CA Unpub Decisions

In this action for negligent misrepresentation and concealment in connection with the purchase of real property, the superior court sustained the motion of defendants Mark Chambers and Chambers Pool and Plaster (together, Chambers) for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff David Carpenter appeals, contending that the superior court erred in finding an “identity of claims” in the two suits Carpenter has filed, such that res judicata bars his claims. On the narrow issue presented here, we affirm.

After entering a no contest plea to one count of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of misdemeanor assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), the trial court committed the minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum term of eight years, four months. Minor filed the instant appeal claiming that his no contest plea was entered without being advised of the possibility of DJJ commitment and of the mandatory lifetime sex offender registration following a DJJ commitment for a section 288 offense. (§ 290.008, subd. (c).).

Sibling Associates, LLC, and two of its tenants, Saffron Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Mayur Cuisine of India, and Arzalan “Jacob” Azillolahi, doing business as a Subway sandwich shop (collectively, Sibling Associates or Sibling), appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 533; all further statutory references are to this code unless noted; see also § 904.1, subd. (a)(6); Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 85, 90 [order refusing to dissolve an injunction is appealable].) Sibling asserts the preliminary injunction Gary Sauter obtained pending trial on his claim of a prescriptive easement for parking on Sibling’s property must be dissolved because no easement can be acquired in violation of city zoning ordinances governing parking. As we explain, the trial court did not err in denying Sibling’s dissolution motion.

Defendant Brian Anthony Rome appeals from the trial court’s imposition of a sentence of four years in county jail and two years on mandatory supervision, rather than three years in county jail and three years on mandatory supervision as specified in his plea agreement. The court imposed the sentence after ruling that defendant willfully failed to appear for sentencing. Defendant contends we must reverse the court’s rulings because there is no evidence that his failure to appear was willful. We disagree and affirm the court’s rulings.

The California Supreme Court transferred this case to us for reconsideration following the high court’s decision in People v. Garcia (2017) 2 Cal.5th 792 (Garcia). The trial court found defendant Robert Michael Klatt guilty on two counts of lewd conduct with a minor aged 14 or 15. (Pen. Code § 288, subd. (c)(1).) The trial court granted a three-year term of probation to include six months in county jail. The court also required defendant to participate in a sex offender management program as a condition of probation.

Dennis Hernandez was charged by a domestic violence information with one count of stalking in violation of Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (a) (count 1), (further code references are to the Penal Code) one count of making harassing telephone calls in violation of section 653m, subdivision (a) (count 2), five counts of making criminal threats in violation of section 422, subdivision (a) (counts 3 7), and three counts of making false bomb threats in violation of section 148.1, subdivision (a) (counts 8 10). He pleaded guilty to all counts and admitted he was released on bail at the time of the stalking in false bomb reports.

In March of 2016, a jury found Isidro Medrano Garcia committed three lewd acts on a child 14 or 15 years old while he was at least 10 years older than the child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (c)(1)) in 2004. The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of four years four months, consisting of an upper term of three years on one of the counts, and consecutive eight-month terms on each of the two remaining counts. In addition to other fines, the court imposed a $300 sex offense fine pursuant to section 290.3. Defendant contends imposition of an upper term sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and violated constitutional ex post facto provisions. He also contends the sex offense fine should be reduced to $200, the amount provided by statute at the time he committed the offenses. The Attorney General agrees the sex offense fine should be reduced to $200, the amount provided by section 290.3 in 2004. We accept the concession and will order the judgment amended to

Elliot Roland Faust appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his parole and sentencing him to 180 days in custody. (See Pen. Code, §§ 1203.2, 3000.08; all statutory citations are to the Penal Code.) Faust contends there was insufficient evidence he willfully violated parole by failing to charge his GPS tracking device. He also argues a number of the terms and conditions of his parole are unconstitutional and therefore we must strike or modify them. As explained below, we affirm the order revoking parole, but direct modification of one parole condition.

Late one evening at a motel in Hanford, defendant Tavarie Epperson and two other men robbed victims Deonka Rainey and Rachel Taylor at gunpoint. One of the men shot Rainey in the leg during the incident and then fired again as Rainey fled.
Defendant was arrested several weeks later and charged with the attempted murder of Rainey (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187) (count 1), the robbery of Taylor (§ 211) (count 2), the attempted robbery of Rainey (§§ 664/211) (count 3) and burglary (§ 459) (count 4). The attempted murder was alleged to have been premeditated, willful and deliberate (§ 189), and sentence enhancement allegations for the personal use of a firearm were attached to counts 2 and 4 (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)).

Defendant Anthony Michael Alvarez appeals from an order denying his request to strike a prior prison term enhancement imposed under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant contends that the trial court was required to strike the enhancement because the offense underlying the conviction had been redesignated a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18 after the passage of Proposition 47. The order is affirmed.

Laura Amy Fearn appeals from an order denying her request for a renewed domestic violence restraining order under Family Code section 6345, subdivision (a), against her former husband, Jimmy Le Vu. (All further statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise specified.)
We affirm. For the reasons we explain in detail post, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fearn’s renewal request.

Plaintiff and appellant Saiid Elyassian appeals a family law judgment entered on May 17, 2016. Defendant and respondent Nasrin Elyassian points to numerous deficiencies in appellant’s opening brief, and notes the judgment is supported by substantial evidence.
We agree that appellant’s opening and reply briefs do not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(A) (C). After conducting an independent review of the record in light of the arguments raised by both parties, we affirm the judgment.

GT Dave (Plaintiff) sued defendants Jeffrey Baessler, Baessler Incorporated and Baessler Consulting Inc. (collectively Baessler) for fraud in connection with the construction and remodeling of his home. Among other things, Plaintiff claimed that Baessler had fraudulently overcharged him millions of dollars in vendor costs and project management fees. After a 10-day bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him $2.4 million in compensatory damages, $850,000 in punitive damages, and almost $879,000 in attorney fees.
On appeal, Baessler advances the following arguments: the trial court erred by admitting improper impeachment evidence; the improper impeachment evidence caused the trial judge to be biased against him; the fraud finding was not supported by substantial evidence of Plaintiff’s reliance on Baessler’s purported status as a licensed contractor; and substantial evidence did not support the award of attorney fees. We are not persuaded by any of

Defendant City of Ukiah appeals from a trial court order denying its motion to strike two of the complaint’s claims under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) In these claims, plaintiff Ukiah Valley Sanitation District alleged that the City had violated certain agreements by seeking approval from the Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to detach from the District a service area that lies within the City’s boundaries. In denying the anti-SLAPP motion, the court found that: (1) the City failed to demonstrate that the two claims arose from the City’s protected activity and (2) even if the claims did arise from protected activity, the District demonstrated a probability of prevailing on them. We agree with the court on the first point, and we therefore affirm.