CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant appeals the findings and orders entered at the dispositional and jurisdictional hearings held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 360, subdivision (d) and 361, subdivision (c). Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, appellant asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.

On appeal, Appellant contends the court erred in finding the class action prohibition was unenforceable because application of Discover respondent to appellant's telephone service contract is preempted by the Federal Communications Act. court do not reach this legal issue because court conclude Appellant failed to meet its preliminary factual burden to show respondent's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision contained in Appellant's June 2004 customer contract. Based on this conclusion, court affirm the court order.

Plaintiffs appeal a judgment entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend as to their complaint for property damage against respondent, individually, a roofer who was hired by their insurer, respondent, to conduct an inspection of their home as part of processing a claim they made under their homeowners policy. Court agree that the appellant have alleged facts supporting a general negligence claim and reverse the judgment in that regard; in all other respects court affirm.

In this personal injury action, plaintiff appeals a judgment on a jury verdict for defendant, and a postjudgment order denying his motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial.
Court affirm the judgment and the order.

The minor appeals from the juvenile court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence. On appeal, the minor asserts the juvenile court erred when it refused to grant him a continuance to seek retained counsel. Court affirm.

A decision as to a Petition for Extraordinary Writ, mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating reunification services and scheduling a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.

A decision regarding an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of sale, transportation or offer to sell a controlled substance.

Appellant appeals from a judgment entered on October 4, 2005, denying petition for writ of mandate to declare unconstitutional and enjoin enforcement of the identification card provisions of the Medical Marijuana Program, set forth in division 10, chapter 6, article 2.5, of the Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq. Appellant's timely notice of appeal was filed on December 2, 2005.

An appeal from the judgment entered following revocation of probation previously granted after appellant's plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance.

Approximately four months after petitioner, Alnardo Burgos, was sentenced, the superior court denied his motion for a return of property. Burgos contends the trial court abused its discretion when it determined the property was an instrument of the crime for which he pleaded guilty and denied the motion. The People concede the petition has merit and Court also agree. Accordingly, the petition is granted.

Plaintiffs and a purported class of similarly situated students in a hemodialysis technician educational program (collectively Otero) appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court granted a special motion to dismiss their claim under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, 1750 et seq.)(CLRA), sustained demurrers without leave to amend to other causes of action and after Otero failed to timely amend as to the remaining causes of action. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Owner of several companies involved in the carpet distribution business (collectively, clients), hired attorneys to defend clients against an unfair business practices lawsuit (underlying litigation). The parties signed a written retainer agreement providing for binding arbitration to resolve any disputes between them. During eight months of litigation, attorneys claimed to have provided approximately $360,000 in legal services and incurred $65,000 in costs, of which clients had paid approximately $85,000. During that eight month period, after consulting with Etess, Howard recorded a deed of trust in attorneys favor on Idaho realty owned by one of Howards companies. A dispute arose between the parties regarding attorneys fees in the underlying litigation. Clients hired current counsel to replace attorneys as their lawyers who eventually secured a judgment in clients favor in the underlying litigation. (That judgment is not before Court in this appeal.)
The parties agreed to arbitrate their fee dispute before a Los Angeles County Bar Association panel. Attorneys proposed that the arbitration be binding but clients would not agree. At a contested hearing, the arbitration panel concluded that the arbitration was binding and that attorneys were entitled to $85,000 in fees and costs, the amount clients already had paid.
Attorneys then filed this lawsuit, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, common counts, account stated, book account, quantum meruit, and fraud, and seeking economic and punitive damages. Clients cross-complained, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and slander of title regarding the trust deed, and seeking declaratory relief expunging the trust deed, reconveying their interest in the Idaho property, quieting their title thereto, and determining that the arbitration award barred attorneys claims. Clients sought economic and punitive damages.
The parties agreed that the court first would try their respective equitable claims, but, both below and on appeal, disputed whether that agreement included attorneys quantum meruit claim and whether attorneys waived their right to a jury trial of the quantum meruit claim. The case proceeded as a bench trial, including attorneys quantum meruit claim. The court found for clients on the breach of fiduciary duty and slander of title claims, awarding them $250,000 in economic and $300,000 in punitive damages. The court also ordered attorneys to reconvey their interest in the Idaho realty. Regarding attorneys quantum meruit claim, the court found that the value of attorneys legal services was approximately $45,000, ordered them to refund $40,000 previously paid to clients, and found that as a result attorneys other causes of action were moot because they were not entitled to any damages thereon. The court also found that the arbitration was binding and barred attorneys claims.
Attorneys appeal, contending that (I) the arbitration was not binding, and thus did not bar their lawsuit; (II) they were entitled to a jury trial on their contract and quantum meruit causes of action and did not waive that right; (III) the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that clients suffered any economic damages, and as a result they were not entitled to either economic or punitive damages; and (IV) the court lacked jurisdiction to affect the trust deed on realty located in Idaho. Attorneys also challenge many of the courts evidentiary rulings and claim the court displayed bias against them and preference for clients.
Court agree with contentions (I) (III), but reject contention (IV). Court reverse that portion of the judgment for clients on the amended complaint and remand for a new trial. Court reverse that portion of the judgment for clients on the breach of fiduciary duty and slander of title claims in the cross complaint and remand for the trial court to enter judgment for attorneys thereon. Court affirm that portion of the judgment on the cross-complaint ordering attorneys to reconvey their interest in the Idaho realty. Because of these conclusions Court do not address attorneys remaining contentions.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for first degree murder and assault with a firearm. Falcon was sentenced to a term of 50 years to life in prison.
Defendant contends the trial court erred by: (1) admitting the preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness; (2) admitting, during the Peoples rebuttal case, evidence of his statements to police; (3) declining to instruct the jury with CALJIC No. 8.73, regarding provocation; and (4) instructing with a modified version of CALJIC No. 2.52, regarding flight. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which we consider concurrently with his direct appeal, Falcon contends his attorney was ineffective in a variety of ways. Discerning no reversible error, Court affirm the judgment and deny the writ petition.