CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found David Campos guilty of one count of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder, another count of attempted murder (without the special allegation), two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (a knife), and one count of felony battery. The jury also found true great bodily injury allegations as to all counts, and deadly and dangerous weapon allegations as to the attempted murder and battery counts. The trial court sentenced him to life plus 15 years in prison. He appealed from the judgment, raising contentions set forth below, and we affirmed. (People v. Campos (Jan. 12, 2017, B262258) [nonpub. opn.].)
Campos filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present evidence at trial supporting a diminished actuality defense. He asserts there is a reasonable probability the jury would have found him not guilty of the attempted murders if his counsel had presented evidence

Andrew B. (Father) is the father of twins Andrea and Andrew, who were born in February 2011. Stephanie L. (Mother) is the children’s biological mother. On appeal, Father contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services’ (DCFS) Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and suspended his visits with the children.
We affirm.

Impact Realty, Inc. (Impact) appeals from a judgment granting judgment on the pleadings and nonsuit in its cause of action for conspiracy to defraud against Carol Ortega (Ortega), and awarding $25,073 in attorney fees to Ortega. We modify the judgment and affirm.
In a first amended complaint (FAC) filed January 9, 2015, Impact alleged that Leticia Soto Fernandez (Fernandez), Ortega, and Lotus Escrow were each the agent of the other and acting within the scope of that agency. The first cause of action, breach of contract against Fernandez, alleged that on April 4, 2013, Fernandez signed a one-year listing agreement with Joann Verduzco, an Impact agent, to sell a house Fernandez owned in West Covina.

This appeal concerns an indemnity agreement between Apex Xpress, Inc. (Apex) and The GAP, Inc. (Gap). Following a bench trial, the trial court determined Apex was obligated to indemnify Gap for a portion of defense and indemnity costs incurred in defending a lawsuit filed by an Apex employee. The court also awarded Gap a portion of attorney fees and costs incurred in a declaratory relief action Gap filed against Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers), the company from which Apex purchased insurance. The court entered judgment for Gap.
Apex appeals. We conclude Apex has an obligation to indemnify Gap for a portion of the fees and costs incurred in defending the employee’s lawsuit, but that the court erred by awarding Gap a portion of attorney fees and costs incurred in Gap’s lawsuit against Travelers. We therefore reverse the portion of the judgment awarding Gap $25,914.76 in attorney fees and costs.

In this arbitration case, we affirm the trial court's order affirming an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff, cross-defendant and respondent DJO, LLC (DJO) and dismissing as untimely defendant, cross-complainant and appellant MioMed Orthopaedics, Inc.'s (MioMed) underlying breach of contract claims. In particular, we find that, although the arbitration took place as the result of an order compelling arbitration entered in an action initiated in Illinois state court, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider DJO's petition to confirm the arbitrator's award. We also find the arbitrator's award was not the result of any misconduct, act in excess of the powers provided to the arbitrator, or the arbitrator's failure to hear material evidence.

Pamela Devitt was fatally attacked by pit bull dogs in the Littlerock area of Los Angeles County in May 2013. The dogs’ owner, Alex Jackson, was convicted of second-degree murder as a result of the attack. (See People v. Jackson (Apr. 18, 2016, B259906) [nonpub. opn.].) Pamela Devitt’s family—husband Benjamin Devitt, son Tad Devitt, and daughter April Devitt sued the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control (the Department), the County of Los Angeles, and Marcia Mayeda, director of the Department. Plaintiffs allege that although defendants knew about multiple attacks by the dogs, and knew the dogs were either unlicensed or strays, defendants failed to comply with the Los Angeles County Code (LACC) requiring unlicensed and stray dogs to be captured.

Plaintiff and appellant Elizabeth De La Cruz appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent City of Perris (City).
De La Cruz was walking on the sidewalk on Ruby Drive in Perris when she tripped over a three-inch metal portion of a broken sign post (condition) and broke her arm. De La Cruz filed a single cause of action complaint alleging premises liability. City filed a motion for summary judgment (MSJ). The trial court granted the MSJ.
De La Cruz claims on appeal the MSJ was erroneously granted as there were disputed issues as to whether City had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition within the meaning of Government Code sections 835 and 835.2. We conclude the MSJ was properly granted.

