CA Unpub Decisions

This case arises out of the alleged constructive termination of plaintiff Nicole Campos (plaintiff) by defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Plaintiff alleges that because of her age and disability, and in retaliation for her complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), LAUSD engaged in a course of conduct that collectively created intolerable working conditions.
LAUSD filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. LAUSD asserted that each of plaintiff’s causes of action was based in significant part on conduct protected under the anti-SLAPP statute, and plaintiff could not demonstrate that any cause of action had arguable merit. LAUSD therefore contended that the complaint should be stricken in full. The trial court struck the allegations of protected conduct, but otherwise denied the special motion to strike.
We affirm.

Gerino Crisostomo, his brother Claude Crisostomo, and their sister Belinda Kai were the beneficiaries of their parents’ trust. After their parents died, Claude, as successor trustee, and Belinda, as a beneficiary, filed a petition in the probate court for orders instructing Claude to market and sell the trust’s only asset, their parents’ former residence. Over Gerino’s objection, the court granted the petition. Gerino, representing himself, appeals from the order granting that petition. We affirm.

After being instructed on aiding and abetting principles and the felony murder theory, a jury convicted appellant Robert Gonzales of first degree murder and found true a robbery-murder special circumstance. We affirmed on direct appeal. (People v. Gonzales (Feb. 27, 2007, B188161) [nonpub. opn.] (Gonzales I).)
Appellant later filed a petition to vacate his conviction and for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. The trial court appointed counsel for appellant but denied his petition at the prima facie stage. Relying on the facts recited in Gonzales I, the trial court found appellant ineligible for relief as a matter of law because he directly aided and abetted the murder, was a major participant in the crime, and acted with reckless indifference. Appellant challenged the order on appeal. We affirmed, concluding appellant could still be convicted of murder because Gonzales I found substantial evidence supported the murder conviction on an aiding and abetting theory.

Petitioners M.G. (father) and T.S. (mother) each seek extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s orders terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to their now seven-year-old daughter, A.G. Both parents challenge the court’s jurisdictional findings on the subsequent petition, visitation orders, and the termination of services. Mother additionally argues that the court made erroneous, or failed to make necessary, findings at disposition. Having reviewed these extended proceedings in detail, we agree with mother that the record does not support the jurisdictional finding that she failed to protect A.G. from father’s physical abuse, but otherwise see no error requiring reversal. We therefore deny father’s petition, and grant in part and deny in part mother’s petition.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Jericho Parrish Mercado pled guilty to one count of first degree burglary in return for a stipulated two-year sentence. As part of the plea, defendant agreed to a so-called Cruz waiver, pursuant to which he was released from custody in return for his promise, among other things, to return for sentencing or face a maximum term sentence which in this case would be six years. After defendant twice failed to appear at sentencing, the court found defendant in violation of the waiver and sentenced him to the maximum term. On appeal, defendant contends there is no substantial evidence that he willfully violated the terms of his Cruz waiver. We agree and shall reverse.

Defendant Peter James Amante appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1170.95 petition to vacate his conviction for first degree murder and for resentencing. Because the jury’s special gang circumstance finding under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(22) establishes as a matter of law that Amante is ineligible for relief under section 1170.95, we conclude the trial court correctly denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. We therefore affirm.

Once again, before us is the protracted dispute involving the eight children of James DeMartini, Sr., and Thelma, and their respective spouses, who received bequests of real property in equal shares of James, Sr., and Thelma’s fairly extensive real property holdings located in San Anselmo and in Nevada County. The parties are cross-complainants and appellants Michael and his wife Renate (Michael), and cross-defendants and respondents Timothy and his wife Margie along with Daniel and his wife Linda, David and his wife Nancy, Mark and his wife Laurie, Jon and his wife Lynne, and Sally Humphreys and her husband Newell (the Timothy Group or Group). This is the fourth appeal filed in this matter following an interlocutory judgment of partition issued in 2011.

This is a consolidated appeal by defendant Susan B. Anthony from final judgment after the trial court granted the summary judgment motion of plaintiff Caru Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Caru). Defendant challenges this judgment on the grounds that (1) Caru lacked standing to sue, (2) the trial court erred by granting Caru’s motion to deem matters admitted and then refusing to set aside its decision, (3) the court erred in entering summary judgment for Caru, and (4) the awards of declaratory and injunctive relief were unauthorized and overbroad. We agree the injunctive relief award is overbroad and must be modified. Otherwise, we affirm.

Plaintiffs, half-brothers Gary and Randy Eaves, worked for many years at a tire manufacturing plant in Texarkana, Arkansas, using rubber solvent containing benzene manufactured and supplied by defendant Union Oil Company of California (Union Oil). Gary and Randy died of cancer in 2015 and 2018, respectively. Before their deaths, they filed suit with their families against Union Oil and other defendants for negligence and other claims, alleging that their occupational benzene exposure had caused their cancers. A jury ultimately found for the plaintiffs on their negligence claim and awarded Gary’s family $10.95 million and Randy’s family $10.3 million, including, for each family, a $9 million award of noneconomic damages.

Defendant Ricardo Corona Galvan appeals from the judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of one count each of attempted carjacking, attempted kidnapping during a carjacking, and assault with a deadly weapon. The jury also found defendant had personally used a firearm in the commission of each offense.
Defendant solely challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the attempted kidnapping during a carjacking conviction. Defendant argues insufficient evidence showed he had a specific intent to kidnap or that he committed any act in furtherance of a kidnapping.
We affirm. For the reasons we explain, defendant’s substantial evidence challenge is without merit.

Petitioner Boulay Mangsanghanh petitioned the trial court for resentencing on her two convictions for first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 1170.95.) The court denied the petition on the ground petitioner is ineligible for resentencing because she was convicted of first degree murder as a direct aider and abettor and not under the felony-murder rule or natural and probable consequences doctrine.
On appeal, petitioner contends the trial court reversibly erred in looking beyond her facially sufficient petition and engaging in premature factfinding. We conclude the court did not err and, in any event, the record of conviction establishes petitioner is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm.

In 2007, petitioner Eved Vireles Romero pled no contest to the first degree murder of Martin Leon (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and admitted the allegation that he acted intentionally, deliberately, and with premeditation in the commission of the offense. He was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life.
In 2019, petitioner filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court denied the petition on the ground petitioner is ineligible for resentencing because he was not convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory.
On appeal, petitioner contends the trial court engaged in improper judicial factfinding based on the preliminary hearing transcript. He further contends he established a prima facie claim for resentencing relief, and the court therefore erred in finding him ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.

Defendant and appellant C.B. (father) challenges a juvenile court’s order denying him reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6), as to his children, C.B., Jr., and J.B. (the children). He contends the court erred in not providing him services since they were in the children’s best interests. We affirm.

This is the third appeal in this dependency case. The mother of three children has had open juvenile dependency cases since shortly after her second child tested positive for amphetamines at birth. She struggled to maintain sobriety since, and ultimately the juvenile court judge terminated her parental rights over all three children.
This appeal concerns the maternal grandfather’s attempt to have the older two children placed with him late in the dependency. He argues the San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services (department) and San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Steven A. Mapes erred by not giving him preference for placement as a relative under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3 (unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code),