CA Unpub Decisions

Jesus Gonzalez (Husband) appeals an order denying his request to terminate spousal support for his ex-wife Lupita Gonzalez (Wife). He contends the trial court erred in denying his termination request on grounds that a material change of circumstances warranted termination of the spousal support. We affirm.

A group of former tenants of low-income housing units filed a putative class action against FPI Management, Inc., a property management company, alleging FPI had violated federal law by failing to provide at least 30 days’ notice before terminating their tenancies for failure to pay rent. The trial court granted class certification of the former tenants’ claims for wrongful termination of tenancy and violations of the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.). The former tenants then filed a fifth amended complaint asserting the same claims on behalf of two additional putative sister classes and moved for class certification of the new claims. After the case was transferred to a different judge, the court denied class certification of the new putative class claims and, upon reconsideration, vacated the prior order certifying the existing class claims. In the rulings class certification

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Rubin, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Joanna G. Grabowski, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza, Alysia B. Carroll; Davis, Grass, Goldstein & Finlay and Vincent J. Iuliano, for Defendants and Respondents.
Joanna G. Grabowski brought claims for medical malpractice against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Southern California Permanente Medical Group, and various associated physicians (collectively, Kaiser). The claims were heard by an arbitrator, Byron Berry, pursuant to a contractual arbitration agreement. After a contested hearing, the arbitrator awarded judgment in favor of Kaiser.
Grabowski petitioned the trial court to vacate the arbitration award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285; further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) She alleged (1) the arbitrator committed misconduct, and revealed disqualifying bias, by engaging in an ex parte communication with

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John S. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Darren Chaker, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
Darren Chaker was determined to be a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order, first in 1997 and again in 2001. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 391-391.8.) As such, prior to filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona, Chaker must first obtain leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. (§ 391.7, subd. (a).) In 2018, Chaker filed an application to vacate the prefiling orders and remove his name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders. (§ 391.8, subd. (a).) The trial court denied the application, concluding Chaker did not demonstrate good cause for the requested relief. (Id., subd. (c).) Chaker appeals, challenging the trial court’s denial of his application, and c

In 2006, a jury found defendant and appellant Bryan Cabrera guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which proximately caused great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) and (e)(1)) and that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life in state prison. On January 18, 2008, a prior panel of this division affirmed defendant’s conviction (People v. Cabrera (Jan. 18, 2008, B194832) [nonpub. opn.]) and denied defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (In re Cabrera (Jan. 18, 2008, B200864) [nonpub. opn.].)

Defendant Baldemar Navarro appeals from the trial court’s order authorizing the involuntary administration of medication. His appointed counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We conclude defendant is not entitled to a Wende review and will dismiss this appeal as abandoned.

Michael Simeon Smith sued respondents American Idol Productions, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Freemantle Media North America, Inc., Ana Montoya, and Jami Tanihana for negligence after he was injured while participating in the American Idol televised singing competition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents on the ground Smith signed a contract agreeing to release and waive any known and unknown claims against respondents and assume the risk of harm. Smith contends on appeal the contract was unenforceable because the release and waiver provisions were unconscionable. He also contends the contract’s release and waiver provisions do not apply to defend against respondents’ gross negligence. We affirm the judgment.

Michael Simeon Smith sued respondents American Idol Productions, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Freemantle Media North America, Inc., Ana Montoya, and Jami Tanihana for negligence after he was injured while participating in the American Idol televised singing competition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents on the ground Smith signed a contract agreeing to release and waive any known and unknown claims against respondents and assume the risk of harm. Smith contends on appeal the contract was unenforceable because the release and waiver provisions were unconscionable. He also contends the contract’s release and waiver provisions do not apply to defend against respondents’ gross negligence. We affirm the judgment.

