CA Unpub Decisions

In the underlying action, real party in interest Lin Ouyang asserted claims for fraud and breach of contract against petitioner Achem Industry America, Inc. (Achem), her former employer, alleging that Achem improperly allowed her employment-based health insurance coverage to lapse when she took a leave of absence from her employ-ment. Achem filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, contending the claims were preempted under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.) (ERISA). After the trial court denied the motion, Achem sought relief from that ruling by writ of mandate. We conclude there are no triable issues of fact whether the claims are subject to ERISA preemption. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of mandate.

The trial court denied Anthony Taylor’s petition for writ of mandate to overturn his termination from the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”). Taylor contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s judgment. Because Taylor did not meet his burden to demonstrate error, we affirm.

Defendants and appellants Stewart & O’Kula, A.P.C.; Donald O’Kula; Kathryn O’Kula, a.k.a. Kathryn Baracao (Baracao); and the Johnson Trust (collectively defendants) appeal from a default judgment entered against them as a discovery sanction. They contend that terminating sanctions were improper because they eventually produced all of the documents that were the subject of the motion for sanctions and did not otherwise engage in egregious conduct. The appellate record does not shed any light on the bases for the trial court’s discretionary decision, which a minute order notes the trial court felt “compelled” to render after the hearing on the sanctions motion. We accordingly presume the trial court properly exercised its discretion by ordering terminating sanctions and affirm.

Red Mountain Asset Fund II, LLC (Red Mountain) agreed to sell real property to South Coast Merced Land, LLC (South Coast). The agreement included an “outside closing date,” and provided that the agreement would terminate if escrow had not closed by the date specified. The outside closing date came and went, and escrow had not closed. Red Mountain therefore notified South Coast the agreement was terminated. South Coast sued for specific performance of the agreement.
The trial court granted a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible parol evidence regarding the meaning of the agreement, and then granted Red Mountain’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court did so on the ground there was no reasonable interpretation of the agreement that would give South Coast a cause of action for specific performance. South Coast appeals.

In this wrongful foreclosure action, Rodney Rouzan appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), Recon Trust Company, N.A. (Recon Trust), Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon), and Bank of America Home Loans (Bank of America). We affirm.

Appellant Dameon Demetrius Wallace pled no contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)/count 1), felony driving under the influence of alcohol with priors (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a) & 23550, subd. (a)/count 2), and felony driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater with priors (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b) & 23550, subd. (a)/count 3). Wallace also admitted allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§ 667, subds. (b) (i)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Defendant Renoir Vincent Valenti appeals from the judgment entered after he was resentenced for various forms of child sex abuse in accordance with our remand order in his first appeal. After appellate counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, defendant submitted a supplemental brief raising defects in his original conviction and appeal and asserting facts that have never been before this court. We have reviewed the entire record and defendant’s supplemental brief and have found no arguable appellate issues. As our review of the record revealed several errors in the amended abstracts of judgment, however, we affirm with directions to correct them.

Defendant Renoir Vincent Valenti appeals from the judgment entered after he was resentenced for various forms of child sex abuse in accordance with our remand order in his first appeal. After appellate counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, defendant submitted a supplemental brief raising defects in his original conviction and appeal and asserting facts that have never been before this court. We have reviewed the entire record and defendant’s supplemental brief and have found no arguable appellate issues. As our review of the record revealed several errors in the amended abstracts of judgment, however, we affirm with directions to correct them.

Defendant Renoir Vincent Valenti appeals from the judgment entered after he was resentenced for various forms of child sex abuse in accordance with our remand order in his first appeal. After appellate counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, defendant submitted a supplemental brief raising defects in his original conviction and appeal and asserting facts that have never been before this court. We have reviewed the entire record and defendant’s supplemental brief and have found no arguable appellate issues. As our review of the record revealed several errors in the amended abstracts of judgment, however, we affirm with directions to correct them.

Defendant Renoir Vincent Valenti appeals from the judgment entered after he was resentenced for various forms of child sex abuse in accordance with our remand order in his first appeal. After appellate counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, defendant submitted a supplemental brief raising defects in his original conviction and appeal and asserting facts that have never been before this court. We have reviewed the entire record and defendant’s supplemental brief and have found no arguable appellate issues. As our review of the record revealed several errors in the amended abstracts of judgment, however, we affirm with directions to correct them.

Defendant Renoir Vincent Valenti appeals from the judgment entered after he was resentenced for various forms of child sex abuse in accordance with our remand order in his first appeal. After appellate counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, defendant submitted a supplemental brief raising defects in his original conviction and appeal and asserting facts that have never been before this court. We have reviewed the entire record and defendant’s supplemental brief and have found no arguable appellate issues. As our review of the record revealed several errors in the amended abstracts of judgment, however, we affirm with directions to correct them.

Defendant Renoir Vincent Valenti appeals from the judgment entered after he was resentenced for various forms of child sex abuse in accordance with our remand order in his first appeal. After appellate counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, defendant submitted a supplemental brief raising defects in his original conviction and appeal and asserting facts that have never been before this court. We have reviewed the entire record and defendant’s supplemental brief and have found no arguable appellate issues. As our review of the record revealed several errors in the amended abstracts of judgment, however, we affirm with directions to correct them.

Larry Raymond Scarbrough appeals from the judgment entered after the jury convicted him of first degree burglary of an occupied residence. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) Scarbrough contends his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights were violated by the admission of his DNA profile found on a cigarette butt found in the victim’s house without the testimony of the “actual” analyst who tested the evidence. We affirm the judgment.

Leroy Roberts appeals from the judgment entered after his conviction by a jury of first degree murder (count 1 - Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189) and willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (count 2 - §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)). As to count 1, the jury found true an allegation that he had personally discharged a firearm causing death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) As to count 2, it found true an allegation that he had personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) The jury was unable to reach a verdict on an enhancement allegation that the crimes had been committed for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) On count 1 appellant was sentenced to prison for 50 years to life. On count 2 he was sentenced to a consecutive term of life imprisonment plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement.