CA Unpub Decisions

In this case alleging breach of a contract for the sale of a commercial ground lease, the seller--plaintiff/cross-defendant Carl Batterton--appeals from a judgment and post-judgment orders in favor of defendants/cross-complainants Victor J. Campana and Anthony Campos, following a trial and special jury verdict finding that plaintiff and defendants entered a contract, but plaintiff as the seller did not perform, and therefore defendants were not required to perform. Plaintiff contends the jury was erroneously asked to make a finding of law by interpreting the contract, and their legal conclusion was wrong. Court affirm the judgment.

Concepcion Ramos injured his feet on the job as the result of cumulative trauma that occurred between August 2002, and January 2003. He received temporary disability benefits for his injury beginning sometime before January 1, 2005, and continuing through April 2005. The question here is whether -- based on the date of Ramoss injury and the dates his temporary disability benefits began and ended -- the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) properly calculated Ramirezs permanent disability award using the 1997 schedule for rating permanent disabilities, rather than the 2005 schedule for rating permanent disabilities. As Court will explain, Court agree with petitioner City of Galt (the city) that the WCJ used the wrong schedule. Accordingly, Court annul the order denying the citys petition for reconsideration and remand the case for recalculation of Ramoss permanent disability rating.

Jorge G. appeals a juvenile court order summarily denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1]modification petition requesting that his minor daughter, Y., be placed with her paternal grandparents. Court affirm the order.

In these consolidated appeals, we address multiple issues arising from an arbitration between a mobilehome park and residents of the park. The residents, the Alis, sued the mobilehome park for unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq.) and conspiracy to violate statutory duties in connection with rental agreements which they contended violated the state Mobilehome Residency Law (Civ. Code, 798 et seq.) and the City of Coltons rent control ordinance. They sought restitution and injunctive relief. In their cause of action for unfair business practices, they sued on behalf of themselves and of the public at large.
The judgment filed May 31, 2005, is affirmed.

Defendants appeal from an award of statutory attorney fees in a personal injury action brought pursuant to section 1021.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They contend that the trial court abused its discretion because it awarded plaintiffs attorney fees in the full amount provided for in their contingent fee agreements, without reference to the lodestar method of determining a reasonable award of attorney fees. Court agree that the courts failure to apply the lodestar method as its starting point was an abuse of discretion, and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant Omar Farouk Gani beat, kicked, and slammed his cohabitants face into the floor, causing her to sustain facial injuries. He was charged with one count of inflicting corporal injury to a cohabitant resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) and one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).) After deliberating an hour, a jury found defendant guilty of both counts, as well as found true allegations on both counts that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence. (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (e) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).)
We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support defendants domestic violence convictions. We further find the trial court erroneously allowed inadmissible evidence of a defense alibi witnesss prior arrest, however, the result would have been the same even without that evidence. Court conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion to curtail defense cross-examination regarding irrelevant matters. Finally Court determine that the expert witnesses were properly qualified to testify regarding domestic violence. Consequently, Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

A Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed on August 28, 2006, alleging that defendant and appellant Daniel B. (minor) unlawfully possessed a firearm (Penal Code, 12021, subd. (a)) and live ammunition. ( 12101, subd. (b).) A juvenile court found true the allegation that minor possessed a firearm, but granted the defense motion to dismiss the possession of live ammunition count. The court placed minor on probation for a period of six months. Minor filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the courts true finding.
The judgment is affirmed.

On November 23, 2003, respondent Lori Tanner Gattuso (Lori or, mother) filed an order to show cause for modification of child custody, child support, and attorney fees and costs in the action for dissolution of her marriage to appellant Roger Tanner (Roger or, father). Lori prayed for sole legal custody of their three minor children, $1,278 in monthly child support, reasonable attorney fees and actual court costs.
In appeal No. F050058, the judgment (the order appealed from entered January 13, 2006) is affirmed.

On June 1, 2006, appellant Eric M., a minor, admitted allegations of the following: he committed robbery (Pen. Code, 211); he did so in an inhabited dwelling while acting in concert with two other persons (Pen. Code, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)); and in committing the offense he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Subsequently, at the disposition hearing in September 2006, the court adjudged appellant a ward of the court; ordered him committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA);[1]declared his maximum term of imprisonment (Welf. & Inst. Code, 726, subd. (c)) to be 10 years 8 months, based on the instant offense and enhancement and an offense adjudicated in a previous wardship proceeding; declared his maximum term of physical confinement (Welf. & Inst. Code, 731, subd. (b)) to be four years eight months; awarded 299 days of predisposition credits; and imposed a restitution fine (Welf. & Inst. Code, 730.6) of $100. Court have done the calculation, and we conclude respondent is correct. It appears, as respondent notes, that appellant has counted one day, viz., June 6, 2006, twice. Appellant began that day in Kings County Juvenile Hall before being transferred later in the day to Fresno County Juvenile Hall. Court order the judgment modified accordingly.

A jury convicted Yong Bae Hong[1]of one count of murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a))[2], six counts of attempted murder ( 664; 187, subd. (a)), seven counts of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle ( 246), one count each of unlawful participation in a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (a)), and conspiracy to commit assault likely to create great bodily injury ( 182, subd. (a)(1); 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true allegations defendant committed the attempted murder offenses willfully, deliberately and with premeditation ( 664, subd. (a)), committed most of the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and through vicarious discharge of a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (c), (d) & (e)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to a state prison term of 50 years to life. The judgment is affirmed.

Tyson Jacobsen appeals from an order denying his petition to compel arbitration of a wage claim filed by Stewart Winkler before the Labor Commissioner. Jacobsen initiated that petition even though he is not a party to the proceeding before the Labor Commissioner. Moreover, Advent CM, Inc., the entity which is named as defendant in the proceeding before the Labor Commissioner, is not a party to the arbitration agreement which Jacobsen asserts governs this dispute. Both of those problems were brought to the attention of the trial court, and under the circumstances, it is not surprising Jacobsen was unsuccessful below. What is surprising is that he pursued this issue on appeal, without even acknowledging the standing issues in his opening brief. The order is affirmed.

Fausto G., and Brenda L., appeal from the order terminating their parental rights to their children, Brianna G., and Savannah G. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) They contend the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. 1902 et seq.) Court reject their contention and affirm the order.

Esturberto Mariscal was employed as a construction worker by HSR Inc. when he sustained an admitted injury to his left leg while using a concrete saw on October 21 2004.[1] On December 22, 2004, Mr. Mariscal's treating physician Dr. Genest, issued a "check the box" report in which he purported to "[i]ndicate the existence of a permanent disability."
The crux of this case is whether that "check the box" report was sufficient to bring Mr. Mariscal within the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (hereinafter 1997 PDRS) or whether the revised 2005 PDRS should apply to his claim.