CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Gary Guseinov appeals from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of defendants and respondents attorney Eric Morris, his law firm Southern California Lawyers Group, PC (SCLG), and attorney John Habashy in this legal malpractice action. Guseinov contends there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings on the following issues: 1) the attorneys’ actions caused Guseinov’s damages; 2) the amount of damages; 3) intentional misrepresentation and concealment; and 4) the attorneys acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. We agree with the trial court that there is no evidence to support the finding that the attorneys caused Guseinov’s damages, and therefore affirm.

David Fee filed this action to prevent a nonjudicial foreclosure. He appeals from the judgment after orders (1) sustaining without leave to amend a demurrer to claims based on fraud, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); and (2) granting summary judgment against him on his cause of action for declaratory relief. We affirm.

Plaintiffs and appellants Le Kun Wu and Katherine Wu sued, among others, defendants and appellants David Wan and Si Lau to recover money plaintiffs loaned to develop a project in Monterey Park. A jury rendered a special verdict in plaintiffs’ favor on contract and tort causes of action. Wan and Lau appeal, raising numerous issues concerning sufficiency of the evidence, instructional error, and excessiveness of the damages award. Because there was an error concerning the punitive damages awarded, we modify the judgment to correct it. We also clarify the amount of damages the jury awarded. We otherwise affirm the judgment as modified.

Defendant Edward B. was adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a),[1] after he admitted a count of misdemeanor grand theft from the person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)). The juvenile court committed Edward to a rehabilitation center for six months and imposed conditions of probation. Edward raises three issues on appeal. He challenges a condition of his probation that prohibits him from associating with known gang members and gang associates, arguing that the condition is unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent). He also challenges a probation condition that prohibits his presence on a school campus unless he is enrolled, arguing that it is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks an “express knowledge requirement.” And he argues that the juvenile court erred by failing to specify his maximum term of confinement and calculate credits for time served. We will strike the gang condition, affirm the

Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and The Bank of New York Mellon appeal from an order denying their motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff HPROF, LLC’s complaint for breach of contract. Defendants contend the trial court erred in concluding that they waived their right to arbitrate by unreasonably and prejudicially delaying the arbitration demand while actively participating in the litigation of plaintiff’s claim. On appeal, defendants argue that the question of waiver should have been decided by the arbitrator and, alternatively, that if the court had authority to decide the question, it erred in failing to compel arbitration because plaintiff did not make a sufficient showing of prejudice. We find no error and thus shall affirm the order.

Defendant Leonel Garcia was found guilty of simple assault (Pen. Code, § 240),[1] false imprisonment by violence (§§ 236, 237, subd.(a)) and felony witness dissuasion (§ 136.1) in connection with a domestic altercation with his sister. He now appeals, arguing the jury was given an erroneous instruction allowing a permissive inference of his consciousness of guilt that he contends was not supported by the evidence.
We affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel in this case has provided us a thorough and straightforward explication of the facts of the case. While we have reviewed the transcripts themselves before arriving at our conclusion in the case, his summary provides an efficient summary of the trial and its outcome. We adopt his statement of facts and statement of the case as part of our opinion and incorporate it below.

Defendant and appellant Boni Savage (Boni),[1] as trustee of the Savage Family Trust (Trust), appeals from a judgment that (1) surcharged her interest in the Trust $195,200 based on her failure to pay rent during a six-year period her family lived in the home that was the Trust’s primary asset; (2) awarded her a diminished portion of the compensation she sought for acting as the Trust’s trustee and as her father’s agent under a durable power of attorney; (3) awarded plaintiff and respondent Lisa Morgan‑Perales attorney fees for challenging Boni’s performance as trustee; and (4) denied Boni the attorney fees she incurred in defending this lawsuit.

A jury convicted Patrick Glenn Goodwin, a prisoner at California State Prison, Corcoran, of battery on a person who was not an inmate. The conviction resulted from a struggle between Goodwin and correctional officers as Goodwin was being escorted to his cell. Goodwin argues the trial court erred by refusing to permit him to testify in his defenseand by refusing to appoint counsel to represent him at the sentencing hearing. We conclude neither argument has merit and affirm the judgment.

Anthony Leroy Wallace appeals from the trial court’s denial of various motions he filed. This is not Wallace’s first appeal. Most prior filings with this court attempt to convince us the trial court improperly sentenced him to a third strike term of 25 years-to-life after his conviction in 2002 of felony vandalism. Like each of his previous efforts, this appeal lacks merit and will be denied.

Tomas Zavaleta, charged and convicted as Thomas Zavaleta, was convicted by a jury as charged with nine counts involving two victims on two separate dates: sodomy of an unconscious person (Pen. Code, § 286, subd. (f));[1] sodomy of an intoxicated person (§ 286, subd. (i)); oral copulation of an unconscious person (§ 288a, subd. (f)); oral copulation of an intoxicated person (§ 288a, subd. (i)); false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a)); sodomy of an unconscious person (§ 286, subd. (i)); sodomy of an intoxicated person (§ 286, subd. (i)); rape by foreign object of an unconscious person (§ 289, subd. (d)); and sexual penetration of an intoxicated person (§ 289, subd. (e)).The trial court sentenced Zavaleta to a total term of 12 years 8 months in prison.

Appellant S.M. (mother)appeals from a juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to her son, J.B. (the child). She claims that the beneficial parental relationship exception applied. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)[1] We affirm.

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of A.J. (Father) to his son, M.J. (Minor). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (b)(1).)[1]Father contends the juvenile court erred by summarily denying his petition to change a court order (§ 388), in which Father requested his adult son’shome be designated as a concurrent planning home for Minor. Within this appellate contention, Father asserts (1) the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) social worker failed to investigate placing Minor with relatives (§ 309, subd. (a));and (2) the trial court erred by instructing Father to delay requesting relative placement for Minor.(§ 361.3.)
The Department asserts: (1) Father lacks standing to challenge the denial of the petition because Father is not aggrieved by the denial;(2) Father forfeited the Department’s alleged failure to investigate placing Minor with relatives by not filing a timely appeal or writ petition;and (3) the trial court

A jury found Marcellus Lopes Lee, Daniel Paul Romero and Francisco Jose Martinez, Jr. (together, appellants or the defendants) guilty of fraud in the offer or sale of commodities. (Corp. Code, § 29536.)[1] Lee and Romero were also convicted of conspiracy and grand theft of personal property. (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(4), 487, subd. (a).) The jury found that the takings exceeded certain dollar amounts and that the victims' losses were in excess of $150,000. (Pen. Code, §§ 186.11, subds. (a)(2) & (a)(3), 12022.6, subd. (a)(2) (collectively, aggravated white collar criminal enhancements).) The trial court subsequently granted the defendants' motions for a new trial on some of the counts and dismissed other counts for insufficiency of the evidence. The People appealed. (People v. Lee (Mar. 7, 2014, No. D061235) [nonpub. opn.] (Lee).)