CA Unpub Decisions

Father appeals an order declaring his infant son M.R. a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The evidence showed father has an ongoing mental illness. For years he has suffered from auditory hallucinations (some that urge him to hurt people) and, in the month before M.R.’s birth, father attacked his uncle during a psychotic episode, resulting in father’s involuntary hospitalization. Although father’s progress in therapy and compliance with his psychiatric medication regimen warranted M.R.’s continued placement in his physical custody (with the supervision of father’s caretakers), the child’s tender years and the magnitude of potential harm supported the juvenile court’s finding that father’s mental illness continued to pose a substantial risk to the infant. We affirm.

A jury found defendant and appellant Julius Caesar Jackson II guilty of multiple felonies, including attempted murder and kidnapping to commit robbery. Defendant contends his conviction for kidnapping to commit robbery is not supported by substantial evidence and that the aggravated kidnapping statute is so impermissibly vague that it violates due process. Defendant also contends the one-year prison prior enhancements must be stricken from his sentence in light of the passage of Senate Bill 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) during the pendency of this appeal and that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct amount of fees imposed by the trial court at sentencing.

Debra Lynn Griggs sued her former employer Guess?, Inc. (Guess), alleging wrongful termination and other employment-related causes of action. Guess petitioned to compel arbitration, asserting Griggs electronically signed an arbitration agreement covering all claims. Griggs denied she electronically signed the agreement. In opposing Guess’s petition, Griggs offered her own declaration, unequivocally stating she “did not” electronically sign the agreement, and the declaration of an information security expert, who opined Guess’s technical security controls were not sufficiently secure to confirm the electronic signature was “the act of” Griggs, as required under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). (Civ. Code, § 1633.9.)

Plaintiffs Lester Mayorga, Ledis Medrano, and other tenants living on the property owned by Jose Zepeda, sued defendant Zepeda and his company Mountview Properties Limited Partnership for alleged uninhabitable conditions in their apartments. Months later, plaintiffs served Zepeda with the complaint. By that time, Zepeda, through counsel, had initiated eviction proceedings against tenant Medrano. Zepeda next paid tenant Mayorga relocation costs, and Mayorga moved out of the property. Defendants eventually resolved the rent dispute with Medrano who continued to live in his unit. Although the eviction proceedings were winding down, defendants did not file an answer or other pleading in response to plaintiffs’ complaint for damages and other relief based on uninhabitable living conditions.

The key phrase in this appeal is “reckless indifference to human life.” As we shall explain, this is an appropriate description of appellant Lavell White’s mental state during the attempted robbery and shooting death of Terrence Richardson.
Lavell Calvin White and Ali Abdul Mohammed appeal from the judgment after a jury convicted them of first degree murder (count 1) and found true the special circumstance that they committed the murder while engaged in an attempted robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a); 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) The jury found not true the allegation that Mohammed intentionally and personally discharged a firearm in the commission of the murder. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court sentenced White and Mohammed to prison for life without parole (LWOP) and imposed various fines and assessments.

Alfonso Lua pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter in 2017. He filed a petition to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1170.95, which allows certain defendants convicted of murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine to seek resentencing. (All undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code.) The trial court denied the petition, ruling that only those convicted of murder are eligible for relief under section 1170.95. We agree with the trial court that section 1170.95 does not provide relief for those convicted of manslaughter, and accordingly we affirm.

Lionel Tate, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding in pro per, sued the California Department of Corrections (the Department), Correctional Officer J. Mann, the University of California Medical Center at Davis (UC Davis) and Dr. Michael Moore for injuries Tate allegedly sustained while being transported from UC Davis to a prison hospital. The trial court dismissed the action in a series of rulings due to Tate’s failure to comply with the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, §§ 810 et seq.) and the statute of limitations for medical negligence. We conclude the court ruled correctly, and, further, that it properly rejected Tate’s multiple requests for entry of default. We therefore affirm the judgment.

Lionel Tate, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding in pro per, sued the California Department of Corrections (the Department), Correctional Officer J. Mann, the University of California Medical Center at Davis (UC Davis) and Dr. Michael Moore for injuries Tate allegedly sustained while being transported from UC Davis to a prison hospital. The trial court dismissed the action in a series of rulings due to Tate’s failure to comply with the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, §§ 810 et seq.) and the statute of limitations for medical negligence. We conclude the court ruled correctly, and, further, that it properly rejected Tate’s multiple requests for entry of default. We therefore affirm the judgment.

Lionel Tate, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding in pro per, sued the California Department of Corrections (the Department), Correctional Officer J. Mann, the University of California Medical Center at Davis (UC Davis) and Dr. Michael Moore for injuries Tate allegedly sustained while being transported from UC Davis to a prison hospital. The trial court dismissed the action in a series of rulings due to Tate’s failure to comply with the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, §§ 810 et seq.) and the statute of limitations for medical negligence. We conclude the court ruled correctly, and, further, that it properly rejected Tate’s multiple requests for entry of default. We therefore affirm the judgment.

Defendant Richard Diaz Dolida pleaded guilty to two counts of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14. The trial court imposed an aggregate term of eight years in prison.
We appointed counsel, who filed an opening brief stating the case and the facts but raising no specific issues. We notified Dolida of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The deadline has passed and we received no response.

This action for partition arises out of a former relationship between respondent Etienne Colmet-Daage and appellant Severine Cremoux. On April 30, 2010, Cremoux granted to Colmet-Daage a joint tenancy interest in certain real property located at 613 Remington Drive, Sunnyvale (the property). Cremoux had originally acquired the property with her husband in 2002; they separated in or about 2009. After the relationship between Colmet-Daage and Cremoux ended, Cremoux recorded in October 2013 a Declaration of Severance of Joint Tenancy, thereby creating a tenancy in common ownership in the property.

This appeal concerns John A. Belcher’s petition for payment of attorney fees and reimbursement of costs from Paul Bakkers’ estate (Estate). For three years, Belcher rendered legal services to Paul, and others in the Bakkers family, in litigation involving assets held in a family trust (Trust). Belcher asserts the probate court erroneously determined he must file a creditor’s claim against the Estate and improperly denied his petition for attorney fees. We affirm the court’s order.

Defendant Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. (OC Bail Bonds) contracted with plaintiff Legal Service Bureau, Inc., doing business as Global Fugitive Recovery (Global Fugitive Recovery), to secure the return of a fugitive who had skipped bail. Under the contract, Global Fugitive Recovery was to be paid $300,000 if it contributed, even in part, to the fugitive’s return. Global Fugitive Recovery thoroughly investigated the matter and determined the fugitive had fled to the Philippines. Global Fugitive Recovery then secured the involvement of the United States Marshal Service (U.S. Marshal), who ultimately captured and returned the fugitive in time to exonerate the bond, saving OC Bail Bonds $1 million. OC Bail Bonds, however, refused to pay the bounty. After a bench trial, the court determined OC Bail Bonds had breached the contract and awarded Global Fugitive Recovery $327,750 against OC Bail Bonds.

Defendant San Diego House of Motorcycles, Inc. (SDHM), a motorcycle dealership, moved to compel arbitration of a customer’s individual claims and to stay the court action pending completion of the arbitration. The trial court granted the motion, sending the plaintiff’s individual claims to arbitration. The parties subsequently entered a stipulation to stay the court proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. SDHM appealed, arguing the court erred in applying California law to the dispute.