CA Unpub Decisions

This is an appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of defendants and respondents Stacy Barnhisel and Joshua Haber (homeowners). After a fire significantly damaged their home, the homeowners retained TriCoast Builders, Inc. (TriCoast) to rebuild it. The final home improvement agreement governing the project contained a broad arbitration provision. When TriCoast sued the homeowners concerning the project, the homeowners filed a petition to stay the litigation and compel arbitration which the trial court granted. The arbitrator found that the homeowners owed TriCoast a few thousand dollars under the contract but that amount was offset by more than $130,000 owed by TriCoast to the homeowners relating to construction defects and work performed by unlicensed contractors. The court affirmed the arbitration award.

After Caltrans terminated Do Hak Kim’s employment for underperformance and insubordination, and the State Personnel Board affirmed the decision, Kim petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate overturning the Board’s decision. The court affirmed the Board in most respects and denied the writ. Kim appeals, contending (1) the Board’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, (2) discharge was too severe a penalty, and (3) his Skelly rights were violated. We disagree with each contention, and therefore affirm.

This appeal follows the resentencing of defendant Omar Alejandro Zavala for attempted murder and assault with a firearm. The original sentencing court issued an unauthorized sentence because it miscalculated defendant’s minimum parole date. The “Three Strikes law” (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12) required the original sentencing court to double the 15 year minimum parole date because defendant suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction. (People v. Jefferson (1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 90 (Jefferson).) The resentencing court corrected the error and imposed a longer sentence for the attempted murder—totaling 60 years to life. The resentencing court sentenced defendant to a 36-year determinate term for the assault with a firearm, but stayed that sentence pursuant to section 654.

This appeal follows the resentencing of defendant Omar Alejandro Zavala for attempted murder and assault with a firearm. The original sentencing court issued an unauthorized sentence because it miscalculated defendant’s minimum parole date. The “Three Strikes law” (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12) required the original sentencing court to double the 15 year minimum parole date because defendant suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction. (People v. Jefferson (1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 90 (Jefferson).) The resentencing court corrected the error and imposed a longer sentence for the attempted murder—totaling 60 years to life. The resentencing court sentenced defendant to a 36-year determinate term for the assault with a firearm, but stayed that sentence pursuant to section 654.

Daniel Paul Waltz was convicted after a jury trial of willfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon his girlfriend, Tracy B., (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), disobeying a domestic violence restraining order (§ 166, subd. (c)(4)), and misdemeanor contempt of court for violating a protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)).
Waltz contends on appeal the trial court improperly admitted lay witness testimony from law enforcement officers about their personal experiences with bruises, improperly admitted as impeachment evidence Waltz’s prior convictions for contempt of court and spousal battery, and improperly excluded character evidence about Tracy. He also claims the court improperly imposed a $500 domestic violence fee, and restitution fines and court fees should be stricken for lack of evidence of his ability to pay them.

Officer Evan Urias suspected Kenney Watkins had a weapon and ordered him to show his hands and get on the ground. Watkins ran away from him. On his police motorcycle, Urias trailed about 10 feet behind Watkins, keeping pace. Watkins slowed down and began turning towards Urias. Watkins held two guns, one in each hand. Watkins started to point a gun at Urias. Urias shot Watkins to death.
Police investigating the shooting found Watkins’s guns at the scene. Both were loaded, operational, and ready to fire.
Watkins’s mother sued the Los Angeles Police Department and the City of Los Angeles for her son’s wrongful death. The jury returned a defense verdict. On appeal, Watkins’s mother assigns errors and attacks the trial judge as biased. We affirm.

Theodosios (Ted) Roussos appeals from a judgment confirming two arbitration awards. In the first award (the partition award), the arbitrator granted Harry and Christine Roussos’s request for partition by sale of six properties owned by two limited partnerships and a corporation, which in turn were owned by Ted and Harry as cotrustees of two trusts. Ted contends the arbitrator exceeded his powers because the properties were the assets of the trusts, and the trusts were expressly excluded from the arbitration agreement; Christine lacked standing to seek partition based on her status as a beneficiary of the trusts; Harry and Christine failed to join indispensable parties to the partition action; and the arbitrator erred in ordering partition because the provisions in the applicable partnership agreements prohibited the partners from seeking partition. However, Ted’s petition to vacate the awards was untimely and deficient. Accordingly, we affirm.

Plaintiff Rafaela Torres appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kaiser). Torres was a hospital kitchen worker for Kaiser. In 2013 Torres took a two-week leave of absence to care for her seriously ill mother in Mexico. Shortly after returning, Torres took two months of medical leave for stress and anxiety. In 2014 Torres took a six-month medical leave of absence for shoulder surgery and recovery. When Torres returned to work in November 2014, she repeatedly requested time off in January and February 2015 to care for her mother in Mexico, who was dying. Kaiser denied each of Torres’s requests, but Torres still traveled to Mexico. When Torres failed to report for work, Kaiser classified her absence as unauthorized and subsequently terminated her.

Timothy Morse appeals from convictions of mayhem, battery with serious bodily injury and elder abuse not likely to produce great bodily injury. The only disputed issues on appeal are claims of prejudicial prosecutorial error. We will affirm the convictions. As respondent concedes, however, the protective order issued by the trial court is invalid, and we will remand for reconsideration of that order under proper authority.

Defendant Eddie Lamar Dunbar appeals a judgment convicting him of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and sentencing him to 33 years in prison. On appeal, he contends the trial court failed to sua sponte instruct the jury that the exercise of self-defense does not require a defendant to retreat and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion to withdraw. We find no error and shall affirm the judgment.

Thomas Michael Colt, who is serving a sentence of 26 years to life in prison following a 1990 conviction for first degree murder, appeals the denial of a motion to vacate his judgment of conviction, which the trial court construed as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The motion contends that the judgment must be vacated because Colt’s guilty plea, the trial court’s acceptance thereof, and the ensuing judgment were procured by extrinsic fraud by his trial counsel, the prosecutor, and others.

This appeal arises from a series of real estate investments that cratered during the great recession. The hearings and appeals spawned by these investments are legion. Although there are several different investments and various appellants that comprise the chorus of litigation, each investment was structured the same, and the basic claim asserted by each appellant is the same. Appellant investors claim that respondents, who acted as middlemen between appellant investors and the seller of the property, committed fraud by advertising a purchase price of the property that was higher than the appraised value. Respondents’ covert purpose was to reimburse the seller for fees it was contractually bound to pay to respondents. By reimbursing the seller from the purchase price, the economic effect was to shift the financial burden of paying those fees to appellants.

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.

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.