CA Unpub Decisions

Karim Ndiaye filed suit against respondent Air Canada, his former employer, asserting various employment discrimination related causes of action arising out of his termination. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent, finding Ndiaye failed to raise a triable issue as to whether respondent’s articulated reason for the adverse employment action—that Ndiaye failed to submit the necessary paperwork to support his medical disability leave—was pretext for unlawful discrimination and retaliation. We conclude otherwise and reverse the trial court’s judgment on the causes of action raised and preserved by Ndiaye in this appeal.

Petitioner Lamarr Marquis McDaniels appeals from the summary denial of his petition seeking resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. The Supreme Court vacated our prior opinion, in which we reversed the trial court’s order regarding McDaniels’ murder conviction and affirmed the order regarding his attempted murder conviction. The high court also transferred the matter back to this court to reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775, which amended section 1170.95 to encompass attempted murder.

Pursuant to an order of the California Supreme Court filed January 5, 2022, we vacate our previous opinion filed April 7, 2021, and reconsider our ruling in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.).

Vlado Valkov appeals from the final judgment in this heavily litigated marital dissolution action. Vlado challenges the trial court’s denials of his repeated requests for a trial continuance, the court’s refusal to enforce a stipulated settlement between him and his former wife, Ana Valkova, and the court’s imposition of approximately $85,000 in monetary sanctions against him under Family Code section 271 due to his conduct during the litigation.

A jury convicted William Robert Bramscher of making criminal threats and disobeying a court order. Bramscher contends his convictions must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to prove the criminal threats charge, and the trial court made evidentiary and instructional errors. We disagree, and affirm the judgment

Hector Rodolfo Villegas appeals from the superior court’s order denying his petition under Penal Code section 1170.95. In our prior opinion we affirmed the superior court’s ruling, after which Villegas successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court transferred the case to us with directions to vacate our earlier opinion and reconsider our decision in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551), which, among other things, confirmed that the standard of proof at the hearing on an order to show cause under section 1170.95 is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the trial court applied, in the alternative, that standard of proof, we vacate our earlier opinion and again affirm.

Hector Rodolfo Villegas appeals from the superior court’s order denying his petition under Penal Code section 1170.95. In our prior opinion we affirmed the superior court’s ruling, after which Villegas successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court transferred the case to us with directions to vacate our earlier opinion and reconsider our decision in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551), which, among other things, confirmed that the standard of proof at the hearing on an order to show cause under section 1170.95 is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the trial court applied, in the alternative, that standard of proof, we vacate our earlier opinion and again affirm.

Hector Rodolfo Villegas appeals from the superior court’s order denying his petition under Penal Code section 1170.95. In our prior opinion we affirmed the superior court’s ruling, after which Villegas successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court transferred the case to us with directions to vacate our earlier opinion and reconsider our decision in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551), which, among other things, confirmed that the standard of proof at the hearing on an order to show cause under section 1170.95 is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the trial court applied, in the alternative, that standard of proof, we vacate our earlier opinion and again affirm.

In this consolidated appeal, HSBC Bank, USA, National Association as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, MANA Series 2007-OAR5 (HSBC) challenges the judgment entered (1) in favor of Amir Malekan, Elana Malekan, and Elizabeth Malekan (collectively, the Malekans) on HSBC’s claims against them; and (2) in favor of Elizabeth on her first cause of action for quiet title in her cross-complaint. The Malekans appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion for attorneys’ fees.

“The sanctions were imposed after Adut sought a writ of execution for the payment of a discovery sanction against Steven Stupp, the petitioner below, while the discovery sanction was still being adjudicated and was subject to a stay, and represented under penalty of perjury in the application for writ that no stay of execution of the discovery sanction had been granted. Adut fails to show the trial court erred in ordering the sanctions against her, and we shall affirm.”

Plaintiff Kenneth Morris owns an industrial property in Oakland that he leases to several businesses, including defendant Silverado Contractors, Inc., a sizeable demolition contractor. Silverado’s sister company, Argent Materials, Inc., operates an asphalt and concrete recycling facility on the leased premises, which includes part of a large warehouse. Except where noted, we collectively refer to the two companies as Silverado.

The minor, D.G., appeals from a December 3, 2020 dispositional order continuing him as a ward of the court and committing him to the enhanced ranch program for six to eight months, following his admission that he received a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d) and his admissions to allegations in a probation violation notice (see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777). At the disposition hearing, the prosecutor argued for a commitment to the ranch program while the minor sought to be returned home on the electronic monitoring program (EMP) with wraparound services.

In 2004, a jury convicted defendant Anthony Jay Gavaldon of attempted murder. In 2021, Gavaldon filed a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition stating he was convicted of murder.1 The trial court denied Gavaldon’s petition. Gavaldon’s appellate counsel filed a Wende brief. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)In 2004, a jury convicted defendant Anthony Jay Gavaldon of attempted murder. In 2021, Gavaldon filed a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition stating he was convicted of murder.1 The trial court denied Gavaldon’s petition. Gavaldon’s appellate counsel filed a Wende brief. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)In 2004, a jury convicted defendant Anthony Jay Gavaldon of attempted murder. In 2021, Gavaldon filed a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition stating he was convicted of murder.1 The trial court denied Gavaldon’s petition. Gavaldon’s appellate counsel filed a Wende brief. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

Mike Frank Ochoa appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. Ochoa, Gerald Pleshe, and the woman with whom Pleshe was having an affair, Candace Lynn Restivo, were convicted in separate jury trials of murdering Pleshe’s wife, Paula Joy Pleshe, early on the morning of July 14, 1981. A jury found Ochoa guilty of first degree murder and found true the special circumstances allegations that he committed the murder for financial gain and by means of lying in wait. (People v. Ochoa (Nov. 29, 2006, G035059) [nonpub. opn.] (Ochoa).)