Michael Simeon Smith sued respondents American Idol Productions, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Freemantle Media North America, Inc., Ana Montoya, and Jami Tanihana for negligence after he was injured while participating in the American Idol televised singing competition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents on the ground Smith signed a contract agreeing to release and waive any known and unknown claims against respondents and assume the risk of harm. Smith contends on appeal the contract was unenforceable because the release and waiver provisions were unconscionable. He also contends the contract’s release and waiver provisions do not apply to defend against respondents’ gross negligence. We affirm the judgment.

Defendants Sue Taylor et al. (Taylor) appeal from a judgment granting in part plaintiffs Alliance for Responsible Planning’s (Alliance) petition for a writ of mandate. On appeal, Taylor contends the trial court erred in (1) prematurely considering the facial challenge; (2) granting Alliance’s petition as to certain policies implemented by Measure E; and (3) granting Alliance’s petition as to Measure E’s eighth implementation statement.
Alliance has also raised several protective contentions. As we affirm the judgment in the trial court, we need not reach those contentions. Defendants El Dorado County Board of Supervisors and County of El Dorado have also filed a brief on appeal.
We affirm the judgment.

Peter Santisteven pleaded guilty in 2007 to first degree felony murder. In January 2019 Santisteven petitioned for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. The superior court denied the petition after appointing counsel for Santisteven and holding an evidentiary hearing, finding Santisteven ineligible for resentencing because he was a major participant in the underlying robbery and acted with reckless indifference to human life. Because the court used an incorrect standard of proof in finding Santisteven ineligible for resentencing (substantial evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt), we reverse and remand for a new evidentiary hearing applying the correct standard.

When his girlfriend refused to give him oral sex, Stephen Merle Houk beat her, loaded a gun and pointed it at her and their young son, threatened to kill them, and then kicked her out of their motorhome to panhandle at a Starbucks, telling her to get $250 for her grave. She asked a customer for help, and he called the police. When Houk saw the police arrive, he drove off with their three-year-old son and one-year-old daughter. He led multiple police cars on a 100-mile chase to Bakersfield, where he drove into an orchard and abandoned the motorhome with the children inside. A jury convicted Houk of injuring a girlfriend, assault with a firearm, making criminal threats, kidnapping, child detention with right to custody, child abuse, felony fleeing from a pursuing police officer’s vehicle while driving recklessly, and possession of a firearm by a felon with one prior, and found true various allegations. After a bifurcated trial, the trial court found Houk’s prior conviction true, and

Renee L. Dolberry and Tim Dolberry appeal the postjudgment order awarding Westside Investments, Inc., doing business as Marina Del Rey Toyota (MDR Toyota), $102,036.50 in attorney fees against Renee Dolberry pursuant to an attorney fee provision in Renee Dolberry’s automobile lease agreement. The Dolberrys contend (1) the court erred in failing to apportion and limit attorney fees to those incurred in connection with Westside’s contract claim against Renee Dolberry; (2) Westside is precluded from recovering attorney fees because the named partner of its counsel is also a majority shareholder in Westside; and (3) the attorney fee order is wholly disproportionate to, and patently unreasonable in light of, the $13,479.41 net damages awarded. We dismiss Tim Dolberry’s appeal for lack of standing. As to Renee Dolberry, we affirm the judgment.

Renee L. Dolberry and Tim Dolberry appeal the postjudgment order awarding Westside Investments, Inc., doing business as Marina Del Rey Toyota (MDR Toyota), $102,036.50 in attorney fees against Renee Dolberry pursuant to an attorney fee provision in Renee Dolberry’s automobile lease agreement. The Dolberrys contend (1) the court erred in failing to apportion and limit attorney fees to those incurred in connection with Westside’s contract claim against Renee Dolberry; (2) Westside is precluded from recovering attorney fees because the named partner of its counsel is also a majority shareholder in Westside; and (3) the attorney fee order is wholly disproportionate to, and patently unreasonable in light of, the $13,479.41 net damages awarded. We dismiss Tim Dolberry’s appeal for lack of standing. As to Renee Dolberry, we affirm the judgment.