CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant George Wallace Lewis of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The jury also found true prior prison term enhancement allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in prison.
Defendant now contends (1) the trial court should have instructed the jury on possession of a firearm in self-defense, (2) the People did not establish the business records exception to the hearsay rule in seeking to prove defendant’s prior prison terms, and (3) the trial court did not articulate reasons for imposing an upper term sentence. Finding no merit in the contentions, we will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Jillian Knudsen appeals from the trial court’s order issuing a civil harassment restraining order against her. Both defendant and plaintiff Maureen Colton, neighbors sharing a private access road, obtained mutual restraining orders after a lengthy history of harassing one another and filing various legal actions against one another over use of the road.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in considering the June 1, 2011, incident, raised during a previous restraining order application, as part of the alleged course of harassing conduct in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 rather than applying “normal injunctive procedures.”
We affirm.

M.V. (Mother) appeals from the orders denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and terminating her parental rights over three of her children—nine-year-old Marlene L., seven-year-old Jacelyn L., and two-year-old Angel L. Mother contends the juvenile court deprived her of due process when it denied her section 388 request without a hearing, and the denial was an abuse of discretion. In addition, Mother claims the notice for the section 366.26 hearing was deficient. She also asserts the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights because two exceptions to adoption—the beneficial parental relationship and sibling relationship exceptions—applied. Mother also appeals from the order denying her section 388 petition as to her fourth child, 13-year-old Joseph. We affirm.

Appellant/defendant Public Storage (PS) appeals the trial court’s ruling denying its motion to compel arbitration against respondent/plaintiff Rachel Gilgar. The trial court ruled that PS had failed to establish the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate, finding that the parties had not consented to contract electronically under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), and that PS had failed to authenticate Gilgar’s purported electronic signature. We affirm the trial court’s holding on the ground that PS failed to meet its initial burden of establishing a valid agreement to arbitrate.

Shabina and Yogesh Desai have avoided foreclosure for nearly a decade after defaulting on a home loan secured by a deed of trust. They allege that respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Bank) and its agents lack authority to foreclose because the loan was belatedly securitized and the deed of trust was belatedly assigned. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit on demurrer. We affirm because appellants cannot sue preemptively to challenge the trustee’s authority to initiate foreclosure.

Following her involuntary month-long commitment at a psychiatric hospital in Egypt, plaintiff Maha Mohamed sued defendants Dr. Mounir Soliman and his employer, the Regents of the University of California, for various intentional torts including false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged that her then-husband (Tarek), her brother, and Dr. Soliman worked in concert to orchestrate her wrongful commitment to the mental institution at a time when plaintiff had threatened to divorce Tarek and return to the United States. Plaintiff asserted that Dr. Soliman, who was Tarek’s friend, used his position as a prominent psychiatrist at the University of California, San Diego to cause or at least prolong her wrongful imprisonment and cause her incapacitation with anti-psychotic medications. Dr. Soliman did this, according to her allegations, by communicating false information to her treating physicians at the Egyptian hospital.

Plaintiff and appellant Bisno Development Enterprise, LLC (Plaintiff) appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent VDC at the Met, LLC (Defendant), entered after the court sustained without leave to amend Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage (negligent interference), the sole cause of action asserted in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (complaint). Based on our conclusion that there was no special relationship between Defendant and Plaintiff giving rise to a duty of care, we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Maria Herrera of assault with a deadly weapon, and found not true the allegation that she inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). She admitted having suffered a prior conviction: a 2011 gang-enhanced (§ 186.22) conviction for drawing or exhibiting a firearm in the presence of a motorist driving on a public street (§ 417.3). She admitted that the conviction qualified as a strike, a serious felony and a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike her prior strike conviction (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero)), and sentenced her to a term of 11 years in state prison: the middle term of three years for the conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, doubled to six years based on the prior strike conviction, plus a consecutive five year enhancement for the prior serious felony. The court “stayed” the prior prison term enhancement.

Plaintiff and appellant Michael Anthony Godley appeals from an order dismissing his case against defendant Dwayne Michael Carter, Jr. for failure to serve the summons and complaint. Plaintiff, who represented himself below and on appeal, asserts no argument demonstrating error. We affirm.

We deem the appeal to be a petition for writ of mandate and grant the relief requested. Reece was self-represented, and his declaration in support of his motion for sanctions failed to show that he incurred any attorney fees or expenses as a consequence of any conduct by Electronic or Smyth. (§ 128.7, subd. (d).) Therefore, the trial court lacked statutory authority to award Reece any monetary sanctions.

In September 2015, defendant Angelique Spurlock (defendant) shot and killed James McQuater (McQuater). A jury convicted her on a charge of second-degree murder, rejecting her defense that she killed McQuater—an ex-boyfriend with whom she had an abusive relationship—because she thought he was going to kill her. We consider whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on intimate partner battering (IPB) and in various evidentiary rulings, including a decision to admit evidence that defendant previously attacked McQuater with a machete or axe. We also decide whether the case should be remanded to give the trial court an opportunity to exercise newly-conferred discretion to strike a firearm sentencing enhancement that figured in defendant’s sentence.

Defendant Richard Whearty appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. He argues the settlement agreement is unenforceable and the trial court erred when it entered judgment on an ex parte application. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Manuel Larios Munoz of first degree burglary, forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, sexual penetration by a foreign object, and assault with the intent to commit a felony, arising out of his attacks on two different victims. Munoz argues that his convictions for burglary and assault, as well as the jury’s true findings on certain “One Strike” allegations (Pen. Code, § 667.61), must be reversed because his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request that the jury be instructed on voluntary intoxication. We affirm the judgment.

Goleta Ag appeals from the trial court’s order denying a petition for writ of mandate that would have directed the District to retroactively reverse its rate structure for 2015 through 2020, and would have invalidated the ordinance that adopted it (Ordinance 2015-4, the ordinance). Goleta Ag contends the District used defective notice procedures to implement new tiered water rates and drought surcharges. It also contends these charges force agricultural customers to subsidize the cost of urban conservation, in violation of the procedural and substantive requirements of Proposition 218. (Prop. 218, as approved by the voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996), Cal. Const., article XIII D, § 6, subds. (a)(1) and (b)(3)).