CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Human Potential Consultants, LLC (HPC) appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of defendant Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Corrections on HPC’s complaint for breach of contract and denied HPC’s cross motion. HPC argues the trial court’s rulings were in error because Corrections was required to pay certain costs after it terminated the parties’ agreement. With respect to its own motion for summary judgment, HPC has waived any challenge to the trial court’s conclusion that HPC failed to meet its initial burden of proof. With respect to Corrections’ motion for summary judgment, we agree with the trial court that, post-termination, Corrections was not required to pay the disputed costs. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Jordyn Harris sued Scott and Charity Couto (the Coutos) and InboundProspect, Inc. (Inbound), for which Scott serves as president and chief executive officer, asserting claims related to the termination of her employment as the Coutos’ children’s nanny. The trial court granted Inbound’s motion for summary judgment on the ground Inbound was never Harris’s employer. Harris appeals from the judgment entered against her, solely challenging the trial court’s award of costs and attorney fees in favor of Inbound.

Petitioner Rosalina Contreras-Cisneros was married to Manuel A. Cisneros at the time of his death. Decedent’s assets were held in a trust that predated his marriage to Rosalina and was never amended to include her. Following his death, she asserted an interest in the trust’s assets and filed a petition in the probate court seeking to be designated as an omitted spouse under Probate Code section 21610. The probate court concluded she was not entitled to a share of the trust’s assets as an omitted spouse because the language of the trust specifically excluded her under section 21611, subdivision (a). Rosalina has appealed from the court’s order. We affirm.

This insurance coverage dispute arises from a massive explosion that occurred when an unmarked petroleum pipeline was struck by an excavator. Numerous lawsuits were filed against a range of defendants, including the pipeline owner and the staffing agency providing personnel to the pipeline. After settling the lawsuits against the pipeline owner, an excess insurer for the pipeline sought to recover defense costs and settlement payments from the staffing agency’s insurer. The staffing agency’s excess insurance policy excluded damages arising from professional services. We affirm summary judgment in favor of the staffing agency’s insurer, finding the policy excluded the claims in the underlying lawsuits.

Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on April 8, 2015. Jeffrey and Sharon were NPG’s corporate principals. Jill was an employee of NPG “[f]rom approximately 1995 until 2006.” Jill embezzled from NPG. Prior to July 2006, Jeffrey spoke with plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ parents. During the conversations, Jeffrey said he wanted the embezzled money quickly repaid, and if that did not occur, then he would contact law enforcement.
In mid-July 2006, plaintiffs and NPG (through its principals, Jeffrey and Sharon) entered into a written settlement and release agreement.

As part of a commercial loan transaction, a bank that was the predecessor to plaintiff and respondent CRE-Venture 2011-2, LLC (Lender) made a $2 million loan to Gateway Capital Group, LLC ("Gateway"). Gateway, as a limited liability company, is owned by its members who are three family trusts owned and administered by the Robinson extended family, defendants and appellants Scott B. Robinson and Susan B. Robinson as cotrustees of the Robinson Family Trust, et al. (Defendants). To secure Gateway's promissory note, Defendants signed and later modified trust deeds encumbering property they owned, a residence in Rancho Santa Fe (the Robinson home). The modifications of the Gateway loan and its security arrangement increased its amount upwards twice, to over $3.4 million.

Petitioner County of Sacramento (the County) sought a writ of review to annul the decision of respondent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) that overturned the finding of its hearing officer, who had concluded that respondent Jonathon Scott McCartney’s skin lesions (“actinic keratosis,” which may or may not be a precursor of skin cancer) could not be causally tied to sun exposure during his employment as a deputy sheriff with the County with a reasonable medical probability. We issued an order directing the writ of review to issue. On our plenary review of the record, we shall annul the Board’s award and remand with directions that it enter a new order denying McCartney’s petition for reconsideration of the hearing officer’s decision.

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the opposition filed by real party in interest, and petitioners’ reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that the equities favor petitioners. We conclude that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

Joseph Ashcraft and Jacob Sharp brought a wage and hour suit against their employer, Challenger Sheet Metal, Inc. (Company). The trial court denied Company’s motion to compel arbitration. Company contends the trial court erred because (1) the arbitration agreement was effective through all periods of Ashcraft’s and Sharp’s employment; (2) the arbitration agreement does not contain a condition precedent; (3) the arbitration agreement is not unconscionable; and (4) the arbitrator should decide the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. We reverse the judgment.

The Fallbrook Union Elementary School District (the District) appeals from a jury verdict awarding $1,194,000 to former employee Elaine Allyn. The jury found that the District retaliated against Allyn in violation of former Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (c), by terminating her employment as Director of Educational Technology after she objected to reducing the retention time of the District's e mail system. Former section 1102.5, subdivision (c) prohibits retaliating against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal law.

Plaintiff Nelson Abaya and his wife Silvia Fung lost their home in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. (Civ. Code, § 2924.) They filed a complaint against several entities, including defendant First American Title Company (FATC). The operative complaint alleged one cause of action against FATC for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On August 27, 2015, the trial court entered judgment in favor of FATC after granting FATC’s unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff Abaya, proceeding pro se, timely appealed.

In 2006, at the full expanse of the real estate bubble, Larry Rumbeck (Rumbeck) sold the assets of his solely owned real estate brokerage, BP Realty, Inc. (BP), to Endsley, Inc. (EI), whose sole shareholders were William Endsley (Endsley) and Neil Weese (Weese). Endsley and Weese personally guaranteed the $800,000 note that EI executed in BP’s favor. By 2010, the bubble had burst and EI was over $2.4 million in debt, which included the note to BP. EI sold its assets to Premier Valley, Inc., dba Century 21 M&M and Associates (PVI) for an amount significantly less than its debts.
Rumbeck sued EI, Endsley, Weese, and PVI for breach of contract. Before trial, Endsley and Weese filed personal bankruptcy and were dismissed from the action, which proceeded against EI and PVI. At the bench trial, Rumbeck claimed PVI was liable on the contract because it was EI’s successor. The trial court rejected Rumbeck’s claims of successor liability, found in PVI’s favor, and awarded PVI i

A jury found a manufacturer of fiber cement siding used on a Truckee townhome development 10 percent at fault for the $2.5 million the plaintiff Riverview Townhomes Owners’ Association (plaintiff) suffered in damages from a faulty roof design and installation errors in addition to the failure of the siding products to meet an ordinary consumer’s reasonable expectations. Based on principles of joint and several liability, the manufacturer, defendant James Hardie Building Products, Inc. (Hardie), is obligated to pay the entire judgment minus the 10 percent the jury also attributed to the plaintiff and the $97,211 allowed as an offset from other defendants. On appeal, Hardie contends the jury verdict is fatally inconsistent, the plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to render some of the opinions he offered, and the court erroneously allowed the expert to testify to problems with the manufacturer’s products on other jobs. Finding no prejudicial error, we affirm.

Father (P.T.) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order. The standard of review, which is dispositive, requires us to “ ‘determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports [the jurisdictional finding]. “In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.” [Citation.] “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court. [Citations.] ‘ “[T]he [appellate] court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could find [that the order is appropr