CA Pub. Decisions

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant's request for a preliminary injunction. An order denying a preliminary injunction is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6); see Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 336, 338, fn. 1.) Appellant, plaintiff Ralphs Grocery Company, contends two California laws protecting labor picketing violate constitutional protections of free speech. Court agree. Accordingly, Court reverse the order of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings on appellant's motion for preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered against them after defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged causes of action including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, rescission and reformation; plaintiffs alleged they signed a written agreement with defendant, but they were induced to do so by defendant's oral misrepresentations of the terms contained in the written agreement, made at the time of execution of the agreement. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment after ruling that plaintiffs' evidence of misrepresentations was inadmissible pursuant to the parol evidence rule, and therefore plaintiffs had not presented admissible evidence raising a triable issue of material fact that would prevent entry of judgment against them. We find the evidence fell within the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule and should have been admitted to raise a triable issue of material fact in opposition to defendant's motion. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment.

Jesse Espinoza (Defendant), an inmate in state prison, petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking reversal of a decision of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) denying family visitation privileges on the grounds that Defendant had been found guilty of narcotics distribution while incarcerated in state prison. The trial court granted the petition and ordered CDCR to reconsider Defendant's request based only upon consideration of his conduct during his current term of incarceration and without consideration of his past prison disciplinary violations for institutional narcotics trafficking. CDCR appeals, contending (1) Defendant's challenge to CDCR's decision is untimely, and (2) the trial court erred in interpreting California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3177. Court reverse.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs and appellants, Leisha Hendrix, Kathy Sellers, Jane Folmer, Eva Sager, and Phillip Livoni (collectively referred to as plaintiffs), all of whom are official court reporters employed by defendant and respondent, The Superior Court of San Bernardino County (hereafter the Court), from the judgment entered against them and in favor of the Court and defendant and respondent, Tressa Sloan Kentner, the Court's executive officer, on plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate.[1] In that petition plaintiffs sought to compel defendants to pay them at the higher rate specified in Government Code section 69950, subdivision (a) any time plaintiffs had to recreate a previously transcribed reporter's transcript. In the published portion of this opinion we hold that the higher rate of compensation applies only to the first transcription of the reporter's notes. In the unpublished portion we hold that plaintiffs also failed to establish a contractual right to the higher rate of compensation. Therefore Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Amir A. Ahmed shot his girlfriend once in the abdomen. According to the girlfriend, this occurred during an argument, shortly after defendant said, â€

Searles contends it adequately alleged a cause of action for express indemnity by alleging that Parsons was required, under an indemnity contract between Parsons and Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (KM), to provide KM with a defense and indemnify KM for losses arising from a wrongful death action against KM, Parsons, and Parsons's subcontractor. Searles argues that, as an assignee of KM's indemnity rights, it was entitled to reimbursement for paying KM's defense costs.
While there appears to be no case law directly on point, we conclude that an assignee of contract indemnification rights stands in the shoes of the indemnitee. Therefore, if the indemnitor refuses to pay an indemnitee's defense costs, the indemnitee, and in turn the assignee, can pay the costs and seek reimbursement from the indemnitor. Searles, as KM's assignee, was entitled under the indemnity agreement to recover defense costs it paid on KM's behalf. The trial court thus erred in sustaining, without leave to amend, Parsons's demurrer to Searles's cause of action for express indemnity, and Court reverse the judgment of dismissal.

Plaintiffs and appellants Karan and Stan Eriksson are the parents of Mia Erikkson.[1] Mia was an avid horse rider and equestrian competitor. Defendant and respondent Kristi Nunnink was Mia's riding coach. In November 2006, Mia participated in an equestrian competition at Galway Downs (Galway) in Temecula. She was 17 years old at the time. Although Mia's horse was recently injured in another competition, Nunnink persuaded Mia's mother, Karan, that the horse was fit to ride in the Galway event. Based on Nunnink's representations, Karan allowed Mia to compete. During the cross-country portion of the competition, Mia's horse tripped over a hurdle. With the Erikssons looking on, Mia fell off the horse and the horse fell on Mia, causing Mia's death.
The Erikssons sued Nunnink for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress. They alleged that Nunnink â€

