CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
APPEAL from an order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Kristen Byrdsong, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Pamela Rae Tripp for Defendant and Appellant. Shep Zebberman for Respondent. No appearance for Plaintiff. Aquendolyn C., the maternal grandmother of seven-year-old Aniya E., appeals the permanent restraining order issued by the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5 (section 213.5) prohibiting her from contacting or approaching Aniya or Talmadge K., Aniya’s maternal grandfather and now-adoptive parent. Aquendolyn contends the order was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Dependency Proceedings The juvenile court in 2017 sustained a dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), and declared Aniya a dependent child of the court because of her father Jordan E.’s history of violent behavior toward Aniya’s mother, Ambirre K. At the di |
Alfonso Alarconnunez appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of multiple counts of sexual assault, forcible rape, burglary, and other theft crimes. (Pen. Code, §§ 261, subd. (a)(2), (3), 667.61, 220, subds. (a), (b), 288A, subd. (i), 459, 487, subd. (a).) Appellant contends recent legislative changes require reversal and remand for resentencing. The Attorney General agrees. We remand for resentencing consistent with Senate Bill No. 567 and Assembly Bill No. 518. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because the parties correctly concede this matter must be remanded for resentencing, we provide only an abbreviated summary of the factual basis for appellant’s convictions. The evidence at trial established that appellant, posing as an Uber driver gave rides to intoxicated young women. Upon entry into their apartments, he sexually assaulted each victim, took photographs and videos of them, stole valuable items from them and then sent |
In 2002, Rolando Villalobos was convicted, by jury, of conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder and second degree murder. We affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Villalobos (June 3, 2003, B157098) (Villalobos).) In 2019, appellant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6). The trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant and, after reviewing the parties’ briefs, denied the petition on the ground that appellant was ineligible for resentencing because he was convicted of provocative act murder rather than felony murder or murder on a natural and probable consequences theory. Appellant contends the trial court erred because the jury instructions at his trial would have allowed the jury to convict him by imputing to him the malice of the person who committed the provocative act, without finding that appellant personally had the intent to kill. We affirm.
|
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Colin P. Leis, Judge. Affirmed.
Tonya Claycomb Hall, in pro. per. for Appellant. Niddrie Adams Fuller Singh and Victoria E. Fuller for Petitioner and Respondent. _______________________ INTRODUCTION Tonya Claycomb Hall (Claycomb) appeals from a family court order modifying temporary spousal support in the marital dissolution action between her and Keith Hall (Hall). Claycomb contends the family court abused its discretion in considering evidence of her domestic violence against the parties’ daughters in its order. The family court did not abuse its discretion when modifying temporary spousal support. We affirm. |
J.D. appeals from the juvenile court’s finding that he committed voluntary manslaughter and the dispositional order committing him to the Department of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) for two years. (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) He contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that he honestly, but unreasonably used deadly force when he shot and killed his friend. He also contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed him to DJF for two years. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural History At about 9:30 p.m. in May 2014, appellant, then seventeen years old, was “hanging out” with friends in front of their house when he saw a person quickly approaching. The person was wearing a hoodie with his face partially covered and appeared to have his hand inside his waistband. As the person got close, appellant pulled out a gun and fired a single shot to the person’s head. After the person fell to the ground, appellan |
INTRODUCTION
Decedent Jill LaFace filed a representative action against Ralphs Grocery Company under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq. (PAGA)) seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of workplace seating requirements. Following a bench trial, the superior court entered judgment in favor of Ralphs. We affirmed the judgment. (See LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 388 (LaFace).) Following the trial, the court awarded costs to Ralphs in the amount of $193,857.98. LaFace appealed. LaFace died while this appeal was pending, before the opening brief was filed. LaFace’s counsel has not attempted to substitute LaFace’s personal representative or successor in interest into the case. Ralphs moved to strike the opening brief and requested that we dismiss the appeal because there is no appellant. We agree, and therefore grant Ralphs’s motion to strike the opening brief and dismiss the appeal. |
APPEAL from a Judgment of the Superior Court of California. Lauren Weis-Birnstein, Judge. Affirmed.
