De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- Citation
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- Parent Document
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2026-01-27
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
Full Text
492 chars1
Because there are two defendants involved in this action, we refer to them separately by
their last names in the interests of clarity. Any reference to “defendants” refers to both Rosales
and Charlemagne collectively.
2
The plural term “resident managers” appears throughout the agreement, but Rosales
was the only person who signed the agreement as the “resident manager” and that she was the
only resident manager involved in the agreement was undisputed at trial.