Sierra Pathology Building, LLC is a California limited liability company that owns 

the building occupied by Pathology Associates. Weilert FLP owns a one-ninth interest in 

Sierra Pathology Building, LLC. 

 Free Market Medical Systems, LLC (Free Market) is a California limited liability 

company that was formed shortly before the trial in this case. On April 5, 2013, Weilert 

testified (1) Weilert FLP had put $150,000 into the company; (2) its purpose was to 

develop software products for use in medical offices; (3) its other member was Patricia 

Tam Ellis, a person familiar with software; (4) no application had been made for a 

copyright, design patent or other form of intellectual property; and (5) no written business 

plan existed. On May 3, 2013, Weilert testified he had made transfers of $100,000 and 

$75,000 into Free Market’s bank account in anticipation of future business expense 

because he expected “to start coding on projects” and would need to pay the programmer. 

At the time, Weilert was the sole signatory on Free Market’s bank account with Wells 

Fargo. 

 Belle Reve, LLC is a California limited liability company owned by Weilert and 

Genevieve. 

 After the judgment was entered in this case in October 2012, Weilert and 

Genevieve, along with MD Inc. and Weilert FLP filed petitions in bankruptcy court.3 

 

3 On September 9, 2013, the bankruptcy case for MD Inc. was filed and assigned 

case No. 13-16062. On September 13, 2013, defendants filed In re Michael Weilert and 

Genevieve de Montremare (Bankr. E.D.Cal, Case No. 13-16155), a proceeding under 

Chapter 7 (liquidation) of the Bankruptcy Code as well as the bankruptcy case for Weilert 

FLP, which was assigned case No. 13-16156. [Fn. cont.] 
5. 

Those bankruptcy proceedings are mentioned only briefly because (1) the transfers 

examined here occurred before the petitions were filed and (2) any bankruptcy stay that 

might have barred this court from moving forward in this matter has been lifted. (See pt. 

I.B.3, post.) 

The Underlying Fraudulent Real Estate Sale 

 In March 2008, plaintiffs agreed to purchase approximately 15 acres of land from 

Weilert for $2.3 million. The property included a residence, a riding arena and associated 

buildings. The documents for the sale included (1) a California residential purchase 

agreement and joint escrow instructions, (2) a real estate transfer disclosure statement, (3) 

a buyer’s inspection advisory, and (4) a supplemental statutory and contractual 

disclosures. All of these documents were prepared using preprinted forms published by 

the California Association of Realtors. In the real estate transfer disclosure statement, 

Weilert represented that he was not aware of any room additions, structural modification, 

or other alterations or repairs (1) made without the necessary permits (except for the pool 

house) or (2) not in compliance with building codes. 

 Plaintiffs alleged Weilert made misrepresentations regarding the property, 

including that (1) the construction of the residence had cost close to $2 million, (2) 

marble lions imported from Genevieve’s family in France came with the house, (3) the 

property had a private beach, and (4) the property had been permitted for a boat dock. 

Plaintiffs also alleged the parties agreed that Weilert would complete a covered riding 

arena, barn and irrigation system prior to the close of escrow. 

The Lawsuit 

 In March 2009, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Weilert and Genevieve, 

alleging fraud and other causes of action arising from the real estate transaction. 

 

 Weilert FLP had filed its first bankruptcy petition (case No. 13-14036) on June 7, 

2013. On July 18, 2013, the bankruptcy trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case, which 

the bankruptcy court granted in an order dated August 13, 2013. 
6. 

 The trial began in September 2012. The first phase was a bench trial for the 

purpose of determining whether the purchase agreement was an integrated document. 

Defendants hoped to show the purchase agreement was integrated and its “as-is” clause 

barred plaintiffs’ claims they made misrepresentations. The trial court rejected 

defendants’ position, ruling the purchase agreement was not integrated and parol 

evidence could be presented to the jury. 

