CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant, Anthony Mark Ortiz, filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, which the court denied. After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.

Plaintiff and appellant James M. Ward (plaintiff) was hired as the chief dentist for the Ironwood State Prison (ISP) in July 2007 for a two-year limited term. In 2008, he applied for a permanent chief dentist position at ISP, but he was notified in February 2009 that he had not been selected for the position. As a result, plaintiff filed a civil action against defendant and appellant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

Theresa Weddle appeals an order denying her postjudgment motion for costs of proof of matters Marquis Partnership (Marquis) refused to admit when asked to do so during discovery in a legal malpractice action. After having been given multiple opportunities to provide adequate documentation of the matters Weddle contended she had to prove because of Marquis’s refusals and of the attorney fees and costs she incurred in proving those matters, she failed to do so. We therefore affirm.

Thanh Ha Bui appeals a money judgment against her for defaming Angie Elconin. Bui claims the trial court erred by excluding from evidence a document she claims was crucial to her defenses and by allowing Elconin’s counsel to use slides that had not themselves been admitted in evidence to highlight unusual typographical features of documents that had been admitted and to argue to the jury that the same person authored the documents. We reject these claims of error and affirm the judgment.

Jason Edward Dixon pleaded no contest to several charges in case Nos. C1765213, B1793132, C1770118, C1771354, C1887270, and C1892750. As to case No. C1892750, he admitted he committed six crimes while released on bail. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.)

A jury convicted James Edward Lujan of attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, §§ 664/215, subd. (a); counts 1 & 3), carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a); count

Dan Fulkerson and Paul Batta appeal an order denying their motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 to strike claims brought against them by Ashkan “King” Aminpour and Larking, Inc. for conspiring with Aminpour’s former client and business partner, Lara D. Calhoun, to defraud Aminpour. Aminpour initially sued Calhoun after she threatened to report him to authorities if he did not pay her $450,000. After discovery in Aminpour’s case uncovered phone conversations between Calhoun and Fulkerson and Batta, both attorneys formerly employed by Aminpour, Aminpour successfully moved to amend the complaint to add conspiracy and other claims against Fulkerson and Batta. In response, Fulkerson and Batta filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court denied the motion, finding the challenged claims did not arise from protected activity. As we shall explain, we agree with the trial court and affirm its order.

Deborah M. Wardwell sued Vertical Infill, Inc. (Vertical); its real estate broker Preferred Group Properties, Inc., doing business as Harcourts Prime Properties (Harcourts); Vertical founder and Harcourts agent Dean Lloyd Welsh; and Vertical attorneys Simis Law Group and Micole Elliot Simis (collectively, Simis) for financial elder abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30) and other claims. Wardwell alleged that Vertical wrongfully obtained title to her residence by purchasing it from her son Brian Burns (Brian), who had no authority to sell it. Wardwell also sued her son Brian, his wife, and his law firm, but Wardwell’s claims against them are not part of this appeal.

Intervener, cross-defendant and appellant Grande de los Suenos, S.R.L. (Grande) appeals from (1) an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and (2) a judgment following a jury’s special verdict in favor of plaintiff, cross-complainant and respondent Georg Lingenbrink on Lingenbrink’s cross-complaint for third party breach of contract. The judgment stemmed from Lingenbrink’s action against Stephen Games alleging, among other things, breach of an agreement to provide water at no cost for Lingenbrink’s property in Baja California Sur, Mexico (the property). Grande, which had taken over the development where Lingenbrink’s property is located, intervened in the action seeking a judicial declaration that no agreement existed between it and Lingenbrink for water delivery. Lingenbrink cross-complained against Grande and its owners and Grande moved to dismiss Lingenbrink’s action (or alternatively his cross-complaint) on grounds of an inconvenient fo

In 2015, a jury convicted Ramiro Gonzalez of three counts of aggravated sexual assault on a child (Pen. Code, § 269, subds. (a)(1) [rape by force, fear, or threats], (a)(3) [sodomy by force, fear, or threats], and (a)(4) [oral copulation by force, fear, or threats]) and two counts of lewd acts on a child by force or fear (id., § 288, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Gonzalez to a total term of 61 years to life in prison. This court affirmed. (People v. Gonzalez (Sept. 19, 2018, D073857) [nonpub. opn.] (Gonzalez).)

On May 15, 2002, Osvaldo Contreras (appellant), was convicted of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) (count 1), arson of property in violation of Penal Code section 451, subdivision (d) (count 2) and unlawful driving and taking of a vehicle, in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 3). He was sentenced to 25 years to life state prison as to count 1, two years as to count 2, and eight months as to count 3. The sentences were consecutive.

Appellant Edwin Phillips pled no contest to one count of failing to register as a convicted sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.015, subd. (a)). Because he did not receive a certificate of probable cause, his appeal is limited to matters occurring after entry of his plea which do not affect the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) Appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We have conducted an independent examination of the entire record and conclude no arguable issues exist. We therefore affirm.

Joseph Foster appeals a civil harassment restraining order prohibiting him from harassing his neighbor, Luis Gomez (respondent) and respondent’s family. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6.) Appellant contends the order is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

Joseph Foster appeals a civil harassment restraining order prohibiting him from harassing his neighbor, Luis Gomez (respondent) and respondent’s family. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6.) Appellant contends the order is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.