CA Unpub Decisions

Attorney Timothy A. DeWitt (appellant) sued various defendants in propria
persona for, inter alia, violating the California Anti-Spam Act (Bus. & Prof. Code,
§ 17529.5). After appellant filed an amendment to his complaint to substitute in
eHarmony, Inc. (respondent) as a Doe defendant, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure
section 474,1
the trial court granted respondent’s motion to quash service of summons.
Appellant now appeals, still in propria persona, contending the court improperly found
that he was not genuinely ignorant of respondent’s true identity at the time he filed the
original complaint or, in the alternative, that he unreasonably delayed in filing and
serving the amendment to the complaint once he learned respondent’s true identity.
Appellant also contends a one-year statute of limitations should not apply to claims for
liquidated damages brought under Business and Professions Code section 17529.5. We
shall affirm the order granting the motion to qua

Adam Martinez appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment on a jury’s defense verdict in his personal injury lawsuit against Aplundh Tree Expert Company (Asplundh). Martinez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and contends misconduct by Asplundh’s trial attorney also requires reversal of the judgment. As we explain, these contentions do not carry the day on appeal to countermand the jury’s decision, and we therefore affirm the judgment.

Angelica I. appeals from the juvenile court’s true finding of a petition in
which she was alleged to have falsely identified herself to a deputy sheriff and delayed
the performance of his duties. The petition arose from an incident where a deputy found
Angelica in the company of a probationer, known to be a gang member, during a
probation check. On appeal, Angelica challenges the juvenile court’s denial of her
motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that her detention was unlawful, rendering
the evidence insufficient to sustain the petition.
1
We disagree the detention was improper
and therefore affirm the judgment

C.A. (mother) and A.S. (father) had one child, M.S., before dissolving their one-year marriage. M.S. began living with mother and visiting father. After allegations of domestic abuse were substantiated as to father, the court ordered a child custody evaluation under Evidence Code section 730 (all undesignated references are to this code). The evaluator made several recommendations, including that mother participate in therapy to help her develop discernment in leveling allegations of abuse against father. Mother did not undergo therapy. Over the next few years, she continued to report allegations of abuse and eventually filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order. This prompted the court to order another section 730 child custody evaluation. Father denied any abuse and requested a change in the custody and visitation order.

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on one count charged. He also contends errors in the trial, including alleged instances of juror misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct, cumulatively denied him a fair trial on all counts. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Jason Samuel Heyman appeals from an order of the
superior court denying his petition (Pen. Code, § 1170.18)1
to reduce his felony receiving
stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) conviction to a misdemeanor under the Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47). (§ 1170.18.) On appeal, defendant
argues his counsel was ineffective because (1) counsel requested the court value nonrelevant
items, and (2) counsel failed to establish the fair market value of the property at
the time of the theft. For the reasons explained below, we remand the matter for a further
hearing to determine the fair market value of the relevant stolen property.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of brandishing a firearm and voluntary manslaughter with a firearm use enhancement. He claimed self-defense in response to the homicide charge. He contends evidence of the victim’s character for violence was admitted to show both the victim’s state of mind and his conduct in conformity with that character trait on the day of his death. The trial court, however, erroneously instructed the jury it could consider the evidence only on the issue of defendant’s state of mind. Additionally, defendant contends the jury instruction on self-defense incorrectly added as an element a requirement that defendant used no more force that was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger.

In August, 2010, Richard Robertson pleaded guilty to one count of petty theft after
a prior conviction and using an access card (Pen. Code, 1 §§ 484g, subd. (a), 666), and
one count of commercial burglary (§ 459).

Defendant Jared Soinila appeals a judgment imposing a six-year prison sentence upon his guilty plea to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues and requesting the court to make an independent review of the record. Defendant has filed a supplemental brief presenting a substantial issue, prompting the court to request further briefing from counsel on that issue. Having reviewed the record and the supplemental briefing that has been submitted, we conclude there was no error or need for further briefing.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order sustaining, without leave to amend, defendant Facebook, Inc.’s demurrer to the first amended complaint (FAC) filed by plaintiff Havensight Capital LLC. The FAC centers around plaintiff’s allegation that it was overcharged by defendant under a “pay per click” advertising contract. The court concluded the FAC failed to adequately state any claims for relief. On appeal, plaintiff has effectively forfeited any challenge as to the merits of the trial court’s order by failing to raise any substantive arguments in its opening brief. We therefore affirm the court’s ruling and the judgment dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit.

Narayanan Karuppiah (Husband) petitioned to end his marriage with Rosalin
Thurairajah (Wife), and the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution. In entering
judgment, the court rejected Wife's argument that Husband transmuted his separate
2
property to Wife as her separate property during the marriage by creating the Rosalin
Gowry Thurairajah Separate Property Trust (the Trust). The court also found the parties
separated on February 1, 2010, after a short-term marriage, and terminated jurisdiction
over spousal support. On appeal, Wife challenges the court's ruling that no transmutation
occurred. She also contests the court's finding as to the date of separation and its
termination of jurisdiction over spousal support.

Maurice Chaires was convicted by jury of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)), vehicle theft (id., § 666.5), and evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). Assigned counsel has submitted a Wende brief, certifying that counsel was unable to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also submitted a declaration confirming that Chaires was advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, we have independently reviewed the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.) We find no arguable issues and therefore affirm.

This matter originated in April 2014 with a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 (section 602) petition (petition 1) against defendant, T.C., in Solano County Superior Court. He later admitted one felony count of vandalism to a car (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) and one misdemeanor count of vandalism to a house (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)). He was declared a ward of the juvenile court, placed in the custody of his father and granted probation.

Allison Ash was a news reporter for a local television news program (10News).
Ash sought and obtained the permission of plaintiff P.S. to come to P.S.'s apartment to
conduct a taped interview of P.S. for a segment to be broadcast on 10News concerning an
investigation into allegations of wide-spread sexual abuse of patients by a local doctor.
2
Ash assured P.S. the segment, when broadcast, would safeguard P.S.'s privacy and
anonymity. Although the interview segment as broadcast complied with Ash's
assurances to protect her anonymity, by using only P.S.'s first name and by using "tiling"
to obscure her face from recognition when P.S. was speaking to Ash, a lead-in promoting
the upcoming segment included a video clip in which P.S.'s face was not "tiled" but
instead made her readily recognizable.