 During the second phase of the trial, a jury was presented with plaintiffs’ causes of 

action for breach of contract, fraud by intentional misrepresentation, fraud by 

concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and a common count for work, labor and 

materials provided by plaintiffs to defendants. The jury decided these causes of action in 

favor of plaintiffs and also awarded plaintiffs $850,000 in punitive damages. 

The Judgment and Appeal 

 On October 30, 2012, the trial court filed a judgment on jury verdict that awarded 

plaintiffs $1,553,800, plus attorney fees and costs in an amount to be determined. 

 Defendants subsequently filed a motion for a new trial and a motion for judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court denied these motions. 

 On December 28, 2012, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and 

the trial court’s order denying their motion for new trial and motion for judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict. 

 Defendants did not post a bond to stay the enforcement of the judgment as 

provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1. 

The Postjudgment Orders 

 On April 5, 2013, Weilert testified during a judgment debtor examination at the 

superior court that Weilert FLP had a bank account with Wells Fargo Bank with 

approximately $225,000. Plaintiffs requested the trial court for an order directing the 

turnover of the funds. The court directed that the matter be put on calendar and a written 

ex parte application be filed. The court then stated, “I again repeat my cautionary 
7. 

comment. I think it behooves the judgment debtors not to change the status quo for the 

next, whatever, two business days it may take to have the matter heard on the merits.” 

 Despite this admonition, sometime between April 5, 2013, and the continued 

judgment debtor examination on May 3, 2013, Weilert made transfers of $75,000 and 

$100,000 to the bank account of Free Market. 

 On May 3, 2013, a hearing was held on the written application for a turnover 

order. The trial court continued the hearing on the turnover application and issued an 

order prohibiting the transfer or concealment of assets. The written form of the May 3, 

2013, order4 was filed on May 6, 2013, and provided that 

“(a) the judgment debtors, Weilert and Genevieve, individually or as 

agents, employees, officers or other representative capacity for (b) the 

Weilert FLP, (c) Free Market, (d) Belle Reve, (e) MD Inc., and (f) the 

[Madonna della Pieta] Trust, and their respective agents, representatives, 

employees and attorneys, and all others acting in concert with them, are 

hereby restrained and enjoined from selling, withdrawing, spending, 

transferring, encumbering, dissipating, or assigning any assets (including 

without limitation money on deposit in any deposit account) of the 

judgment debtors, Weilert FLP, Free Market, Belle Reve, MD Inc. and the 

[Madonna della Pieta] Trust.” 

 The order continued the hearing on application for a turnover order until May 16, 

2013, and stated the freeze order would remain in effect until that hearing. 

 On May 16, 2013, the trial court reinstated the freeze order. The court also 

granted plaintiffs’ motion for a turnover order and their motion for an assignment order. 

The court took plaintiffs’ motion for a charging order under submission and filed a 

written charging order on May 28, 2013. 

 

4 The order was labeled “ORDER FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 

FOR CONTINUED HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER 

ORDER AND FOR CONTINUED JUDGMENT DEBTOR EXAMINATION OF 

MICHAEL WEILERT.” For purposes of this opinion, it is referred to as the “freeze 

order.” 
8. 

 The turnover order directed defendants and their affiliated entities to deliver to the 

levying officer (1) vehicles and their documents of title; (2) horses and their documents 

of title; (3) documents of title for real estate in Fresno and San Luis Obispo Counties; and 

(4) all certificated and uncertificated securities representing interests in MD Inc., Belle 

Reve, LLC, Weilert FLP, Sierra Pathology Building, LLC, and Free Market. 

 The assignment order stated that all payments due the defendants or the entities 

they owned or controlled (to the extent necessary to satisfy the judgment in full) were 

assigned to the plaintiffs. The order specifically mentioned (1) rental income from three 

parcels of real property; (2) payments, distributions or partnership draws due to MD Inc. 

from Pathology Associates; (3) payments due Belle Reve, LLC from any source; and (4) 

payments due to Weilert or his affiliated entities from Sierra Pathology Building, LLC. 

