California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division
IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on February 14, 2014,
223 Cal.App.4th 1214, ___Cal.Rptr.___ be modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
On page 21 [223 Cal.App.4th 1230, advance report, 2d full par., line 2], after the final sentence ending with "costs on appeal," add as footnote 5 the following footnote:
In her petition for a rehearing, J.J., appearing through her guardian ad litem, Ja.J., for the first time contends that Government Code section 905 applies to her case. We express no opinion on this issue, however; as a court of review, we will not " 'submit to piecemeal argument and will not consider on petition for rehearing questions not previously raised' " absent extraordinary circumstances, which are not present in the instant case.
(Epperson v. Rosemond (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 344, 348 [223 P.2d 655];
see Sanders v. Howard Park Co. (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 721, 723 [195 P.2d 898] [noting an "argument based upon a point not mentioned in the original brief of the petitioner will be of no avail on [petitioner's] demand for a rehearing"].)
The petition for rehearing filed on February 26, 2014, has been considered by Justices Benke, ...