CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Roberto Velasco in counts 3 and 5–10 of second degree robbery (§ 211), in count 11 of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664, 211), and found true the allegations that defendant had personally used a firearm as to all counts (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). After imposing and recalling the original 43-year sentence, the trial court sentenced defendant to 34 years 4 months in state prison.
At issue in the appeal are the consecutive sentences the trial court imposed as to multiple offenses committed at the same time. The robberies in counts 5 and 6 were committed on one occasion, and the robbery and attempted robbery in counts 10 and 11 took place on another occasion. Defendant’s primary argument on appeal is that the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive terms in counts 6 and 11. He also argues trial counsel was constitutionally

Series Group, LLC (plaintiff) appeals following a court trial in which the trial court found against it and in favor of Unique Management Associates, Inc. (UMAI) and Naresh Dhadhal (collectively defendants) in plaintiff’s action for breach of contract and other related causes of action. On appeal, plaintiff contends (1) the trial court erred in failing to provide for an accounting; (2) the court erred in finding plaintiff materially breached the parties’ partnership agreement; (3) the court erred in failing to find a waiver of plaintiff’s purported breach of the partnership agreement; (4) the court erred in denying quantum meruit recovery to plaintiff; (5) the court’s analysis as to plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty was insufficient; and (6) the court erred in finding plaintiff failed to meet its burden as to damages. We shall affirm the judgment

Dominic Shing is a former employee at the University of California’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (“LBNL”). Shing sued the Regents of the University of California (“the University”) for unlawful termination for taking medical leave under the California Family Rights Act (“the CFRA”). (Gov. Code, § 12945.2.) The trial court granted summary judgment for the University, concluding the University presented a legitimate, business reason for the termination, and Shing failed to demonstrate discriminatory or retaliatory animus, or pretext.
Shing appeals. He claims the court erred in granting summary judgment, contending the evidence raised triable issues regarding animus and pretext. We affirm.

After Jose Topete received medication and electroconvulsive treatment (ECT) for depression, Topete sued defendant doctors Theodore Goodman, Robert Blanco, and Eugene Fealk for medical malpractice. The case went to a jury trial, and the jury found in favor of defendants. Topete appeals the resulting judgment.

After Jose Topete received electroconvulsive treatment (ECT) administered by doctors practicing at defendant Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region, doing business as Sutter Center for Psychiatry (Sutter Health), Topete sued Sutter Health and the doctors for medical malpractice. The trial court granted summary judgment as to Sutter Health only, and Topete appeals the resulting judgment.
On appeal, Topete contends the trial court erred by finding that: (1) the complaint failed to allege a cause of action for negligent hiring of one of the treating doctors, (2) the burden shifted to Topete to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact concerning whether Sutter Health was negligent, (3) there was no triable issue of material fact concerning whether Sutter Health negligently granted clinical privileges to one of the treating doctors, (4) the presidential pardon for a felony committed by one of the treating doctors was relevant, and (5) there was no triable issue of material fact c

Plaintiff Teresita Joya Yenko filed a putative class action lawsuit against defendant Crown Asset Management, LLC (Crown), a debt buyer that purchased plaintiff’s alleged charged-off credit card debt. Crown moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in an agreement between plaintiff and the issuing bank, Synchrony Bank (Synchrony). The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, dismissed plaintiff’s class claims, and ordered plaintiff to arbitrate her individual claims against defendant. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred because (1) Crown failed to meet its burden to show the existence of an arbitration agreement, (2) Crown was not assigned the right to arbitrate, and (3) plaintiff’s claim against Crown falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. We conclude plaintiff’s arguments lack merit and affirm the trial court’s order.

In 1976, Dr. Witzling was issued a physician’s and surgeon’s certificate. In 2009, the state’s Attorney General filed an Accusation with the Board, alleging that between 2003 and 2007, Dr. Witzling engaged in acts of gross negligence, repeated negligence and incompetence regarding five surgical patients, three of whom died.Dr. Witzling and the Board entered into a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order (Stipulated Settlement), which became final on March 4, 2011. Pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement, Dr. Witzling’s physician’s and surgeon’s certificate was revoked. The revocation was stayed, and Dr. Witzling was placed on probation for seven years. The probationary period included the following terms: prohibition against surgical practice; completion of a clinical training program such as the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program at the University of California, San Diego (PACE); completion of an education course; completion of a medical recordkeep