 The charging order stated that the interests of the defendants in the Weilert FLP; 

Pathology Associates; Belle Reve, LLC; Sierra Pathology Building, LLC; and MD Inc. 

were charged with the unpaid balance due under the October 30, 2012, judgment. 

The Motion to Dismiss

 On December 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed their motion to dismiss this appeal. The 

motion listed 47 transactions by defendants and their affiliated entities that violated the 

trial court’s May 6, 2013, order prohibiting transfers of funds in a deposit account. 

 Eventually, after a specific order from this court, defendants filed an opposition to 

the motion to dismiss that addressed whether dismissal was appropriate under the 

doctrine of disentitlement. 

DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to California’s doctrine of 

disentitlement presents this court with a threshold question that, if decided in plaintiffs’ 

favor, would mean the merits of defendants’ appeal from the judgment are not reached. 

Because the motion to dismiss will be granted, this opinion sets forth our reasons for 
9. 

dismissing the appeal and does not reach the merits of the appeal. (See Cal. Const., art. 

VI, § 14 [written appellate decisions].) 

I. DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE 

A. Legal Principles 

 An appellate court has the inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party that 

refuses to comply with a lower court order. (Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments Inc. 

(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229 (Stoltenberg).) This doctrine of disentitlement is not 

jurisdictional, but is a discretionary tool that may be used to dismiss an appeal when the 

balance of the equitable concerns makes dismissal an appropriate sanction. (Id. at p. 

1230.) The rationale underlying the doctrine is that a party to an action cannot seek the 

aid and assistance of an appellate court while standing in an attitude of contempt to the 

legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.5 (Ibid.) No formal judgment of 

contempt is required under the doctrine of disentitlement. (Ibid.) An appellate court may 

dismiss an appeal where the appellant has willfully disobeyed the lower court’s orders or 

engaged in obstructive tactics. (Ibid.) 

 The disentitlement doctrine has been applied to a wide range of cases, including 

cases in which an appellant is a judgment debtor who has frustrated or obstructed 

legitimate efforts to enforce a judgment. (E.g., Stoltenberg, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 1225 

[defendants repeatedly, and in contempt of sister-state orders, frustrated the enforcement 

of the California judgment that was the subject of their appeal]; TMS, Inc. v. Aihara

(1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 377 [appeal dismissed where, despite trial court’s order, 

defendants willfully refused to respond to postjudgment interrogatories]; Stone v. Bach

(1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 442 [appellant disobeyed a prejudgment order directing the deposit 

 

5 This rationale appears to be derived from the fundamental principle of equity 

jurisprudence that one who seeks equity must do equity. (Dool v. First National Bank

(1929) 207 Cal. 347, 351.) A similar rationale underlies the equitable defense of unclean 

hands. (Polanski v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 507, 532.) 
10. 

of partnership funds collected by him into a trustee account and, after the judgment, was 

found in contempt for failing to appear at a judgment debtor examination].) 

B. Application of Doctrine to These Facts 

 1. Transfers Identified in Motion to Dismiss 

 All 47 transactions identified in plaintiffs’ motion are not discussed here because it 

will suffice to examine a portion of the transfers involving Weilert himself. These 

transfers adequately demonstrate that Weilert violated the trial court’s freeze order. 

 Specifically, we will consider 13 transfers totaling $285,000 that were made from 

Weilert’s bank account to (1) MD Inc., (2) Belle Reve, (3) Free Market, and (4) 

American Express between June 3, 2013, and September 13, 2013. 

 The five transfers made by Weilert to MD Inc. totaled $135,0006 and were made 

in the following amounts and on the following dates: 

 Amount Date 

 $15,000 June 17, 2013 

 $ 5,000 July 19, 2013 

 $10,000 August 2, 2013 

 $50,000 August 6, 2013 

 $55,000 August 8, 2013 

 Weilert also made four transfers totaling $3,000 to Belle Reve: 

 Amount Date 

 $ 600 July 1, 2013 

 $ 600 July 22, 2013 

 $ 800 August 6, 2013 

 

6 We recognize that the 47 transactions listed in the motion to dismiss include 14 

transfers from MD Inc. to Weilert totaling $43,100. If these transfers are offset against 

those made by Weilert to MD Inc., the net amount transferred from Weilert to MD Inc. is 

$91,900. 
11. 

