CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Minh Caoduc filed an action against defendants Mary Grizzle and Sean Grizzle in March 2013. Because the complaint is not in the appellate record, the nature of the action is unclear, though plaintiff’s brief states that the action arose out of a car accident.

C.L. challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing regarding C.L.’s son, E.L. (the child).
A petition was filed in February 2017, shortly after the child’s birth, alleging that C.L. and the child’s mother were unable to care for and protect the child. The child was suffering from narcotics withdrawal at birth and remained in the neonatal ICU at the time of the petition. In June 2017, the court found the petition true but did not remove the child from parental custody

Cross-defendant Nili Alai appeals from an order denying her special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP motion). (All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.) Cross-complainant, attorney Roland C. Colton, filed a cross complaint against Alai, his former client. Colton alleged Alai made false representations and concealed material information from Colton to induce him to represent her in a medical malpractice case.

In 2019, defendant Jose Luis Villanueva petitioned the superior court to vacate his 1995 second degree murder conviction and to resentence him pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. Section 1170.95 was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), which also amended sections 188 and 189 to limit accomplice liability for murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and the felony-murder rule

Appellant Jose Coronado challenges an order denying his petition for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which restricts the scope of vicarious liability for the crime of murder. The trial court ruled this restriction unlawfully amended Proposition 7 and Proposition 115 in violation of the California Constitution. At the time the trial court rendered its decision, in August 2019, the constitutionality of SB 1437 was an open question. However, since then, this court, and every other appellate court that has considered the issue, has consistently upheld SB 1437 against claims it violates the state Constitution.

In 2019, defendant Victor Manuel Flores petitioned the superior court to vacate his 1995 first degree murder conviction and to resentence him pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. Section 1170.95 was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), which also amended sections 188 and 189 to limit accomplice liability for murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and the felony-murder rule. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015.)

Felix Posos and Joanne Cohen Posos (the Posos) entered into a partnership agreement with Kevin Hendra and Janai Hendra (the Hendras) to purchase a vacation rental property in Hawaii. The partnership did not continue as planned. In 2014, the Hendras prevailed against the Posos in a breach of contract action. The trial court awarded the Hendras $74,250 in damages, prejudgment interest, and full title to the property.

Tianjin Tianwu International Trade Development Company (Tianwu) appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent Tianjin Weinada International Trading Company (Weinada), quieting title and imposing a constructive trust on a piece of real property located on Trotter Lane in Yorba Linda (Trotter Property). Tianwu argues the trial court erred in granting Weinada relief on the basis Tianwu was on constructive notice of a lis pendens recorded in another action.

Tabitha S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to her now 14 year old daughter, Heaven B., and ten-year-old son, Daniel B., Jr. Mother contends the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) failed to comply with the juvenile court’s visitation order and provide an accurate assessment of her relationship with the children. The department’s actions, she argues, prevented her from establishing the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption and denied her due process right to effectively contest the termination of her parental rights.

Defendant Pascal Casey was convicted by a jury of committing three sexual offenses during a single incident against a child for whom he was a nanny. On appeal, he contends judicial bias deprived him of his federal rights to due process and a fair trial. He also contends the fines, fees, and assessments imposed by the trial court violate his right to due process because he is unable to pay. To the extent these contentions were forfeited, he contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance. He also argues his abstract of judgment contains a clerical error.

In 2014, Preston James Franklin Argenbright pled no contest to various offenses. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Argenbright on three years’ probation, with one year of jail time. In 2015, Argenbright violated probation and new charges were filed. Again, Argenbright pled no contest. The trial court again suspended imposition of sentence and again placed Argenbright on three years’ probation, with one year of jail time, split between six months in county jail and six months in a treatment facility. In 2017, Argenbright was again found in violation and his probation revoked. After a denial of a third grant of probation, Argenbright was sentenced to state prison.

Plaintiff sued defendants to recover for injuries he sustained in a fire. Defendants asserted they were plaintiff’s employers, and his action was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers’ compensation law. The trial court tried that issue first, agreed with defendants, and entered judgment in their favor. We find no error in the trial court’s decision and affirm.

T.L. (Father) appeals the termination of his parental rights to C.L. (a boy, born Dec. 2016) and E.L. (a girl, born Nov. 2017; collectively, the Children) at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Father contends the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the beneficial parent/child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) and adopting a lesser plan than adoption.

Defendant and appellant James Henry Tolliver III appeals the denial of his petition for dismissal filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4, subdivision (a)(1), and request to have his convictions declared misdemeanors pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), (Petition). In 2011, defendant, along with two codefendants, was placed on probation for five years based on his admission to conspiracy to commit grand theft and committing prohibited acts by a foreclosure consultant. Defendant’s probation term was completed in July 2016. In 2019, he brought the Petition based on his claim that he successfully completed probation. He requested that his convictions be dismissed and declared misdemeanors.