Beginning in 2002 Williams leased commercial space from Constitution Drive Investors, Inc. (CDI). In 2008 she sued CDI for breach of lease, negligence, and fraud based on allegations that the doors and windows leaked and CDI induced her to extend her lease by falsely promising repairs. The court granted nonsuit as to any fraud and a jury returned a verdict in favor of CDI on the remaining claims. Williams moved for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court denied both motions. She filed an appeal, but it was dismissed after she failed to file an opening brief. She also filed a petition for a writ of error coram vobis, which this court summarily denied in March 2011.
In December 2011 Williams filed an ex parte application to reopen discovery and a notice of intent to move to vacate the judgment and for new trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The trial court denied the application and Williams did nothing further in that lawsuit.

A local ordinance requires Sonoma County (County) landowners to obtain a permit from respondent Agricultural Commissioner of Sonoma County (Commissioner) prior to establishing or replanting a vineyard. Real Party in Interest Paul Hobbs Winery, L.P. (Winery) applied for a permit under the ordinance, intending to replace an existing apple orchard with grape vines. After review of its application and discussions with the Commissioner and other interested parties, the Winery modified its plans for the project and was granted a permit. The Commissioner found that issuance of the permit was a ministerial act for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. (CEQA). Because ministerial acts are exempt from CEQA, the County did not conduct CEQA review of the project.Watertrough Children’s Alliance (the Alliance), an interested community group, filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the Commissioner’s finding that issuance

This case stems from a schism among the leadership at the Oriental Mission Church (OMC) in Los Angeles. Appellants are three church elders who claim they were members of the church’s governing body, the “Session,” from June 2012 onward; OMC also was a plaintiff below but is not party to this appeal. Defendants and respondents are four church elders who also claim Session membership, as well as two OMC pastors. Plaintiffs asked the trial court to declare that the defendant elders were not and are not valid Session members. Plaintiffs further requested that the court invalidate as ultra vires certain acts undertaken by defendants as the putative Session, provide the individual plaintiffs with time credits on their Session terms because defendants precluded them from participating in Session meetings, and declare that one of the defendant pastors overstayed his term of service at the church. They also asked the court to issue an order “declaring who were and are the Session m

Appellants, American Property Holdings, Inc. (American Property Holdings) and William A. Dyck appeal from the trial court’s bifurcated rulings following a bench trial. Respondent, State Center Community College District (district), filed a civil suit against appellants related to the sale of certain real property in Fresno County. Although the transaction was successfully completed, it resulted in a long and expensive litigation with another potential buyer, Golden Bear, Inc. (Golden Bear). This initial litigation proceeded through a trial and appeal, ultimately culminating in a judgment that appellants breached a prior sales agreement with Golden Bear and awarding damages, but not specific performance, to Golden Bear. As a result, the district retained the property it had purchased but incurred substantial attorney fees in the process. To recoup these fees, the district filed the present suit against appellants alleging appellants’ negligent misrepresentations, breaches of co

Donald Solsby appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Carpenter Fund Manager GP, LLC, Carpenter Community Bancfund, L.P., Carpenter Community Bancfund-A, L.P., and Carpenter Community Bancfund-CA, L.P., and PB Holdings, Inc, dba PB Holdings-CA, Inc. (collectively, Carpenter Fund). Solsby sued Carpenter Fund on various fraud theories, arising out of an alleged promise to pay him two bonuses of $165,000 each, in June 2009. The trial court granted summary judgment on the basis that Solsby’s causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations.

Defendant Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent Personal Court Reporters, Inc. (PCR). Rand-Lewis contends the judgment is not supported by the evidence, and the contract on which the judgment was based violated the statute of frauds. The record on appeal is insufficient to review these claims, and there is no error apparent on its face. Rand-Lewis also challenges two pretrial orders—one denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings and another vacating a previous judgment. She concedes the latter order is not properly before us, and we find no reversible error in the former. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Thomas Rohl pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 1), and driving with .08 percent or more blood alcohol causing bodily injury (id., subd. (b); count 2). Defendant also pleaded guilty to four special allegations accompanying each count: great bodily injury to victim Mark Alva (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)); great bodily injury to victim Mike Alva (ibid.); blood alcohol of .15 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23578); and bodily injury to more than one victim (Veh. Code, § 23558). The court sentenced defendant to five years in state prison. On appeal, defendant proceeds in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Affirmed.