Lenore de Vita, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Appellant Brian Cruz appeals his convictions for carjacking, burglary, false imprisonment, assault, reckless driving, and hit-and-run driving. At trial, Cruz repeatedly asserted he was incompetent to stand trial under Penal Code section 1368. Cruz pled not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) and waived jury trial. After a two-phase bench trial (guilt and sanity), the court found Cruz did not meet his burden of establishing he was NGI, and found him guilty of all but two of the charged offenses. |
After 18 years of working at Harrah’s Lake Tahoe in Nevada, Vera Illing resigned and filed a hostile work environment suit against her employer in San Francisco Superior Court. The trial court granted her employer’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2000, Illing began working at Harrah’s Lake Tahoe as a maître d’ and bartender in the Diamond Lounge, an area for the casino’s highest spending customers. In March 2018, Illing resigned from her job. She informed Harrah’s that her resignation was induced by her employer’s actions and working conditions which were so intolerable “as to amount to [a] firing despite a lack of termination.” While employed by Harrah’s and at the time of her resignation, Illing was a resident of Orangevale, California. |
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Request for judicial notice. Denied.
Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, A. Natasha Cortina, Lynne G. McGinnis and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A. Gaab, Judge.
Channaveerappa & Phipps, Naresh Channaveerappa and Albert Lee for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. Law Office of Armand Tinkerian and Armand Tinkerian for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Twin Falls Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Triangle Truck Center (Triangle) and Larry Buehner (Buehner) (collectively, appellants) were jointly represented codefendants and cross-complainants in a suit over the alleged conversion of a set of truck trailers brought by respondents Morris and Lucille Srabian (collectively, respondents). Respondents obtained a jury verdict against Buehner while the jury found Triangle was not liable on any claims, and a directed verdict was entered against appellants on their joint cross-complaint against respondents. Both Triangle and respondents sought an award of costs, and appellants and respondents each filed motions to strike or tax each |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Conditionally reversed with directions.
Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Tom Bunton, County Counsel, David Guardado and Glenn C. Moret, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendant and appellant S.F. (Mother) to her sons, B.H. and D.H. (collectively, the children). Mother contends the juvenile court erred by finding plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) conducted an adequate inquiry into whether the children are Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). We conditionally reverse the judgment with directions. |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy F. Freer, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Anthony J. Dain, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Alfred Clarence Chadwick. Law Office of Stein and Markus, Andrew M. Stein, Joseph A. Markus, and Brentford Ferreira for Defendant and Appellant Tracy Carson, Jr. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, and A. Natasha Cortina and Alan L. Amann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2006, three men — petitioners Alfred Clarence Chadwick and Tracy Carson, Jr., plus an accomplice — robbed a bank. Just as they were leaving, the police arrived; a pursuit followed. Chadwick drove the getaway vehicle, a Chevy Tahoe, some 70 to 80 miles an hour, in both commercial and residential areas that had speed limits of 30 miles an hour. |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Tara Reilly, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Law Offices of Valerie Ross and Valerie Ross for Movant and Appellant. Malcolm Cisneros, Arturo M. Cisneros and Brian S. Thomley for Plaintiff and Respondent. Patricia R. petitioned to establish a probate guardianship of her minor granddaughter, A. Connie L. (Connie). The court appointed Patricia as Connie’s guardian over the objection of Connie’s father, Gonzalo L. Gonzalo appeals from that order. Before any evidence was admitted at trial, the court erroneously indicated that the proceeding concerned Gonzalo’s petition to terminate Patricia’s guardianship of his daughter. Gonzalo and Patricia represented themselves in the trial court and did not object to the court’s erroneous characterization. At the outset of the trial, the court informed Gonzalo that he carried the burden of persuasion on his petition and directed him to present his case first. |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Daniel A. Ottolia, Judge. Affirmed.
Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, Hallen D. Rosner and Arlyn L. Escalante, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mahoney & Soll, Paul M. Mahoney and Richard A. Soll for Defendants and Appellants. Plaintiff Janssen sued Oremor of Riverside, doing business as BMW of Riverside, and related BMW entities for fraud and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) when, after driving a certified pre-owned BMW vehicle for nearly two years after his purchase, he learned that the paint on parts of the vehicle appeared to have been reapplied, affecting the vehicle’s trade-in value. Following a jury trial in which special verdicts were returned, the jury rejected all the plaintiff’s claims except the claim for a limited CRLA claim, for which it awarded plaintiff $4500.00. Both plaintiff and defendant filed motions for new trial, but the motions were denied. Plaintiff sought attorneys’ fees under the CLRA violation o |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023