Mitchell v. Edema CA3

── Mitchell v. Edema CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 Mitchell v. Edema CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) FREDERICK MITCHELL, C102026 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV2023-2569) v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION DAWN WIGERI VAN EDEMA et al., AND DENYING REHEARING Defendants and Respondents. AND REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] 1  THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on April 13, 2026, be modified as follows: On page 8, after the second full sentence, delete “(Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6044, 6086.5;” and replace with “(Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6030, 6044, 6086.5, 6126.3;” so that the full citation now reads: (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6030, 6044, 6086.5, 6126.3; Rules Proc. of State Bar, rules 2101, 2402, 2604; see Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 548, 566; Lebbos v. State Bar (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 656, 662, 668-669.) There is no change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied. The request for publication is denied. BY THE COURT: /S/ ROBIE, Acting P. J. /S/ MAURO, J. /S/ WISEMAN, J.  Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 2 Filed 4/13/26 Mitchell v. Edema CA3 (unmodified opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ---- FREDERICK MITCHELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, C102026 v. (Super. Ct. No. CV2023-2569) DAWN WIGERI VAN EDEMA et al., Defendants and Respondents. Thomas Rutaganira initiated an unlawful detainer action against Krista Mitchell.1 In that action, which is not part of this appeal, Thomas was represented by the law firm Pakpour Banks, LLP (Pakpour Banks), including attorney partners Brian Pakpour and Keith Morgan Banks, and their paralegal Dawn Wigeri van Edema. Krista was represented by attorney Ernest Krause. Krista’s father Frederick Mitchell served as a legal assistant to Ernest and held himself out as a participant in the State Bar of California law office study program, which can qualify successful individuals to take the California bar exam without attending law sch