CA Unpub Decisions

Father contends the juvenile court erred when it terminated jurisdiction and gave mother full custody of their child at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 364 review hearing. We affirm because the record shows no abuse of discretion.

Attorney Jeffrey G. Thomas appeals monetary sanctions awarded against him in connection with a motion for reconsideration filed in the trial court. Thomas represented plaintiff True Harmony in litigation disputing the ownership of real property located in downtown Los Angeles. After judgments were entered against True Harmony finding that others owned the property, Thomas brought the current action on behalf of True Harmony to void those prior judgments. Defendant and respondent Norman Solomon successfully demurred. Following the court’s order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and its entry of judgment dismissing the complaint, Thomas filed a motion for reconsideration.

In this family law case, Danny Fuller (Danny) filed a dissolution action against his wife Susanna Maria Fuller (Susanna). Subsequently, Susanna filed a quiet title action against a predecessor company of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, dba Christiana Trust as Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust Series 2015-1 (Wilmington) to rescind and declare void a deed of trust that secured a $315,000 loan made to Danny and Susanna by Wilmington’s predecessor company. The deed of trust securing the loan was recorded against the marital home. Wilmington’s predecessor company filed a cross-complaint against Danny and Susanna for imposition of an equitable lien on the marital home. Proceeding under its equity jurisdiction, the trial court ruled the deed of trust was null and void because Susanna’s signature was forged. The court also awarded Wilmington an equitable lien against the marital home in the amount of $345,501.30.

An information charged Angelina Santistevan with driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a); count 2). On May 17, 2016, Santistevan entered into a conditional plea to count 1, and sentencing was continued for one year. Having failed to comply with the conditions of her plea, the trial court, on July 5, 2017, sentenced her to 16 months in jail on count 1 and to a concurrent 16 months on count 2.

In 2015, plaintiff and appellant Olufemi Collins’s (plaintiff’s) car was towed from its assigned spot at Pacific Villas Senior Apartment Complex (Pacific Villas) and impounded. Plaintiff sued defendants and respondents Mark Gonzalez dba ASAP Towing (Gonzalez), the owner of the company that towed his car, Century Quality Management, Inc. (Century), the lessor named on his apartment lease, and Menlo, Sam Trustee dba Miracle Mile Properties, LP (Miracle Mile), the landlord and owner of the complex. Gonzalez and Miracle Mile did not timely respond to the complaint, the clerk of court entered their defaults, and plaintiff sought default judgments. Century filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained without leave to amend.

Venie J. Wilkes (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of kidnapping to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1)); kidnapping for carjacking (§ 209.5, subd. (a)); first degree robbery (§ 211); and first degree burglary (§ 459).
Defendant contends his convictions should be reversed because: (1) the statutes for kidnapping to commit robbery and kidnapping for carjacking are unconstitutionally vague, and the standard jury instructions defining these offenses are erroneous; (2) insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that he committed kidnapping for carjacking, and the trial court erred by not sua sponte instructing the jury on simple kidnapping as a lesser included offense; and (3) section 654 precludes punishment for both kidnapping to commit robbery and first degree robbery. We affirm.

Trenten Charles Frolander (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to, and was found guilty of, the felony offenses of evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800). He admitted he had suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)–(i)) and had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the judgment.

Before the court are two children, a four-year-old girl and her nine-year-old brother, who are on the verge of being adopted by separate families. They are part of a sibling group of five, including adult twin sisters and a 16-year-old sister. The court terminated parental rights to the two youngest children on November 21, 2017. On appeal, D.T. (Mother) contends (1) the beneficial sibling relationship exception should have been applied to prevent termination of parental rights, and (2) the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to investigate potential ties through the children’s father to a Native American tribe, and the trial court failed to make findings whether the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied. We conclude there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings, and the court did not abuse its discretion in finding the sibling relationship exception inapplicable.

Eloy Martinez appeals from a restraining order issued against him under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.; Elder Abuse Act). Martinez fails to demonstrate error and we affirm.

Plaintiffs David Karow and Tiffany Karow filed a wrongful death suit against their daycare provider and Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo) after their eight-month-old daughter died while taking a nap. A jury awarded plaintiffs a total of $8 million in past and future noneconomic damages against Evenflo. Evenflo appeals from the verdict, arguing it is unsupported by substantial evidence, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on a consumer expectations theory of liability, the trial court erred in allowing punitive damages to be argued to the jury, and the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault. We conclude the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on comparative fault based on Evenflo’s alleged waiver of its affirmative defense was prejudicial error. We reverse for a new trial on apportionment of damages, and otherwise affirm.

Montreal D. Simpson was convicted by jury of a residential burglary. Simpson argues the prosecutor improperly commented on his purported silence when detained. He contends the trial court failed to provide an adequate admonition to the jury to remedy the misconduct. Simpson also argues the standard instruction on eyewitness identification (CALCRIM No. 315) is misleading and erroneously informs jurors that a witness’s certainty is relevant to the reliability of an identification. We find no reversible error.

Plaintiff Marisol Gutierrez filed suit against her employer, defendant Flying Food Group LLC (FFG), asserting both common law claims and statutory employment discrimination claims. FFG filed a petition to compel arbitration, relying on a grievance procedure set forth in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between FFG and Gutierrez’s union. The trial court denied the petition as to Gutierrez’s statutory claims, and FFG appeals. We affirm because the court correctly determined the CBA does not include a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims.

Defendant Jorge Luis Toulet pleaded no contest to unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851, subd. (a)) and resisting arrest (Pen. Code § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The court placed him on probation for a term of three years, and ordered him to serve 6 months in county jail.
On appeal, although Toulet’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Serrano (2013) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, we have determined that the appeal is subject to the procedures of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) because it is a first appeal of right. We notified Toulet of his right to submit written argument on this own behalf within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed and we have not received written argument from Toulet.

Plaintiff Maseco S.A. (Maseco) appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing the action with prejudice after Maseco failed to appear at trial. Maseco argues the court erred because Maseco’s counsel was present at trial. In the alternative, Maseco argues the court should have dismissed the action without prejudice. We agree the court erred in dismissing with prejudice and remand the matter to the court with directions to enter an order dismissing the action without prejudice. The court also may consider imposing monetary sanctions in addition to the dismissal without prejudice.