May 28, 2015
JAIME SALAZAR et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants,
JACK THOMAS et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.
IT IS ORDERED that the following modification be made to the published portion of the opinion filed herein on May 1, 2015, 236 Cal.App.4th 467; ___Cal.Rptr.3d___ and the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
On page 16 at the end of footnote 14 [236 Cal.App.4th 481, advance report, fn. 14, line 2], add the following sentences:
This assumption covers many of the specific facts that defendants’ petition for rehearing contends are “material” to this appeal. Moreover, defendants’ view of materiality is based on a legally erroneous view of the term “disturb” that focuses on the subjective impact of the notices of default on plaintiffs (i.e., whether it is emotionally troubling) and overlooks the need for a connection between the disturbance and the landowner’s current right to possession.
There is no change in the judgment.
Respondents’ petition for rehearing is denied.