American First Credit Union v. Platinum Properties Investment Network CA4/3

── American First Credit Union v. Platinum Properties Investment Network CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 American First Credit Union v. Platinum Properties Investment Network CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE AMERICAN FIRST CREDIT UNION, G064901 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2022- v. 01255653) PLATINUM PROPERTIES ORDER MODIFYING INVESTOR NETWORK, INC., et al., OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING; Defendants and Appellants. NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT It is ordered that the opinion filed on March 24, 2026, be modified as follows: 1. On page 16, first incomplete paragraph, after last sentence that ends in “we do not address the legal merits of its argument,” add the following footnote: In a rehearing petition, Platinum Entities claim that none of the appellate briefs discussed the theory that they made an “alleged tacit admission of ROI’s claim.” They contend rehearing is required under Government Code section 68081, so they can brief this theory. However, there is no “right under  [Government Code] section 68081 to . . . be granted a rehearing each time an appellate court relies upon authority or employs a mode of analysis that was not briefed by the parties. The parties need only have been given an opportunity to brief the issue decided by the court, and the fact that a party does not address an issue, mode of analysis, or authority that is raised or fairly included within the issues raised does not implicate the protections of section 68081.” (People v. Alice (2007) 41 Cal.4th 668, 679, italics added.) The theory highlighted by Platinum Entities was fairly included within the issues raised by their opening brief. For example, they argued “[Platinum] LLC was the only party with a present possessory right to the interpleaded funds at the time this action was commenced.” (Italics added.) Evaluating this argument required analyzing whether ROI had a present claim to the levied funds. This modification does not change the judgment. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. MOORE, J. WE CONCUR: MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J. SANCHEZ, J. 2 Filed 4/1/26 American First Credit Union v. Platinum Properties Investment Network CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE AMERICAN FIRST CREDIT UNION,