CA Unpub Decisions

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer. Plaintiff Nicoluis E. Wilson (Wilson) filed a lawsuit against her former union, Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (SEIU), after it declined to represent her in pressing a grievance against another union member. In her second amended complaint, she alleged two claims against SEIU: for fraudulent concealment, based on SEIU’s failure to disclose its discretionary authority not to assist her, and for constructive discharge, based on SEIU’s failure to assist her with her grievance. SEIU demurred, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the ground the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) had exclusive initial jurisdiction over the matter.

Appointed counsel for defendant Daren Lewis Wright filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After examining the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm.

Defendants Chancellor Health Care of California VIII, Inc., et al., doing business as Revere Court (Revere), appeal from the trial court’s denial of its petition to compel arbitration against plaintiffs Anita Carter et al. (individually Carter or collectively plaintiffs). On appeal, Revere contends (1) the trial court relied on improper legal criteria in determining that Carter’s son, who signed the agreement, needed a medical power of attorney in order to bind plaintiffs to arbitrate; (2) the trial court erred in concluding the arbitration provision was unconscionable; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to stay a wrongful death claim while the elder abuse claim proceeded to arbitration. We affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Alton James Facciuto has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error in defendant’s favor, we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Michael Concepcion Garrison of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and found that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (GBI) (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Sentenced to a state prison term of five years (the two-year low term on the offense, plus three years consecutive for the enhancement), defendant contends: (1) The trial court erred prejudicially by denying defendant’s request under Evidence Code section 356 to play the complete video of his interview with the lead detective after the detective testified about parts of it; (2) The court abused its discretion by imposing instead of staying the GBI enhancement. We affirm.

Mother M.J. appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order removing her infant daughter, T.R., from her custody due to domestic violence with father, T.R., Sr. Mother contends no substantial evidence supports the finding that T.R. was in substantial danger, or that there were no reasonable means to protect her other than removal. We affirm.

In 1988, petitioner Van Otis Wilson and several confederates robbed a courier who picked up money from Wilson’s codefendant, Joevone Elster’s, former employer. Wilson and Leslie Holget drove away in the courier’s vehicle, and the courier followed him in an off-duty police officer’s vehicle. In the ensuing chase, Holget shot and killed the off-duty police officer. A jury convicted Wilson of robbery and murder.

Mother J.R. appeals the juvenile court’s order sustaining a subsequent petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 342 as to her three children, and the dispositional order requiring monitored visitation. (All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated.) Mother contends there was not substantial evidence that she physically abused then three-year-old E.S. We affirm.

A jury found in favor of plaintiff Alejandro Gonzalez and against defendant employer Swissport SA, LLC (Swissport) for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), arising from disability discrimination, a failure to accommodate, a failure to prevent discrimination, and for wrongful termination. The jury awarded a total of $1,050,000 in non-economic damages to Gonzalez.

A jury found in favor of plaintiff Alejandro Gonzalez and against defendant employer Swissport SA, LLC (Swissport) for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), arising from disability discrimination, a failure to accommodate, a failure to prevent discrimination, and for wrongful termination. The jury awarded a total of $1,050,000 in non-economic damages to Gonzalez.

A jury found in favor of plaintiff Alejandro Gonzalez and against defendant employer Swissport SA, LLC (Swissport) for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), arising from disability discrimination, a failure to accommodate, a failure to prevent discrimination, and for wrongful termination. The jury awarded a total of $1,050,000 in non-economic damages to Gonzalez.

Timothy Leonardo Wilson challenges the trial court’s denial of a recommendation by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that the court recall his sentence in light of Senate Bill No. 1393. We conclude that Senate Bill No. 1393 does not apply retroactively to final judgments such as Wilson’s, and therefore we affirm.

In April 2015, defendant and appellant Branden Trevaughn Higgs pled no contest to four counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), § 664) and one count of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and admitted a firearm use allegation (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to a term of 16 years eight months.

Defendant Mario Frankie Arriaga appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. Defendant contends the court erred by concluding that Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437) and section 1170.95 were unconstitutional. The Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that the court erred. We therefore reverse and vacate the order.