CA Unpub Decisions

In early 2014, Wife petitioned for a DVRO against Husband. At the time, Wife and Husband were married, but were considering filing for a dissolution. They had two children, Son (about seven years old) and Daughter (almost two).
At the March 2014 hearing on the petition, Wife was represented by counsel, and Husband represented himself. Wife presented evidence that six years earlier, in 2008, Husband "head-butted" her during an argument after Son's first birthday party. Wife also presented evidence that in 2009 while they were living in San Jose, Husband slapped her during an argument about financial issues, and Wife called the police. Wife additionally testified that Husband had engaged in verbal abuse against her, and the couple had many heated arguments that upset the children.

Defendant Apple American Group, LLC appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2. Plaintiff Taelyn Lewis was an employee of defendant. Plaintiff brought an action against defendant pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) for various Labor Code violations. Notably, plaintiff brought the PAGA action solely on a representative basis.
Defendant moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement between the parties. Plaintiff does not dispute the validity of the arbitration agreement. However, plaintiff asserted the agreement did not apply to the PAGA representative action. The trial court agreed, citing Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian).

R.B. (mother) is the mother of four children who have been removed from her care and custody; mother was denied reunification services. After entry of a disposition order, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) learned the home of C.J. (the father of E.J. and K.J.), in which E.J. and K.J. were to be placed, was unsafe and unsanitary. SSA also learned that C.J. had lied about his criminal history and drug use, and had not performed his case plan. Therefore, SSA filed a supplemental petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 to change the disposition order as to C.J.’s children, E.J. and K.J. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.)

A jury convicted Lorayna Gonsalves of first degree residential robbery and home invasion robbery. Approximately a week before the sentencing hearing, Gonsalves substituted attorneys Scott Wippert and Robyn Bramson, with the law firm Wippert & Bramson, as counsel of record for Gonsalves in place of her trial counsel. Wippert and Bramson asked for a continuance of the sentencing hearing and indicated they would file a motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel and trial court error. The trial court rescheduled the sentencing hearing and ordered Wippert and Bramson to file the new trial motion a week before the rescheduled hearing.

Daniel H. (Father) is the father of Adam H. (Adam), who was born in June 2015 and taken into protective custody the following month. By petition for writ of mandate, Father challenges the juvenile court’s order, made following a contested 18 month review hearing, terminating his reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (further code references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code). That hearing is set for September 13, 2017.
The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) has filed opposition to Father’s writ petition. Counsel for Adam has joined in the arguments made by SSA. Adam’s mother, I.Z., (Mother) does not challenge the juvenile court’s order terminating her reunification services.
Father contends the juvenile court erred by finding (1) there was a substantial risk of detriment to return Adam to Father’s care and (2) Father was offered or provided reasonable reunification services. W

Pro per plaintiff Antoinette Jardine Byrne brought an action against the County of Santa Cruz and various county entities and officials (collectively, the County). The action challenged the County’s code enforcement activities in connection with an illegally converted barn on her property. The trial court denied Byrne’s motion to file a third amended complaint adding defendants and causes of action she claimed to have inadvertently or mistakenly omitted from her second amended complaint. The trial court’s order did not resolve the eight causes of action asserted in the second amended complaint.

John Paul Arneson (Plaintiff) was injured while participating in a basic rider training class conducted by Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Inc. (the Foundation) at Cerritos Community College (the College), which is operated by Cerritos Community College District (the District). Plaintiff sued defendants and another participant in the class named Kenny Montes for, inter alia, negligence. The Foundation and the District moved for summary judgment, citing a waiver signed by plaintiff. The trial court granted summary judgment. We affirm.

Appellants Rodolfo and San Juana Sandoval asserted claims for negligence, strict liability, premises liability, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium against respondent American Appliance Manufacturing Corp. (AAMC), alleging that Rodolfo’s exposure to asbestos while employed by AAMC resulted in San Juana’s mesothelioma. The trial court granted summary judgment in AAMC’s favor on appellants’ claims, concluding that AAMC owed no duty of care to San Juana and that there was insufficient evidence that she was exposed to asbestos due to AAMC’s employment of Rodolfo. We reverse the grant of summary judgment on the complaint and of summary adjudication on the claims for negligence, strict liability and loss of consortium, and on the request for punitive damages.

A jury convicted defendant Pedro Zuniga-Garcia of three counts of active participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a); counts 1, 4 & 8), two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 2 & 9), one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (former § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 3), two counts of resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a); counts 5 & 6), and one count of destroying evidence (§ 135; count 7). The jury also found true allegations that defendant committed counts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 (i.e., all of the counts other than the active participation counts) for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subds. (b)(1) & (d)), and the trial court found true allegations that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), which qualified as a strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), for which defendant had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial co

Harold Britton Tidwell (Tidwell) appeals from his 2016 conviction. We have reviewed the record, the briefing by Tidwell’s appointed appellate counsel, and the supplemental briefing submitted by Tidwell himself. We affirm the judgment.

The People appeal the trial court order granting defendant Chris John Rood’s application for reduction of his felony convictions for burglary, forgery, and receiving stolen property (counts 1 through 5) to misdemeanors under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18). The People contend the trial court erred in granting defendant’s application because defendant failed to establish eligibility for relief under Proposition 47. The People assert that defendant entered a commercial establishment with intent to commit identity theft, which constitutes second degree felony burglary, not misdemeanor shoplifting. The People also argue defendant did not meet his burden of proof because he did not provide any evidence of the value of the checks at issue in count 5.

Defendant Michael Kyle Prusso appeals from his conviction, after pleading no contest, of unlawful possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The sole issue on appeal is the magistrate’s partial denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) We affirm.

An information charged Anthony Osorio Linares with two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); all further references are to this code unless otherwise indicated). It also alleged he committed the robbery for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)); he personally and vicariously used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)); he was out of custody on bail at the time of the robbery (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)); and he had suffered a prior serious and violent “strike” juvenile adjudication (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)).
Linares admitted he was at the scene, but claimed he did not participate in the robbery. Still, a jury found him guilty on both counts, and it found true the gang and firearm enhancement allegations. He then admitted the other enhancement allegations, and the court sentenced him to 12 years, 8 months in prison.

In 2008, defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 and admitted that he personally used a firearm in violation of section 12022.53, subdivision (b) and that his crimes were committed for the benefit of or at the direction of a criminal street gang in violation of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(B). He was sentenced to a total term of 17 years. In 2016, he filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivisions (b) and (g). The trial court denied that petition because a violation of section 211 is a felony not subject to reduction. The defendant filed a notice of appeal on January 23, 2017, challenging that denial and the validity of his plea.