In August 2008, Bhupinder Bhandari, M.D., then chief of staff-elect at Washington Hospital in Fremont, appeared in a documentary film critical of the hospital. His participation generated intense and open conflict with hospital administrators, physicians, and other staff members. He was censured and removed from office.
Bhandari sued the hospital and several related entities and individuals, alleging, inter alia, retaliation. Defendants filed a motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), which was denied. In a prior appeal, we reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Bhandari’s claims arose from protected activity because they arose from hospital peer review proceedings. (See Bhandari v. Washington Hospital Group (June 22, 2011, A128457) [nonpub. opn.] (Bhandari I).) On remand, the trial court granted the motion in part and dismissed Bhandari’s causes of action for defamation, wrongful termination and emotional dist

In 1996, a jury convicted Mark Williams of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life under the former “Three Strikes” law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12.) The conviction was upheld on appeal, but his sentence was later reduced to six years under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. (Pen. Code, § 1170.126.) Williams has completed his sentence.
On February 10, 2016, Williams filed a petition for recall and redesignation of his sentence pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which reduces certain nonserious and nonviolent crimes, such as low-level drug- and theft-related offenses, from felonies to misdemeanors. (People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 889-890.) Williams appeals from an order denying his petition.

Defendant Pasquale DeSantis, Jr., and the victim of his crimes were in an intimate dating relationship. Following an incident of violence against her, defendant was charged by amended information with violating Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) (corporal injury) (count 1); section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1) (dissuading a witness) (count 2); and section 236 (false imprisonment) (count 3). As part of a plea bargain that resolved this case and a separate, unrelated burglary case (§§ 459/460, subd. (b)), defendant pled no contest to count 3, and counts 1 and 2 were dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant to one year in custody and one year of mandatory supervised release, subject to certain terms, including completion of a batterer’s intervention program. (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5).)

Versailles Investments, LLC (Versailles) and Zia Shlaimoun (Shlaimoun) (collectively appellants) appeal from a final judgment entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to appellants’ second amended complaint (SAC) against First California Escrow Corporation (FCE or respondent) without leave to amend. The SAC alleged causes of action for negligence; breach of contract; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of fiduciary duty; indemnity; and unfair business practices under Business & Professions Code section 17200, among other things. The trial court sustained respondent’s demurrer on the ground that respondent had not breached any duty in contract or tort arising from the escrow instructions. Further, and as an independent basis for dismissing the SAC, the court concluded that the entire action is time-barred. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

Two City of Santa Ana Police officers (Doe Officer 1 and Doe Officer 2) were the subjects of an internal affairs investigation based on their conduct during the execution of a search warrant at a marijuana dispensary. The Santa Ana Police Department initiated the investigation after video recordings of the officers were released to the media. The video recordings were made by the dispensary owners without the knowledge of the officers, who had removed all known recording devices before executing the warrant.

Reginald Wickman appeals from a judgment which sentences him to four years in county jail for taking a vehicle without consent in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). Wickman contends the trial court erred when it found the vehicle owner unavailable to testify and allowed his preliminary hearing testimony to be admitted. Wickman also challenges the trial court’s denial of his request for a continuance to permit the vehicle owner to return to the United States for trial. We affirm the judgment.

While under the influence of methadone and methamphetamine, Brandy Teague fell asleep at the wheel with her three minor children in the car, causing the car to veer off the road and strike a utility pole. One of the children died as a result, and the other two were injured. A jury convicted Teague of one count of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (count 1; Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (b)), with an enhancement for great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)); one count of driving while under the influence of drugs causing injury (count 2; Veh. Code, § 23153, former subd. (e)), with an enhancement for great bodily injury of a child under the age of five (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (d)); three counts of felony child abuse likely to produce great bodily harm or death (counts 3, 4, 5; Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)), two with enhancements for great bodily injury to a child under the age of five (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (d)); and one count of possession of methamph