Court Opinion

ID: 9749404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:41:41.496721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:48.038287
License: Public Domain

*1308THE COURT.*
Defendants’ petition for rehearing or for modification of the opinion is denied. The attorney who filed the petition on defendants’ behalf is not licensed to practice law in this state. Nor did that attorney request permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice in connection with the appeal or this rehearing petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 983.) An attorney who is not an active member of the California State Bar, and who has not been granted permission to appear in a particular matter, may not represent a party in this state’s courts. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6125; Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 127-135 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 304, 949 P.2d 1].)
Further, in their briefs on appeal, defendants argued the facts as found by the trial court were insufficient as a matter of law to meet the statutory definition of a franchise. They did not assert the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s factual findings. In their rehearing petition defendants argue, for the first time, that the trial court inaccurately characterized some of the facts. They also specifically contend there was insufficient evidence to support one of the trial court’s factual findings. It is well settled that arguments, including insufficiency of the evidence, cannot be raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing. (Conservatorship of Susan T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1005, 1013 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 40, 884 P.2d 988]; County of Imperial v. McDougal (1977) 19 Cal.3d 505, 513 [138 Cal.Rptr. 472, 564 P.2d 14]; A. F. Estabrook Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1918) 177 Cal. 767, 771 [177 P. 848]; Prince v. Hill (1915) 170 Cal. 192, 195 [149 P. 578]; San Francisco v. Pacific Bank (1891) 89 Cal. 23, 25 [26 P. 615]; Kellogg v. Cochran (1890) 87 Cal. 192, 200 [25 P. 677]; Payne & Dewey v. Treadwell (1860) 16 Cal. 220, 247; Akins v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1, 39, [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 314]; Boydston v. Napa Sanitation Dist. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1362, 1370 [272 Cal.Rptr. 458]; American Tobacco Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 480, 490, fn. 6 [255 Cal.Rptr. 280]; Brown v. Superior Court (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 778, 782 [187 Cal.Rptr. 324]; Rolley, Inc. v. Merle Norman Cosmetics (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 844, 852 [278 P.2d 63]; Bradley v. Bradley (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 310, 312 [210 P.2d 537, 211 P.2d 638].)
The balance of defendants’ petition restates arguments that were raised and considered on appeal. We are satisfied with the correctness of our decision.
Appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 22, 1998.

Before Turner, P. J., Armstrong, J., and Jackson, J.†

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.