 $ 1,000 August 12, 2013 

 On June 20, 2013, Weilert transferred $120,000 to Free Market. 

 From September 9 through 12, 2013, Weilert made three payments to American 

Express totaling $27,000. 

 Plaintiffs learned of these transactions when defendants filed schedules and 

statements of financial affairs in the bankruptcy cases involving themselves, MD Inc. and 

Weilert FLP. 

 2. Defendants’ Oppositions 

 On January 7, 2014, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss 

the appeal that did not address the disentitlement doctrine, but argued a motion to dismiss 

based on a failure to file an appellate brief was premature. 

 On February 6, 2014, defendants filed a supplemental opposition to the motion to 

dismiss and requested sanctions against plaintiffs on the ground that the motion was 

frivolous. Again, defendants asserted a motion to dismiss for failure to file an appellant’s 

opening brief was premature under California Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a). 

 On March 7, 2014, this court filed an order stating that defendants had failed to 

respond to the merits of the motion to dismiss and granted them 10 days leave to file such 

a response. 

 Defendants then filed an opposition that addressed the merits and was supported 

by a declaration of Weilert and a motion for judicial notice of various documents. 

Defendants’ opposition asserted (1) the motion to dismiss was subject to a bankruptcy 

stay and (2) the facts did not support equitable relief under the disentitlement doctrine. 

 3. Bankruptcy Stay and Its Effect on the Appeal 

 A few days after receiving this opposition from defendants, this court issued an 

order directing plaintiffs to respond to defendants’ claim that a bankruptcy stay was in 

effect. Plaintiffs’ reply stated the bankruptcy court had entered an order lifting the 

automatic stay as to this appeal in its entirety. Defendants filed a supplemental 
12. 

opposition stating this appeal may proceed by virtue of the bankruptcy court’s order 

lifting the stay, but that order did not allow plaintiffs to pursue their motion to dismiss. 

 The bankruptcy court order referenced by the parties was signed by United States 

Bankruptcy Judge W. Richard Lee on October 10, 2013. The order states in relevant 

part: 

“1. The Stay is lifted to permit the parties to proceed to a final 

determination of claims from the Court of Appeals but not to enforce any 

judgment against the debtor or bankruptcy estate. Any affirmation of the 

judgment obtained shall be brought back to this Court for the proper 

treatment of claims under the Bankruptcy Code.” 

 We interpret this order to mean that this court is not barred from addressing any 

issues necessary to resolve the appeal, including those issues presented by plaintiffs’ 

motion to dismiss under the disentitlement doctrine. Therefore, we explicitly reject 

defendants’ interpretation that the bankruptcy stay was not lifted as to the motion to 

dismiss. 

 4. Weilert’s Violations of the Freeze Order 

 Weilert’s declaration in opposition to the motion to dismiss does not deny that any 

of the 47 transactions listed in the motion took place. Indeed, Weilert effectively admits 

the transfers occurred in the following statement: 

“[Plaintiffs] are substantially and materially wrong in the monetary amount 

they allege at page 8 of their motion seeking to dismiss my appeal. 

[Plaintiffs] reference an amount of $812,690.00. However, the actual 

amount is less than 1/3 of this amount. Without getting into the details of 

the various transfers, [plaintiffs] in effect re-calculated money twice or 

three times when the amount is the same money being transferred from one 

account to another.” 

 In addition, Weilert’s declaration included the following assertion: “The actions I 

took at all times relevant were done in good faith.” He offers no explanation for how he 

could have been acting in good faith when transferring money in violation of the trial 

court’s freeze order. 
13. 

 Based on our review of the evidence presented to support the motion to dismiss 

and the opposition papers (including the Weilert declaration), we conclude that Weilert 

willfully violated the trial court’s freeze order on many occasions by transferring money. 

