CA Unpub Decisions

Mytchell Mora seeks reversal of a judgment arising from his no contest plea. He contends the trial court improperly deprived him of his attorney of choice at his arraignment. Mora accepted appointed counsel at the arraignment and did not challenge this arrangement until afterwards. We affirm.
Police arrested Mora on December 5, 2018. Mora allegedly had threatened the lives of a police sergeant and the sergeant’s family. A complaint charged him with three counts of stalking and 14 counts of making criminal threats.
Mora’s arraignment was the day after his arrest. It was quick: Mora appeared with a deputy public defender who announced his appearance “for Mr. Mora.” Counsel then waived “formal reading and advisal” and entered a not guilty plea and denials. Mora raised no objection and in fact said nothing. The trial court noted Mora’s probation would remain revoked, set a joint probation violation hearing and preliminary hearing, and concluded the session.

Judgment creditors Randy Johnson, Playa Capital Company, LLC, and Playa Phase 1 Commercial Land, LLC (collectively, judgment creditors) successfully moved the trial court for an order assigning to them judgment debtor Guven Uzun’s rights to payments resulting from two lawsuits to which Uzun was a party, up to an amount to satisfy a judgment against Uzun and in favor of judgment creditors. Uzun appeals from the assignment order, contending the trial court erroneously granted judgment creditors’ motion without considering all relevant factors pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510, subdivision (c). As explained below, Uzun has not demonstrated error, and we affirm the order.

Defendant Marcus William Player appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition under Penal Code section 1170.95 to vacate his conviction for felony murder. Defendant contends the trial court improperly relied on evidence from a co-defendant’s trial to find defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with a reckless indifference to life. Based on the trial court’s comments at the evidentiary hearing, we conclude the challenged evidence was not in fact essential to the trial court’s ruling, but merely reinforced a finding the trial court already had reached based on other evidence. In short, the trial court made clear it would make the same finding even without the evidence from the co-defendant’s trial.
Accordingly, we affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Stephen Eiges used to live at a mobile home park in Gardena. Immediately to the south of his property was an office and warehouse park (the SVF Property). Immediately to the west of his property was an auto yard operated under the name Westway Auto Dismantlers, Inc. (Westway). In February and March of 2015, respondent All American Asphalt (AAA) removed and replaced several thousand square feet of cement driveway at the SVF Property. Also in 2015, there was heavy machinery operating on the Westway property.
In a lawsuit he filed in 2017, Eiges alleged that dust both from AAA’s driveway work on the SVF Property and heavy machinery operating on the Westway property made him ill and damaged his property. He sought damages under negligence, premises liability, trespass, and nuisance theories.

SweetFlower Pasadena, LLC filed a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint seeking to compel the City of Pasadena to set aside a conditional use permit the City had granted to SweetFlower’s competitor, Integral Associates Dena, LLC, and to obtain a judicial declaration that Integral was ineligible for the permits required to open and operate a cannabis retail store in the City. Integral, named in SweetFlower’s petition/complaint as real party in interest, filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied Integral’s motion, concluding none of SweetFlower’s claims arose from protected speech or petitioning activity. We affirm.

SweetFlower Pasadena, LLC filed a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint seeking to compel the City of Pasadena to set aside a conditional use permit the City had granted to SweetFlower’s competitor, Harvest of Pasadena, LLC, and to obtain a judicial declaration that Harvest’s conditional use permit was invalid, making Harvest ineligible to obtain the additional permits required to open and operate a retail cannabis store in the City. Harvest, named in SweetFlower’s petition/complaint as real party in interest, filed a special motion to strike all or part of the petition/complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied Harvest’s motion, concluding none of SweetFlower’s claims arose from protected speech or petitioning activity. We affirm.

Defendants and appellants Jeremiah Atlas (defendant Atlas) and Timothy Love (defendant Love), along with two other companions, fired more than thirty bullets into a car and killed Ontario Courtney. Defendants were each convicted of one count of first degree murder and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle; the jury acquitted defendants of attempting to murder other observed occupants of the car, who did not testify at trial. In these consolidated appeals from the judgments of conviction, we consider several issues concerning sentencing enhancements: whether the change Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 333) makes to law requiring proof of gang predicate offenses applies retroactively and requires vacatur of true findings on the gang allegations and firearm enhancements that depend on the validity of gang enhancements;

Appellant Milton Mateo sought resentencing for his attempted murder conviction under the original version of Penal Code 1170.95. The trial court denied the petition because appellant was not convicted of murder, and we affirmed. The Supreme Court granted appellant’s petition for review. While the petition was pending, the Legislature enacted and the governor signed into law Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551), amending section 1170.95 to provide relief for those convicted of attempted murder and manslaughter. The Supreme Court transferred the matter to this court without decision, with directions to vacate our April 20, 2021 decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 and People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 (Lewis). We vacated our previous decision on January 26, 2022.

This is a wage-and-hour case. Defendant and appellant BBS National, Inc. (BBS) operates a restaurant that previously employed plaintiffs and respondents Domingo Lopez-Lopez, Juan Hernandez Lopez, and Pablo Hernandez Lopez (collectively, plaintiffs). Plaintiffs sued BBS, claiming they had not been provided with legally-required breaks and had not been properly paid for work performed. Following a two-day bench trial, the court found in favor of plaintiffs on their Labor Code claims and awarded them damages and penalties of $73,522.05, $21,670, and $28,059.50, respectively. The court later awarded plaintiffs attorney’s fees of $138,105. BBS appeals both the judgment and the order awarding attorney’s fees. Finding no error, we affirm.

Seven adults allege they were molested by a priest when they were children. They brought suit against The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles and related entities (Archdiocese or defendants), alleging defendants were vicariously liable for ratifying the molestation and directly liable for their own negligence in failing to supervise the priest, and related acts and omissions. The Archdiocese moved to strike the operative complaint under the anti-SLAPP law (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), arguing that some of the acts by which it purportedly ratified the molestation or acted negligently constituted speech or litigation conduct protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. We conclude the anti-SLAPP motion was appropriately denied, and therefore affirm.

Dagan Noksi Weed appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his probation and imposing a five-year prison sentence the court had previously suspended. Weed and the prosecutor negotiated the five-year sentence as part of a plea agreement. The trial court found Weed willfully violated the terms of his probation when he took two cars belonging to his wife, Christina Payano, and hit Payano with a backpack and kicked her in the face while taking one of the cars.
Weed argues substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s finding he violated the terms of his probation because Payano testified at the probation violation hearing she lied to the police about the physical altercation. He also argues any violation was not willful because he believed he had permission to drive the cars.

L.G. (mother) seeks extraordinary writ relief from Alameda County Superior Court orders bypassing her reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for her daughters S.G. and R.G. Mother seeks to vacate the court’s order and asserts the juvenile court erred in not granting services because: (1) the claim of neglect was too general; (2) mother had made reasonable efforts; and (3) the court did not properly consider the best interests of one of mother’s children.
We conclude the juvenile court did not err and deny the writ petition on the merits.

Defendant Gabriel Delgado Lagunas appeals from a resentencing that he contends resulted in an unauthorized greater sentence. We affirm.

While he was on parole, Armando Lopez Carlos — who had seven prior strike convictions — burglarized a woman’s house and seriously injured her. A jury convicted Carlos of two counts of first degree burglary and receiving stolen property. The trial court denied Carlos’s motion to dismiss the prior strike convictions (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) and sentenced him under the “Three Strikes” law.
On appeal, Carlos contends the evidence does not support convictions for “two distinct burglaries.” He also argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion. The parties agree the abstract of judgment must be corrected, and we modify it. In all other respects, we affirm.