Plaintiffs and appellants Karan and Stan Eriksson are the parents of Mia Erikkson.[1] Mia was an avid horse rider and equestrian competitor. Defendant and respondent Kristi Nunnink was Mia's riding coach. In November 2006, Mia participated in an equestrian competition at Galway Downs (Galway) in Temecula. She was 17 years old at the time. Although Mia's horse was recently injured in another competition, Nunnink persuaded Mia's mother, Karan, that the horse was fit to ride in the Galway event. Based on Nunnink's representations, Karan allowed Mia to compete. During the cross-country portion of the competition, Mia's horse tripped over a hurdle. With the Erikssons looking on, Mia fell off the horse and the horse fell on Mia, causing Mia's death.
The Erikssons sued Nunnink for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress. They alleged that Nunnink â€

Plaintiffs and appellants Karan and Stan Eriksson are the parents of Mia Erikkson.[1] Mia was an avid horse rider and equestrian competitor. Defendant and respondent Kristi Nunnink was Mia's riding coach. In November 2006, Mia participated in an equestrian competition at Galway Downs (Galway) in Temecula. She was 17 years old at the time. Although Mia's horse was recently injured in another competition, Nunnink persuaded Mia's mother, Karan, that the horse was fit to ride in the Galway event. Based on Nunnink's representations, Karan allowed Mia to compete. During the cross-country portion of the competition, Mia's horse tripped over a hurdle. With the Erikssons looking on, Mia fell off the horse and the horse fell on Mia, causing Mia's death.
The Erikssons sued Nunnink for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress. They alleged that Nunnink â€

Following a jury trial, defendant and appellant Joseph Gene Federico was convicted of attempting to commit a lewd act with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 288, subd. (a), 664, count 1) and attempting to send harmful matter to a minor with the intent of seducing the minor (§§ 288.2, subd. (b), 664, count 2). Defendant admitted he had a prior strike conviction for manslaughter with the use of a firearm (§ 192) within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1) and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). He was sentenced to prison for a total term of six years eight months. He appeals.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS
In January 2006, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department conducted a sting operation in Mira Loma aimed at catching a sexual predator who was preying on a young girl through the Internet. The sheriff's department was contacted by Perverted Justice. Perverted Justice volunteers pose on the Internet as children and wait for adults who are soliciting sexual activity from children to contact them.

Kevin R. seeks review of a juvenile court order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. He contends the court erred when it found that reasonable services were offered or provided to him, and terminated reunification services. Court deny the petition.

Kevin R. seeks review of a juvenile court order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. He contends the court erred when it found that reasonable services were offered or provided to him, and terminated reunification services. Court deny the petition.

Higinio Sanchez (husband) appeals the restraining order issued under the Domestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code,[1] § 6200 et seq.) protecting Maria Del Carmen Fernandez-Abin (wife) and their minor son and daughter. Husband claims the California court erred when it included the children within the scope of the restraining order and made various rulings regarding visitation and custody because, in an earlier proceeding before a different judge, that court had granted his motion brought under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (§ 3400 et seq. (UCCJEA)) to dismiss the children. In so doing, that court found it lacked emergency jurisdiction over the children because wife already had initiated divorce and custody proceedings in family court in Tijuana, Mexico, and thus the court in Mexico had exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over them.

Higinio Sanchez (husband) appeals the restraining order issued under the Domestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code,[1] § 6200 et seq.) protecting Maria Del Carmen Fernandez-Abin (wife) and their minor son and daughter. Husband claims the California court erred when it included the children within the scope of the restraining order and made various rulings regarding visitation and custody because, in an earlier proceeding before a different judge, that court had granted his motion brought under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (§ 3400 et seq. (UCCJEA)) to dismiss the children. In so doing, that court found it lacked emergency jurisdiction over the children because wife already had initiated divorce and custody proceedings in family court in Tijuana, Mexico, and thus the court in Mexico had exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over them.