CA Unpub Decisions

Debbie Salazar appeals from an order denying her motion to certify a class of employees of respondents See’s Candies, Inc., and See’s Candy Shops, Incorporated (collectively, See’s). Salazar alleges that See’s did not provide required second meal breaks to shop employees who worked shifts longer than 10 hours. It is undisputed that See’s official policy is to provide such breaks. However, Salazar contends that, in practice, See’s consistently failed to provide the breaks because the preprinted form that it used to schedule employee shifts did not include a space for second meal breaks.
The trial court denied class certification on the grounds that: (1) individual issues would predominate concerning whether See’s consistently applied a practice of failing to offer second meal breaks, and (2) Salazar failed to provide a trial plan that offered a manageable method to adjudicate classwide liability, including See’s defenses, without individual inquiry.
We affirm. The trial co

Debbie Salazar appeals from an order denying her motion to certify a class of employees of respondents See’s Candies, Inc., and See’s Candy Shops, Incorporated (collectively, See’s). Salazar alleges that See’s did not provide required second meal breaks to shop employees who worked shifts longer than 10 hours. It is undisputed that See’s official policy is to provide such breaks. However, Salazar contends that, in practice, See’s consistently failed to provide the breaks because the preprinted form that it used to schedule employee shifts did not include a space for second meal breaks.
The trial court denied class certification on the grounds that: (1) individual issues would predominate concerning whether See’s consistently applied a practice of failing to offer second meal breaks, and (2) Salazar failed to provide a trial plan that offered a manageable method to adjudicate classwide liability, including See’s defenses, without individual inquiry.
We affirm. The trial co

Defendant Robert Micheletti appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no contest to felony grand theft and admitted a strike prior conviction from 1985 as part of a negotiated disposition. Defendant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief asking this court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was informed of his right to file supplemental briefing and has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and independently reviewed the record, and we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm.
On October 16, 2019, defendant was charged by information with felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a), count 1), felony receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a), count 2), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, count 3). The information also alleged two strike prior convictions from 1985 and 1992, and an allegation that defendant

Brian H. appeals from an order after bench trial extending his commitment to Coalinga State Hospital (Coalinga) as a mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) under Welfare and Institutions Code former section 6316.2. On appeal, he contends the order is not supported by substantial evidence. He also argues that in closing argument the prosecutor made false statements about his mental health history. We conclude the evidence supports the court’s findings and that Brian forfeited the prosecutorial misconduct claim. In any event, there was no misconduct and no prejudice.

Defendant Vincent Goitortua, a bar patron, was charged with a single count of assault with a deadly weapon (a cocktail glass) arising out of an altercation with a bartender at closing time. Three days into a five-day jury trial, Goitortua’s retained defense attorney advised the court that her client wished to discharge her and retain new counsel. The asserted basis for this request was counsel’s admission that she made certain errors in preparing for trial. After discussing the matter with the prosecutor, defense counsel, and to a limited extent Goitortua, the court denied the request based largely on grounds that switching defense attorneys would be an unwarranted mid-trial disruption of the proceedings. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s broad discretion in balancing the relevant factors, we affirm.

Darrell Andre Reed pleaded no contest to willful infliction of corporal injury on an intimate partner and admitted he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. The trial court sentenced Reed to four years in state prison. No arguable issues have been identified following review of the record by Reed’s appointed appellate counsel or our own independent review. We affirm.

Defendant Benjamin Trujillo Vargas appeals from the judgment entered following his admission that he violated probation. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. Counsel notified defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf and defendant has not done so. Having reviewed the entire record, we see no arguable appellate issue. We therefore briefly describe the proceedings and then affirm the judgment. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440–441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)
Defendant pleaded no contest in 2018 to possessing a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and possessing a short-barreled rifle or shotgun (Pen. Code, § 33215). He was granted probation with conditions including 180 days in county jail. In February 2020, the District Attorney alleged defendant violated his probation by smoking marijuana in a public place (in violation of Health and Saf. Code, § 11362.

Plaintiff and appellant Rudy Martin appeals from an order of dismissal entered after he failed to pay the filing fee to commence a civil case in the trial court, as well as a post-dismissal order denying a subsequent fee waiver request. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his fee waiver applications. Finding no error, we affirm the orders.

Defendant Amir Dounel appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Ebrahim Duel, as trustee of The Ebrahim Duel Revocable Trust and authorized agent for 3211 E. Mandeville LLC (collectively Duel), on Duel’s claims for quiet title, cancellation of instrument, and injunctive relief. Dounel contends Duel is barred from asserting those claims in the instant action under the compulsory counterclaim rule of Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30, subdivision (a). As explained below, the claims in the instant action are subject to the compulsory counterclaim rule because they should have been brought in prior litigation between the parties in a related appeal (G058116). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

This is a legal malpractice case. Plaintiff Michael O’Shea hired attorney Susan F. Lindenberg to represent him in a child support action. After O’Shea’s ex-wife was awarded what he believed to be an excessive amount of child support, he filed this action. His most significant allegation of negligence was that Lindenberg should have retained a forensic accountant. The case went to trial and the jury concluded, in a special verdict, that Lindenberg owed a professional duty of care that she breached. The jury was unable to agree, however, on whether the breach of duty caused him damage, and the judge declared a mistrial.
Lindenberg moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that the evidence presented at trial did not support a finding of causation, specifically, that without the alleged malpractice, O’Shea would have received a better result. The trial court agreed and directed a verdict in Lindenberg’s favor. After reviewing the evidence in accordance with the applicable sta

Defendant Freddie Martinez, Jr., challenges his convictions for aggravated assault on a peace officer, brandishing a deadly weapon to resist arrest, and resisting and obstructing a peace officer.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) to review the personnel files of two of the police officers involved in the incident. The court did not err in finding that defendant had not made the necessary showing of good cause.
During the trial, one of the officers testified that defendant “assaulted” her during the incident. Even if the trial court erred in admitting the testimony, the evidence against defendant was so strong that there is no reasonable probability that he would have obtained a more favorable outcome in the absence of the error.
Substantial evidence supported the convictions for aggravated assault on a peace officer and brandishing a deadly weapon to resist arrest. Three of the police officers involved in the i

Plaintiff Amir Dounel appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants Ebrahim Duel, Helda Duel, David Duel, Duel Family Limited Partnership and 3211 East Mandeville, LLC (collectively Duel). Dounel had asserted legal and equitable claims against Duel, but the trial court dismissed the legal claims for failure to bring them to trial within five years. Following a court trial on the equitable claims, the court found in favor of Duel. Dounel contends the judgment must be reversed because the trial court erred in denying him his constitutional right to a jury trial. As explained below, we conclude the trial court erred in dismissing Dounel’s legal claims. We also conclude a full reversal is warranted because the equitable claims are factually intertwined with the legal claims and Dounel was denied an opportunity to preserve his right to a jury trial. Accordingly, we reverse.

After the juvenile court terminated parental rights in November 2020, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) notified petitioners Q.P. and C.P. of its intent to remove now 11-month-old Baby Boy H. (the baby) from them to place him with a maternal cousin and her husband in Louisiana. Petitioners objected to the removal and following a hearing, the juvenile court designated petitioners the baby’s prospective adoptive parents and denied their objection to the removal, finding it was in the baby’s best interest. Petitioners seek extraordinary writ relief, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s removal order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.28.) We deny the petition.

Appointed counsel for appellant Jose Manuel Duarte-Rodriguez 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.) Duarte-Rodriguez was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. This court did not receive a supplemental brief from him. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Duarte-Rodriguez, we affirm.