Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2023) A164749 A164749; filed 3/14/23. ![[Files/CaseFiles/A164749.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A164749.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Scope of remand; citing Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 851, 859. The unresolved HAA claims could be determined consistently with the remand instructions. > We review de novo a claim that the trial court did not follow the directions contained in the dispositional language of our previous opinion. (Ayyad, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 859.) We look to the wording of our directions, read in conjunction with the opinion as a whole. (Ibid.; Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 302 (Bach).) — Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2023) A164749, slip op., p. 7.