CA Unpub Decisions

As part of a negotiated disposition to resolve four separate cases, defendant Hoi Soo Yang pleaded no contest to multiple charges, most related to possessing stolen checks and credit cards. He was sentenced as agreed to an aggregate term of four years eight months in county jail (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)), including release to mandatory supervision after serving two years. Defendant appealed from the judgment and his appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. The clerk of this court notified defendant of his right to submit a brief on his own behalf. He has not done so. We therefore briefly describe the underlying proceedings. Finding no arguable appellate issue, we will affirm the judgment. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440–441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)

Defendant and appellant Angelita Villalon filed a notice of appeal from an amended judgment entered against her in a quiet title action. She also filed a notice of appeal from the original judgment, but we dismissed that appeal for her failure to designate a record. Plaintiff and respondent Joseph Pasternak has moved to dismiss the appeal from the amended judgment on the ground the notice of appeal was not timely filed with respect to the original judgment. The issue presented by the motion to dismiss the appeal is whether the amended judgment substantially modified the original judgment such that the amended judgment superseded the original judgment and became the final, appealable judgment for purposes of determining whether the notice of appeal was timely under California Rules of Court, rule 8.104.
We conclude the amended judgment did not result in a substantial modification of the original judgment and, therefore, the original judgment remained the final, appealable judgment.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the landlord, Jin and Yu, LLC, in an unlawful detainer action. Appellant and tenant Pup Pup Hooray, LLC, objects to the trial court’s decision on 14 grounds, many of which are related to compliance with the statutory procedure mandated for instituting an unlawful detainer lawsuit. The other grounds dispute the amount of the award in back rent and holdover damages.
Some of Pup Pup’s objections are making their first appearance in this court, and there is the unavoidable impression of things being thrown against the wall in the hope that something will stick. As an appellate strategy, this does not recommend itself.
The rule governing the issues in this case is a simple one: A commercial tenant cannot remain in possession and not pay rent. Whatever other disputes a tenant has with the landlord, if you stay, you pay.
The trial court found that Pup Pup had stayed without paying. It granted Jin judgment for back rent and holdover damages.

This petition seeks a belated appeal from a judgment rendered on August 31, 2021. Petitioner asserts that at his sentencing hearing, counsel expressly agreed to file a notice of appeal on his behalf. Subsequently, petitioner contacted both this court and the Kern County Superior Court to confirm the status of his appeal. Once petitioner realized counsel did not file a timely notice of appeal, he filed the instant petition pursuant to In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 73.

In this appeal raising a single issue under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA), the father claimed membership in the “Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe,” but over time also provided many alternative names. The social services agency sent notice to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, which is a federally recognized tribe, as well as other tribes. Considering the responses from the tribes, the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply.
The question presented is whether the juvenile court committed prejudicial error by not demanding further inquiry when the father provided yet another name for the tribe, claiming that he has “Dakota Native American” ancestry. The father made this statement both immediately before the court found ICWA inapplicable and some months later. We find no error.

Defendant and appellant Miguel Angel Magallon was tried and convicted of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, as well as several enhancements of those counts. He was originally sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 14 years to life plus a determinate sentence of nine years.
In a previous appeal, we rejected Magallon’s challenges to the judgment of conviction, but remanded for the trial court to consider whether to grant mental health diversion under the newly enacted Assembly Bill No. 1810 (2018 Reg. Sess.) and, if necessary, to resentence Magallon. (People v. Magallon (May 29, 2019, E069524) [nonpub. opn.].)

Plaintiff and appellant Marty Dominguez slipped and fell in a store, and he sued the store and one of its employees. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, Dominguez contends that there are triable issues of material fact as to whether the store had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that injured him, and whether the store took reasonable care in keeping its premises free of dangerous conditions. We agree that triable issues of material fact preclude summary judgment, so we reverse the judgment.

In this marriage dissolution case, respondent and appellant Caiyun Huang requested to be allowed to live in petitioner and respondent George Ayoub’s separate property residence for two years following the divorce. The family court denied the request. Huang appeals, citing temporary legal protections for renters implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and stating that this is “similar to an unlawful detainer situation.” Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Defendant, Michael Hernandez, was convicted by a jury in 1998 of first-degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) ,attempted premeditated murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), and two counts of first-degree robbery in concert (§§ 211, 213) during which a principal was armed (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and defendant personally used a weapon (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Defendant was sentenced to a total determinate term of 16 years, plus indeterminate terms of 25 years to life with the possibility of parole for murder and life with the possibility of parole for attempted murder. Following the enactment of Senate Bill No. 1437, defendant filed a petition for resentencing, which was summarily denied, and he appealed, contending the trial court erred in denying his section 1170.95 petition because he had made a prima facie showing of his eligibility for relief.
We affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and defendant petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.

Steven Boyd Harper purports to appeal the order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. He did not appeal the order denying the petition before the time to do so had expired and subsequently filed the motion for reconsideration. After the People argued in their brief the order denying the reconsideration motion was not appealable, Harper filed a motion for constructive filing of a notice of appeal from the order denying the resentencing petition. Because the order denying the reconsideration motion is not appealable and Harper did not diligently seek constructive filing of a notice of appeal from the order denying the section 1170.95 petition, we deny the constructive filing motion and dismiss the appeal.

Appellants Ashraf Hamideh and Pouya Abdolrasoul filed a representative action under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) (Labor Code, § 2698 et seq.) against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), alleging the company violated the Labor Code by failing to provide compliant meal breaks to nonexempt employees. The case proceeded to a bench trial, after which the court decided Hamideh and Abdolrasoul (collectively “Plaintiffs”) failed to demonstrate they were aggrieved employees because they had not established a violation as to themselves. In reaching its conclusion, the court declined to apply a rebuttable presumption of liability against Wells Fargo based on the information contained in time records. After the court entered judgment, the Supreme Court published its opinion in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58 (Donohue).

In 1996, a jury found defendant Tristan Lawrence Bracy guilty of first degree murder and found true the special circumstance allegation the murder was committed during the commission or attempted commission of rape. Defendant appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. He argues the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without issuing an order to show cause. We shall affirm.

Water Audit California (Water Audit) dismissed its underlying action against the Nevada Irrigation District (District) within two months of its filing pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. Water Audit appeals from the denial of its subsequent motion for attorneys’ fees. Water Audit asserts it is entitled to fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, but has failed to identify a basis to disturb the trial court’s order. As such, we will affirm the order denying attorneys’ fees.

The Hammond Landowners Association (Association) filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the decision of the City of Weed’s City Council to certify a final environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and approve a project to construct and operate a Love’s Travel Stop. The trial court denied the writ petition. The Association now contends the EIR’s discussion of the project’s impacts on traffic, noise, general plan consistency, aesthetics and alternatives is inadequate and the City failed to recirculate the EIR after it added significant new information to the draft EIR.
We conclude the EIR’s discussion of noise impacts violated CEQA because it did not consider the magnitude of noise increase caused by the project in evaluating the potential significant environment effects of changes in noise levels.