CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Christopher Paul Rabalais was the president and chief executive officer of defendant AllSportsMarket, Inc., (ASM) which purported to be an investment platform on which investors could trade “fantasy shares” of college and professional sports teams. Defendant Soluciones Globales Optimas, S.A., (SGO) was the owner of ASM. Respondent Seth Leon, who invested $31,000 with ASM and alleged that he substantially increased the value of his ASM account, claimed that both Rabalais and ASM promised that investors could withdraw the money from their account at any time. But when Leon attempted to withdraw a significant portion of the money from his account, he received only a fraction of the funds he requested. Leon subsequently filed suit. Both Rabalais and ASM demurred to the initial complaint, but then failed to respond to the subsequent amended complaints. After their default was entered, they unsuccessfully moved to set aside the default.

Brothers Craig and Daren Fields, appellants and plaintiffs below, are the current co-trustees of their late father Gerald Fields’s trust. Daren became co-trustee in 2019 after he, Craig, and Roberta Geller-Fields, their stepmother and Craig’s former co-trustee, stipulated to a judgment terminating a probate action that Craig had brought against Roberta in 2017.
Following this settlement, Craig and Daren sued Linda Young, respondent and defendant below. Young previously performed bookkeeping and accounting services with respect to trust assets, first for Gerald as trustee, then for Roberta as co-trustee, and finally for Craig and Roberta as co-trustees. Craig and Daren allege that Young breached her fiduciary duty and aided and abetted Roberta’s breach of fiduciary duty vis-à-vis the trust.
Young filed a demurrer to Craig and Daren’s first amended complaint on several grounds.

In April 2015, a Prius driven by Odette Bailey (defendant) collided with an Infiniti sedan driven by Ariel Gozlan (plaintiff). Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence. Defendant conceded her negligence, but contested causation and damages. The jury returned a special verdict finding that the collision did not cause plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court overturned the jury’s verdict on the ground that “clear and uncontradicted” evidence established causation. The trial court’s ruling was error. Accordingly, we reverse the new trial order and reinstate the jury’s verdict.

M.E. appeals from an order denying her request for renewal of a domestic violence restraining order. She contends the trial court erred by applying the wrong legal standard and by concluding she did not meet her burden to show she had a reasonable apprehension of future abuse as required for a renewal under Family Code section 6345. (Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1290 (Ritchie).) We disagree and affirm the order.

Plaintiffs Serena Wong and Vicki Gruman appeal from an order denying class certification in an action they filed against defendants Foster Farms, LLC and Foster Poultry Farms for violations of state law, alleging those companies’ federally regulated poultry products are misleading and mislabeled due to the products containing an amount of retained water greater than that which is displayed on the products’ labels. Plaintiffs contend reversal is required for several reasons, including that the trial court’s ruling rests upon an improper merits determination and an erroneous factual assumption. We disagree and affirm the order denying class certification.

After Roberts filed a quiet title action against her two siblings and their mother, the siblings filed a cross complaint alleging causes of action for breach of contract and declaratory relief regarding a previous settlement agreement between the parties. Roberts filed an anti SLAPP motion, contending both causes of action arose from the protected petitioning activity of her initial complaint. The trial court granted the motion as to the breach of contract cause of action and a portion of the declaratory relief cause of action that was predicated on the alleged breach, but denied it as to the remainder.
Roberts contends on appeal that the trial court improperly treated the allegations within the declaratory relief cause of action as distinct claims, and that the whole cause of action should be stricken because it arises entirely from the petitioning activity of her initial lawsuit and respondents cannot demonstrate the requisite merit to survive the motion.

Manuel Larios appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of sexual offenses. Larios argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence, and the prosecutor committed misconduct. As we explain below, the court erred by admitting a priest’s testimony without determining its probative value and without weighing its probative value, if any, against its prejudicial effect. We reverse the judgment because the court’s error resulted in a miscarriage of justice that denied Larios a fair trial.

In a misdemeanor complaint filed on February 5, 2021, in Fresno County Superior Court case No. M21902078, defendant Earl Dean White, Jr., was charged with one count of misdemeanor elder abuse (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (c)). In a felony complaint filed on March 17, 2021, in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F21902245, he was charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The superior court declared doubt as to defendant’s mental competency to stand trial and suspended criminal proceedings in case No. F21902245 on March 26, 2021, and case No. M21902078 on April 30, 2021. Following a July 15, 2021 hearing, the court found defendant incompetent to stand trial. On August 19, 2021, defendant was committed to the custody of the State Department of State Hospitals for restoration of competency treatment. He was awarded 158 days of custody credit.
On August 23, 2021, defendant filed notices of appeal from the August 19, 2021 commitment order.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joey Briseno asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded, contending (1) he signed a plea agreement that he did not agree with because defense counsel misinformed him that he would serve half of his time under the plea agreement, but then the trial court informed him he would serve 85 percent of his time, and (2) he did not commit robbery because he had paid for the item he took. Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

In 2016, appellant Gustavo Delacruz was convicted of second degree murder for causing a fatal collision while driving under the influence of alcohol and narcotics. He had prior convictions for driving under the influence and had been warned that he could be charged and convicted of second degree murder if he again drove under the influence and caused a death. After his conviction in this case, he was sentenced to 15 years to life.
In 2021, Delacruz filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, and alleged he was not the actual killer, and his murder conviction was based on the felony-murder rule and/or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The superior court denied the petition.
On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm.

In this dependency writ, an alleged, nonbiological father challenges the juvenile court’s order denying him presumed father status over a one-year-old child he cared for and initially believed was his. We reject his arguments and deny the petition.

I.C. (Mother) is the mother of seven-year-old M.G., born November 2014, and two-year-old I.B., born November 2019. The children were removed from Mother’s care due to issues with substance abuse and domestic violence. Despite receiving over 20 months of services, Mother failed to reunify with her children and her services were terminated. Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that there was a substantial risk of detriment in returning M.G. to her care. We disagree and affirm the juvenile court’s order.

In July 2017, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department received an electronic storage device alleged to contain child pornography. Upon investigation, they discovered numerous photographs depicting an adult man engaged in various forms of sexual contact with a toddler over the course of multiple days. As a result, a jury found defendant guilty of three counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy of a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a), counts 1, 3, & 5); one count of sexual penetration of a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b), count 7); and 11 counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a), counts 2, 4, 6, 8, & 9-15). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true a special allegation that defendant had a prior conviction qualifying as a strike.

After declaring them dependents of the court, the juvenile court removed M.V. and I.V. (together, Children) from the physical custody of their parents, J.V. (Father) and M.Z. (Mother), and placed them with a relative caregiver pending reunification efforts. Father, Mother, and the Children appeal those dispositional orders. They assert substantial evidence does not support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was substantial danger to the Children if they were returned home and that there were no reasonable means to protect them without removing them from their parents’ custody. On the record before us, we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the dispositional orders as to both Father and Mother.