CA Unpub Decisions

This is an appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction, the effect of which is to enjoin NetEase Inc., NetEase Information Technology Corporation, and Hong Kong NetEase Interactive Entertainment Limited (collectively, NetEase) from engaging in certain behaviors pending the resolution of litigation to determine whether NetEase breached its March 2019 settlement agreement with PUBG Corporation and PUBG Santa Monica, Inc. (collectively, PUBG) (settlement agreement). NetEase argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in determining both that PUBG was likely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claims and that PUBG would be harmed in the absence of the preliminary injunction. NetEase additionally claims that the trial court erred by issuing a preliminary injunction allowing for greater relief than PUBG would be entitled to at trial. Seeing no abuse of discretion in the granting of the preliminary injunction in this contract dispute, we affirm.

In 2007, defendant Rodwick Johnson pleaded guilty to kidnapping and two counts of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 207, 211.) He also admitted a gang enhancement, a firearm possession enhancement, and that he had suffered a prior strike conviction. (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b).) The trial court imposed a total term of 40 years in state prison.
In March 2021, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Secretary) sent a letter to the trial court recommending that it recall Johnson’s sentence under former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) based on his “exceptional conduct while incarcerated.” The trial court declined to consider modifying or reducing Johnson’s sentence based on the ground that it was the result of a negotiated disposition.

In this appeal, we review the trial court’s orders denying appellants’ various efforts to regain title to a property subject to foreclosure.
In 2006, plaintiff and appellant Carol Garrard, as administrator of the estate of her mother, Alice Richardson, took out a loan secured by property in Seaside, California. Approximately ten years later, and following several rounds of litigation, the investors who funded the loan in exchange for a security interest in the property—defendants and respondents Chris Podlewski and Michael and Susan Reed (the Reeds), and defendants Edward Von Deutsche, and Harold and Judith Levy (the Levys) (collectively the Investors)—foreclosed on the property. Defendant and respondent Ouita Martin LLC (Martin) purchased the property in October 2016 at the foreclosure sale; defendant and respondent Total Lender Solutions, Inc. (TLS) served as the substitute trustee for the trustee’s sale.

Appellant Austin Ambriz was convicted of murder for fatally stabbing Luke Lindsey during an altercation in Brea. On appeal, he contends the prosecutor violated Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler) by using her peremptory challenges to remove people of color from the jury panel. Appellant also raises a discovery issue related to Lindsey’s school records. Finding no basis for reversal, we affirm the judgment.

In 2012, appellant Arturo Huerta was convicted after a jury trial of second degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life.
In 2020, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 and alleged 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.) We affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Raul Edwards 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 defense counsel was ineffective for intentionally concealing video evidence and advising him to accept a plea bargain. He claims a gross miscarriage of justice has occurred because the newly discovered evidence would have exonerated him. We strike the prior prison term enhancement and remand for resentencing. Finding no other arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm in all other respects.

The court convicted Donald Bearup (appellant) of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and found true enhancements for personally inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and having served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced appellant to eight years in state prison.
On appeal, appellant contends his jury trial waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We conclude based on the totality of the circumstances that the waiver was valid. Appellant also contends his prior prison term enhancement must be stricken in light of recently enacted legislation. We agree and remand the matter to the trial court to conduct “ ‘a full resentencing as to all counts.’ ” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893.)

An information charged Ruben Martinez (defendant) with first degree murder of Nicomedes Paz Velasco (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a)). It alleged defendant used a wooden pole in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
At trial, the jury heard evidence concerning defendant and Velasco’s acrimonious relationship. The jury viewed surveillance video of defendant walking toward the area where Velasco’s body was found carrying a large pole, and later walking away from the area with the same pole, on the night of Velasco’s death. A Fresno Police detective testified investigators found a wooden pole with stains on it near the crime scene and a criminalist testified the stains contained Velasco’s blood. A blood stain found on defendant’s shoe also contained Velasco’s DNA. The pathologist who performed Velasco’s autopsy opined he died from multiple blunt force impacts to his head. The jury convicted defendant of first degree murder.

Eight years after defendant and appellant Ruben Angel Padilla pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and was sentenced, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) requested that the trial court consider resentencing him pursuant to Penal Code former section 1170, subdivision (d). The trial court declined to do so.
On January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1540) went into effect, which changed the procedure for recall and resentencing upon a recommendation from the CDCR. Both parties agree that we should reverse and remand the matter to allow the trial court to review the CDCR’s recommendation in light of the new law. We agree and reverse.

J.W. (Mother) appeals an order declining to extend her reunification services for minor A.W., who was under three years old at the time of detention, after the six-month review period. Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in declining to extend her services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e)(3). Alternatively, Mother contends she was denied due process and was not given sufficient notice because minor’s counsel did not file a section 388 petition to terminate her services and the court did not make certain findings under section 361.5, subdivision (a)(2)(A)–(C). She also contends the court abused its discretion in denying her attorney’s request to continue the contested hearing due to her absence.
We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that Mother made no substantial progress in her case plan and the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to extend Mother’s services

Nigel Cairns sued the Legal Aid Society of San Diego (Legal Aid) for intentional infliction of emotional distress, after he was twice denied Legal Aid services in connection with a landlord-tenant matter. He appeals from the trial court’s ruling sustaining Legal Aid’s demurrer to his third amended complaint (TAC) without leave to amend. The trial court found the allegations of the TAC were “ ‘uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible’ ” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f)); the mere denial of legal services does not constitute “ ‘outrageous conduct’ ” sufficient to state a viable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (§ 430.10, subd. (e)); and there was no reasonable possibility that Cairns can cure these deficiencies by amendment. We affirm.

Nigel Cairns sued Lions Community Service Corporation (Lions Community) for intentional infliction of emotional distress after it initiated proceedings to evict him from his apartment. Cairns alleged Lions Community sought to evict him in retaliation after he raised questions about possible racial bias against Black tenants in its subsidized housing facility.
Lions Community filed a special motion to strike the operative complaint under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) statute, arguing that Cairns’s claim against it was based on protected petitioning activity. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) The trial court denied the motion on the ground that Cairns’s allegation that the eviction was discriminatory, and therefore unlawful, insulated his claim from the anti-SLAPP statute.

Plaintiff Patricia Gilberg sued the law firm Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo LLP and its attorney employee Federico C. Sayre (collectively defendants), as well as the Law Offices of Sergio C. Garcia and Sergio C. Garcia, an individual, (collectively Garcia), for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, based on their representation of her in a personal injury action against the City of Sacramento (malpractice action). Defendants moved to strike various allegations in plaintiff’s malpractice action complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied the motion. Defendants appeal; we affirm.

A jury found defendant Tyrone Walker guilty of three counts of robbery, one count of residential burglary, three counts of assault with a firearm, and one count of a criminal threat. It also found true the enhancement allegations he personally used a nonfirearm and firearm weapon and that the victim was elderly. The trial court sentenced defendant to 142 years to life in prison.
Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial because the prosecutor elicited testimony that the search of the apartment defendant shared with his codefendant was a parole compliance search. We shall affirm.