CA Unpub Decisions

Shahrokh Mireskandari (Plaintiff) sued paralegal Laurie Gilbert and her law firm employer, Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C. (Bird, Marella) (together, Defendants) for fraud and unfair competition based on work Gilbert performed for Bird, Marella's British client. The trial court granted Defendants' special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16), after ruling both that Plaintiff's causes of action arose from Defendants' constitutional right of petition in connection with a public issue and that Plaintiff did not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claims.

Plaintiffs Robin Marien, Gabriel Jebb, and Air California Adventure, Inc. (ACA) (together Plaintiffs) filed a first amended complaint alleging defamation and other causes of action against defendant Robert Michael Kuczewski arising out of, inter alia, his alleged false statements regarding their operation of the Torrey Pines Gliderport (TPG). The trial court denied Kuczewski's motion to strike that complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. Kuczewski appeals the order denying his motion.

Charged with multiple offenses in Colusa County, including first degree burglary with an own recognizance (OR) enhancement, defendant Lonnie Leroy Forbes entered into a plea agreement under which he would receive four years of probation after successfully completing two years of substance abuse rehabilitation. However, on the scheduled date of sentencing, defendant was in custody in Glenn County on prior charges. The Colusa County trial court continued sentencing in deference to the Glenn County proceedings.

A jury found defendant Marcus Crowdus guilty of felony and misdemeanor domestic battery and assault charges. (Pen. Code, §§ 240, 243, subd. (d), 273.5, subd. (a).) Through trial counsel, but without being advised by the trial court of his constitutional rights, defendant stipulated to the fact that he suffered a prior domestic battery conviction in Indiana. The jury found true the prior conviction allegation and the trial court enhanced defendant’s sentence accordingly.

Defendant Matthew Chester McMullen pleaded guilty to a single felony offense of grand theft of personal property for stealing a security camera from outside a restaurant. At sentencing, the court imposed a $60 criminal conviction assessment fee pursuant to Government Code section 70373, which requires, among other things, a $30 assessment for each felony criminal conviction. Defendant contends and the People concede that the total fee imposed on defendant should be $30 rather than $60.
We agree with the parties and shall modify the judgment to reduce the fee to $30. We affirm the judgment as modified.

Robert C. challenges the appointment of a conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.), contending the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he was gravely disabled. Because the one-year LPS Act conservatorship has terminated by operation of law, we will dismiss the appeal as moot.

Plaintiff and appellant Leonard K. Tyson sued his former brother-in-law, defendant and respondent Patrick Joseph Westerhouse, alleging Westerhouse knowingly assisted his sister and Tyson’s ex-wife Mary Ann to conceal and invest property in which Tyson purportedly had a community interest. Tyson appeals from summary judgment entered in favor of Westerhouse, claiming the trial court improperly excluded material evidence and that triable issues of material fact exist whether Westerhouse aided and abetted Mary Ann in breaching her fiduciary duty towards Tyson. We shall affirm the judgment.

In a previous appeal (People v. Dionne (Sept. 29, 2015, C075738 [nonpub. opn.]), we affirmed the conviction of defendant Steven Danson Dionne, Jr., following a plea agreement, but vacated his sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing because the trial court failed to exercise discretion in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Defendant now appeals from the sentence imposed on remand, contending it was unauthorized. We dismiss the appeal for failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause.

On March 24, 2016, a jury found defendant Cindy Lee Schabeck guilty of two misdemeanor gun charges (based on her carrying a concealed and loaded firearm in her car) and acquitted her of multiple felony charges related to drug possession. On April 8, 2016, the trial court (Savage, J.) placed defendant on three years of probation. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying her Pitchess motion. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.)

Defendant Chic Gordon challenges the trial court’s finding that she violated postrelease community supervision (PRCS). The contested evidentiary hearing was presided over by Commissioner Leonard Goldkind. Defendant contends Commissioner Goldkind lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because (1) she never stipulated Commissioner Goldkind could hear her PRCS violation and (2) she objected at the beginning of the evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Defendant Darren Paul Rose, who is a member of the Alturas Indian Rancheria, ran two smoke shops, Burning Arrow I and Burning Arrow II, located in Indian country but far from any lands governed by the Alturas Indian Rancheria. In those smoke shops, Rose sold illegal cigarettes and failed to collect state taxes. The People of the State of California brought an enforcement action to stop illegal sales and collect civil penalties. Based on findings that Rose violated the California tobacco directory law and the California Cigarette Fire Safety and Firefighter Protection Act and failed to collect and remit state cigarette excise taxes, the superior court imposed civil penalties of $765,000 under the unfair competition law and granted injunctive relief to the People.

Defendant Maurice A. Priest appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying his motion to vacate renewal of a money judgment against him under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, Code of Civil Procedure section 680.010 et seq. (Unless otherwise set forth, statutory references that follow are to this Code.) This automatic renewal of the 1993 judgment was obtained in May 2013 by Ose Properties, Inc., as “Assignee” of the original judgment creditor Hallmark Associates. A formal Acknowledgment of Assignment is dated May 2013.

This is the second appeal by defendant and appellant Giles Jerry Medlock, Jr., arising from his conviction by jury of assault with a deadly weapon. We briefly summarize the pertinent facts and procedure from our opinion in the first appeal. (People v. Medlock (July 18, 2016, B264486) [nonpub. opn.].)
In 2014, defendant was charged with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). It was alleged defendant used a deadly weapon (a knife) and inflicted great bodily injury on the victim in the commission of the offenses (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a)). It was further alleged defendant had suffered four prior convictions for serious or violent felonies within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (c)).

Defendant and appellant BT Catering appeals from the trial court’s order denying it relief from the default judgment on plaintiff and respondent Hector Estrella’s (Estrella) complaint. BT Catering argues that the court should have set aside the judgment against it as void because it was never served with the operative complaint upon which default was entered and because the complaint failed to specifically plead the damages awarded. In the alternative, BT Catering argues that relief from default was warranted based on mistake or surprise. As we shall explain, the court did not err. BT Catering’s litigation conduct constituted a general appearance in the action and put it on notice of the claims against it, and thus, BT Catering forfeited any complaint regarding defective service. In addition, Estrella’s statement of damages provided sufficient evidence to support the damage award, and any mistake or surprise in the matter was the result of BT Catering’s counsel’s litig