Court Opinion

ID: 9874233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:01:21.250862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:43.729723
License: Public Domain

BAKER, J.,
Concurring.—I agree the majority opinion reaches the correct result on the facts of this case. But I find it unnecessary to join, and do not join, in the effort to wholesale “disapprove” of our prior decisions in Avila v. Chua (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 860 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 373] and In re Marriage of Hock & Gordon-Hock (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1438 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 546], That is a task best left to our Supreme Court—if it were so inclined. (Cole v. Rush (1955) 45 Cal.2d 345, 350-351 [289 P.2d 450], overruled on other grounds in Veselv v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153 [95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 486 P.2d 151]; People v. Bolden (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1591, 1598 [266 Cal.Rptr. 724]; see also Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 651, 659, fn. 5 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 359].)