CA Unpub Decisions

Accel Capital, Inc., appeals from orders vacating five judgments entered based on sister state judgments obtained in New York under New York’s confession of judgment procedure. The superior court vacated the California judgments based on its finding Nazaret Chakrian, Alice Chakrian, NAMR 2617, LLC (NAMR), N & C Vanowen, LLC, and Juvinx, Inc. (collectively the Chakrian defendants) had not provided a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of their right to prejudgment notice and a hearing. Although California courts are required to give full faith and credit to sister state judgments, where, as here, entry of the judgments does not comport with constitutional due process protections, vacatur of the judgments is proper. We affirm.

Karen Garcia (plaintiff) brought the present wrongful death action following the death of her 25-year-old husband, Jose Garcia (Jose). Jose was killed when the van in which he was a passenger collided with a tractor-trailer owned by defendant Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc. (Tri-Modal). The case was tried to a jury, which found Tri-Modal’s driver to have been entirely responsible for the accident, and awarded plaintiff economic and noneconomic damages in excess of $11 million.

Appellant Leonard Remson (defendant) appeals from an order finding him to have violated the terms of his parole and ordering him to serve 180 days in county jail. During the pendency of this appeal, however, defendant completed his sentence and was released from parole supervision. We therefore will dismiss his appeal as moot.

A jury convicted Tony Kendrick, Jr., of first degree burglary, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, and dissuading a witness. Kendrick argues that his counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to properly investigate his case or request an instruction on voluntary intoxication. He also asserts that the sentences for his prior prison terms must be stricken and that the trial court’s imposition of fees, fines, and assessments violated due process. We remand for resentencing but otherwise affirm the judgment

A jury convicted Luis Jimenez of second degree murder for killing Margarita Valdez Castro, the mother of his long-time girlfriend, and found true the allegation he used a knife. Jimenez argues the trial court erred in excluding a 2003 video of his stillborn child. We affirm.

Plaintiff Mary Kay Partridge filed suit against several defendants seeking to recover damages in connection with her purchase of a home that she alleges was remodeled without appropriate permits and suffered substantial remodeling defects. The trial court sustained a demurrer to her first amended complaint, but plaintiff failed to amend within the time provided. Defendants brought a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted “without prejudice.” Plaintiff did not seek relief from the dismissal nor appeal.

Defendant Michael Ray Robinson pled no contest to one felony count of assault on a peace officer with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (d)(2)) and one felony count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)); admitted a strike prior; and was sentenced to 16 years in state prison.

Lonestar Investments, LLC (Lonestar) appeals from an order and judgment enforcing a settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Lonestar contends the judgment must be reversed to the extent it was entered against Lonestar, because Lonestar is not a party to the case and the trial court had no personal jurisdiction over it. We agree.

Appellant and proposed class representative Ismael Mercado brought a class action alleging various wage and hour violations on behalf of workers at several restaurants owned or operated by entity respondents Jechi Inc., Kho Corporation, OMC Brands LLC, Eat Bop Corporation, and Kansai Japanese Restaurant, and individual respondents Micha Oh, Jessica Kwon, Chiyoung Moon, and Dongwon Lee. The trial court sustained respondents’ demurrer to Mercado’s third amended complaint (TAC) without leave to amend, disposing of Mercado’s class allegations.

Plaintiff Shawn O’Neil was injured when struck by a vehicle while walking in a crosswalk within the City of South San Francisco (the city). He appeals the summary judgment entered on his complaint against the city alleging that the crosswalk constituted a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835. Like the trial court, we conclude that the city’s approval of the design of the crosswalk as part of the city’s “Downtown Revitalization Project” immunized it from liability in this case and that to the extent his complaint alleges the crosswalk was not properly maintained, we conclude that any inadequate maintenance was not, as matter of law, the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant James Charles Amos appeals his convictions for first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) ; possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)); and unlawful discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle (§ 26100, subd. (d)). Amos contends the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to excuse a potential juror because of his race, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler). We conclude the trial court properly denied Amos’s Batson/Wheeler motion and therefore affirm.

Plaintiff taxi drivers Benedict Ezeokoli, Zine Salah and Leon Slomovic appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) on their action for false advertising under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a) et seq.). We conclude, as did the trial court, that (1) Uber established a prima facie showing that plaintiffs could not prove they were harmed by the alleged false advertising, and (2) plaintiffs failed to rebut that showing. We therefore affirm the judgment.

In this appeal we address whether the instructional workload policy of a department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, authorized the department chair to assign an additional course to a professor to compensate for deficiencies in the professor’s fulfillment of his standard teaching workload. Professor Ramakrishna Akella refused to teach the additional course, which he believed department chair Brent Haddad had no authority to assign.

When they divorced, Jody L. Pallo and Robert J. Pallo entered a marital settlement agreement (the MSA) dividing their property; the MSA was approved as a stipulated judgment by the trial court. More than six years later, Jody filed a motion to set aside the stipulated judgment on the ground Robert had failed to disclose the existence of a community property asset—his pension. The trial court found that the motion to set aside was untimely, and that Jody had been aware of the existence of the pension at the time the parties entered into the MSA.