 Initially, we note defendants did not address the violations raised in the motion to 

dismiss in their first two sets of opposition papers. They addressed the violations and the 

application of the disentitlement doctrine only after this court issued an order directing 

them to do so. 

 When defendants addressed merits of the motion to dismiss, they did not deny the 

transfers listed in the motion occurred and did not explain how those transfers might have 

been permissible under the trial court’s orders. Instead, defendants argued the amount of 

money that had been moved was only one-third of the total identified in the motion to 

dismiss. This approach, for all practical purposes, admits money was transferred in 

violation of the freeze order. 

 Furthermore, Weilert’s assertion that his actions were done in good faith is 

unconvincing because defendants have offered no explanation for (1) how the transfers 

could have been made without violating the trial court’s orders or (2) how he acted with a 

pure heart and a head so empty that he did not realize he was violating the orders.7 In 

addition, Weilert fails to explain his inaction—namely, his failure to comply with the 

turnover order and the assignment order. For example, Weilert’s declaration does not 

 

7 We note that in some contexts, a claim of subjective good faith is referred to as the 

“pure heart, empty head” defense. (Jones, “Stop, Think & Investigate”: Should 

California Adopt Federal Rule 11 (1993) 22 Sw.U. L.Rev. 337 [1983 amendment the 

federal rule regarding sanctions eliminated the pure heart, empty head defense]; Maute, 

Sporting Theory of Justice: Taming Adversarial Zeal with Logical Sanctions Doctrine

(1987) 20 Conn. L.Rev. 7, 18; see United States National Bank of Oregon v. Boge (1990) 

311 Or. 550, 565 [814 P.2d 1082, 1090] [all that subjective good faith requires is a pure 

heart and empty head]; Thornton v. Wahl (7th Cir. 1986) 787 F.2d 1151, 1154 [Judge 

Easterbrook discusses sanctions under Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., rule 11, 28 U.S.C.A., for 

counsel’s wildly untrue representations about state law].) 
14. 

dispute the facts set forth in the declaration of Daniel Spitzer regarding the service of the 

orders upon him. 

 The record shows that defendants are seeking the benefits of an appeal while 

willfully disobeying the trial court’s valid orders and thereby frustrating defendants’ 

legitimate efforts to enforce the judgment. Therefore, we conclude the equitable 

considerations relevant to the disentitlement doctrine favor dismissal of this appeal. 

II. APPEAL IN CASE NO. F067958 

 Weilert and Genevieve also filed an appeal from the freeze, turnover, assignment 

and charging orders entered by the trial court after the judgment. That appeal has been 

assigned case No. F067958. 

 On May 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the second appeal on the 

same grounds asserted in their motion to dismiss the first appeal. 

 We will grant that motion to dismiss in a separate order based on the rationale set 

forth in this opinion. 

DISPOSITION 

 The motion to dismiss the defendants’ appeal is granted. Plaintiffs shall recover 

their costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1) & (2).) 

 Defendants’ request for sanctions filed on February 6, 2014, is denied. 

 ________________________ 

Franson, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

_____________________ 

Kane, Acting P.J. 

____________________ 

Peña, J. 
Filed 11/18/14 

IN THE

Court of Appeal of the State of California

IN AND FOR THE

Fifth Appellate District

BRIAN L. GWARTZ et al., 

 Plaintiffs and Respondents, 

 v. 

MICHAEL WEILERT et al., 

 Defendants and Appellants. 

F066581 

(Super. Ct. No. 09CECG01032) 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

PUBLICATION 

 As the nonpublished opinion filed on November 3, 2014, in the above entitled 

matter hereby meets the standards for publication specified in the California Rules of 

Court, rule 8.1105(c), it is ordered that the opinion be certified for publication in the 

Official Reports. 

 _______________________ 

 Franson, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

_______________________ 

Kane, Acting P.J. 

_______________________ 

Peña, J. 
2.