CA Unpub Decisions

Wayman F. Thompson was a security guard employed by Leedom Security Service, Inc. (Leedom). Leedom assigned Thompson to work at a condominium complex managed by the Oceanaire Homeowners Association (Oceanaire). Leedom terminated Thompson, who then sued Leedom, Oceanaire, and individuals associated with both entities for racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful discharge. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Oceanaire, its president, and one of its employees on the ground that Oceanaire was not Thompsons employer. Court affirm.

Plaintiff filed suit against the Santa Rosa City School District (the district) and various of its officials, including Brian Tolson (collectively, the district defendants), and two attorneys who represented Le Master in a previous action against the district, alleging that the district defendants had failed to accommodate his learning disability and that his attorneys had not adequately represented him. The trial court sustained a demurrer to his first amended complaint with leave to amend. After expiration of the statutory time to amend, the district defendants wrote the trial court, without copying Le Master, requesting that the case be dismissed and the court complied. Le Masters subsequent motion to set aside the judgment was denied. Because defendants were required to give Le Master some notice of the request for dismissal, the trial court erred in granting that request and the judgment of dismissal must be reversed.
The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Contra Costa County Bureau of Children and Family Services (bureau) filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code[1] on behalf of A.W. David W. (father) is the assumed father of A.W. and Billie B. (mother) is A.W.s mother. Mother and father both stipulated to jurisdiction. At the disposition and six-month status review hearing, the juvenile court found that placing A.W. with father would be detrimental to her well being and father appealed.
Subsequently, the court held a 12 month status reviewing hearing, and it again refused to place A.W. with her father. Father again appealed. Court consolidated both of fathers appeals, since his claim in both appeals is that substantial evidence does not support the courts finding that placing A.W. with him would be detrimental to A.W.s well being. Court affirm the lower courts rulings.

Defendant requests that we expedite disposition of his appeal (A115538) and his related habeas petition (A117675). He seeks relief from the superior courts postjudgment custody credits award.
The Attorney General concedes that defendant is entitled to relief on appeal, and agrees that the credit calculation should be set aside with the matter returned to the superior court for reconsideration. Stancliff and the Attorney General agree to waive oral argument and stipulate to the immediate issuance of the remittitur.
The trial courts order dated November 15, 2005, regarding defendants custody credit calculation, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the superior court for a recalculation of defendants custody credits in accordance with his plea bargain. The Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the remittitur forthwith. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).)

Defendant and appellant Nathan Seastrunk was convicted of two counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, 212.5, subd. (a)),[1] one count of first degree burglary of a home ( 460, subd. (a)), and was found to have personally used a firearm in the commission of these offenses. ( 12022.53, subd. (b).
On appeal, he contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that resulted from the detention and search of the van in which he was riding shortly after the crime took place; (2) the trial court violated his due process rights by denying a request to exclude a witnesss out of court statements Seastrunk contends were involuntary and unreliable; (3) the trial court erred in determining that a witness could not invoke his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination; (4) the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of a district attorney regarding the dismissal of a juvenile petition; (5) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by misstating the burden of proof and misrepresenting the facts; (6) defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the Peoples arguments regarding the burden of proof; (7) the trial court erred in admitting certain booking and property sheets; (8) the cumulative impact of these errors requires reversal. Court affirm the judgment.

The Robert Bosch Tool Corporation and the Robert Bosch Corporation challenge the inclusion of the Robert Bosch Tool Corporation in the judgment obtained by respondent Ralph Davis, on his complaint. Court resolved that issue in appellants' other appeal of the judgment, in Case No. B185408. For that reason, this appeal is dismissed.

Joel Romero was granted summary probation after a jury convicted him of battery (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (e)(1))[1], a lesser included offense to corporal injury to a child's parent ( 273.5, subd. (a)). He appeals, contending that the trial court erred in instructing on battery and in not giving a self defense instruction. Court affirm.

Appellant was charged with one count of violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivison (a), driving under the influence of alcohol, and one count of violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivison (b), driving with a blood alcohol of .08% or higher. As to each count, it was further alleged that appellant's blood alcohol was .15% or higher within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 23578; that he had suffered three prior convictions for violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivisons (a) or (b) within the meaning of Vehicle Code sections 23550 and 23550.5; and that he had suffered four prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Appellant pled guilty to the charges and admitted each of the prior convictions. He was sentenced to a total of four years in state prison. Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant William J. Blue III (Blue), a prisoner serving a term of more than 20 years with the California Department of Corrections, sued respondent Kimberly M. Harris (Harris) to recover $20,000.[1] The case was dismissed after Blue failed to make a telephonic appearance at an Order to Show Cause (OSC) as to why his case should not be stayed or dismissed. His subsequent motion to set aside the dismissal was denied. He appealed that denial. Court find no error and affirm.

This is an appeal in a probate case. Petitioner, David Simon, appeals from a summary judgment in favor of objectors and interested persons, Robert Eroen, Jill Rosenthal, and the law firm of Eroen & Eroen. Court conclude the settlement and dismissal with prejudice of a prior civil action and the withdrawal of a prior probate petition acts as a retraxit. Accordingly, Court affirm the summary judgment.

Austin R. Chiang was charged by felony complaint with felony child abuse by means likely to produce great bodily injury (count 1), possession of a deadly weapon (expandable baton) (count 2), and misdemeanor battery by restraint (count 3) (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a), 12020, subd. (a)(1), 242). The complaint also alleged Chiang had suffered three prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170, subds. (a)-(d).)
Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied Chiangs attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) Chiang was properly advised of his trial rights, the nature of count 4 (assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury), the consequences of his plea, including his bargained for sentence, and he was sentenced in accordance with that plea bargain. The order denying Chiangs request to recall his four year sentence is affirmed.

Midland Pacific Building Corporation (Midland) entered into a contract with John E. and Carole D. King (the Kings) to purchase 27 acres of land owned by the Kings. The contract requires the Kings to obtain approval of a specific plan and vesting tentative tract map that would enable Midland to build a specified number of single family residences on the land. The complaint does not challenge title to the property. Therefore the lis pendens must be expunged. The instant suit seeks monetary damages for breach of contract and fraud. It also seeks declaratory relief and specific performance, but only regarding the processing of maps that conform to its development plans. The suit also seeks an injunction precluding the Kings from processing a map that does not conform to the map desired by Midland. But, the suit does not question whether the Kings own or possess the property.
Accordingly, Court grant the writ petition and direct the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to expunge the lis pendens and enter a new and different order expunging the lis pendens.

Janet M. (mother) is the mother of Aurora C. (Aurora), Jose C. (Jose), and Jesus M. (Jesus) (collectively the minors). Mother appeals the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights to the minors. She claims that the trial court erred when it failed to find that she maintained regular visitation and contact with the minors and that they would benefit from continuing the relationship. In her view, the exception to adoption set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) was applicable. Court find no error and affirm.

Robert Anthony Flores appeals a judgment of conviction entered after he expressly waived his constitutional rights and pleaded nolo contendere to assault with personal use of a firearm, the making of criminal threats, and the sale of methamphetamine. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2) & 422; Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a).) Flores received a stipulated sentence of five years and eights months' imprisonment, consisting of a four year upper term for assault with personal use of a firearm, and subordinate consecutive sentencing for the remaining two counts. By an amended abstract of judgment, the trial court awarded Flores total presentence custody credits of 834 days. The trial court also imposed a $3,600 restitution fine and a $3,600 stayed parole revocation restitution fine. (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b) & 1202.45.) The trial court dismissed remaining counts in the information. Court appointed counsel to represent Flores in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. The judgment is affirmed.