CA Unpub Decisions

Appointed counsel for defendant Lloyd Charles Miles asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs Jack Sweigart, Mike Carson, and Bob Payne (collectively the SCP parties) appeal the judgment entered following the trial court’s grant of defendant Truck Insurance Exchange’s (Truck) motion for summary judgment. In the underlying litigation, the SCP parties were named in a suit brought by the Ranch at Clay Station Homeowner’s Association (the HOA) and individual homeowners. Truck insured the HOA. The SCP parties sought coverage under the policy, which Truck denied. Litigation followed and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Truck’s motion, finding the SCP parties excluded from coverage by the policy’s terms. The SCP parties challenge the trial court’s reasoning. We shall affirm the judgment.

Jason Romero appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which “amend[ed] the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine . . . to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) The trial court found Romero ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the record demonstrates he was convicted as a direct aider and abettor. We affirm.

Father Jose H. appeals findings of jurisdiction over his two sons under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and related disposition orders. Father’s 11-year-old stepdaughter, K., stated that father engaged in inappropriate behavior that included randomly slapping her buttocks, and touching her leg and buttock while she slept. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition seeking jurisdiction over all three children on the basis that father sexually abused K., and the children’s mother failed to protect them. The juvenile court held that father’s actions did not support a finding of sexual abuse under section 300, subdivision (d), amended the language of the petition to state that father made “inappropriate contact and failed to recognize appropriate boundaries,” and sustained jurisdiction for all three children under section 300, subdivision (b)(1).

Wolfram Ermel appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him. We dismiss Ermel’s appeal because it is untimely. Moreover, Ermel has failed to specify any grounds entitling him to relief.

S.B. appeals from a three-year domestic violence restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, § 6200 et. seq.) following a hearing. He contends that (1) his ex-girlfriend, B.J., lied in her request for the restraining order, and was not credible during the hearing; (2) the trial court erred by denying his request to call their child, J.B., to testify at the hearing; and (3) the court was unconstitutionally biased against him. We conclude that S.B. has forfeited the contentions on appeal. We affirm the order.

Plaintiff and appellant Michael G. Frierson (appellant) claims that he developed rectal cancer because defendants and respondents Coast Gastroenterology A Medical Group, Inc. (Coast) and Steven Lerner, M.D. (collectively respondents) breached the standard of care by, inter alia, failing to follow up or advise appellant to follow up after a colonoscopy. The trial court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment after concluding that there were no triable issues as to breach of the standard of care or causation. Appellant now appeals and argues that summary judgment was improper because there is a triable issue as to whether respondents breached the standard of care. We find no error and affirm.

Carlos Elenes appeals from an order denying his petition for writ
of error coram nobis. His appointed counsel filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We conclude Elenes is not entitled to Wende review of the postconviction order and dismiss the appeal.

E. P. (Mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court allowing the foster parents of her daughter, E.J. (Minor) to move with Minor to another state in the time between the termination of reunification services and the hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the juvenile court improperly precluded her from participating personally and testifying at the hearing and that it unduly limited the scope of the evidence. We shall affirm the order.

This appeal involves a decades-long dispute over real property located on Blue Gum Avenue in Capitola (the Blue Gum property). Plaintiff Richard L. Thompson, as Successor in Interest to James J. Thompson, successfully moved for summary judgment on causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief, and the trial court entered judgment in Thompson’s favor. Defendants Michael S. Ioane, Sr., Shelly J. Ioane, and their adult children, Briana C. Ioane, Ashley M. Ioane, and Michael S. Ioane, Jr. (collectively, the Ioanes), proceeding in propria persona, appeal. We shall affirm.

After suffering injuries on the job, followed by a stroke two months later, construction worker Jose Zamora filed a workers compensation claim against his former employer, Sunwest Masonry & Concrete, Inc. (Sunwest). Zamora then sued Sunwest for wrongful termination, and Sunwest and a third party for negligence. Zamora eventually settled his workers compensation claim and the wrongful termination action; he then voluntarily dismissed Sunwest from the negligence action with prejudice.

Appellant Isaias Nunez challenges an order denying his petition for relief 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. However, like every published opinion that has considered the issue, we find SB 1437 to be a constitutional legislative enactment. We therefore reverse the trial court’s ruling to the contrary and remand for further proceedings.

Irell & Manella (Irell) appeals from the trial court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration of an attorney fee dispute with Geveran Investments, Ltd. (Geveran), a non-signatory to the fee agreement. Irell argues the court erred by concluding the doctrines of agency, estoppel, and sham pleadings did not require the dispute be arbitrated. Because we conclude agency principles require the matter be arbitrated, we need not address Irell’s other contentions. We reverse the court’s order denying Irell’s motion to compel arbitration.

Appointed counsel for defendant Russell Zane Brewer 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.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded, contending his plea was coerced and resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the court’s criminal protective order was erroneously entered. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.