CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Thomas Fung (Fung) appeals from the trial courts dismissal of his second amended complaint for promissory estoppel, intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation after sustaining the demurrer filed by respondents the City of Los Angeles (City), Robert M. Sainz (Sainz) and Ann Giagni (Giagni). On appeal, Fung contends that the trial court erred. This contention is not born out by Fungs scant and deficient arguments, nor by the record. Among other things, the facts alleged fail to show that it would comport with public policy for promissory estoppel to be applied against the City, that Fung reasonably relied on any promises made by Sainz or Giagni, or that the immunity for public employees set forth in Government Code section 822.2 does not absolve Sainz and Giagni of liability.
IF Court are not inclined to reverse, which Court are not, Fung alternatively requests an opportunity to amend his pleading. But he failed to demonstrate that a successful amendment is possible and, in any event, he waived his request by not making it to the trial court and preserving the issue.
Court affirm.

Appellant appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court found him guilty of attempted burglary (Pen. Code, 664, 459). Appellant contends that the trial courts imposition of a protective order as a condition of probation was improper because there was no evidence to support a good cause belief that harm to any witness was likely to occur. Court affirm.

Following the denial of its insurance claim, appellant Pacific Business Connections, Inc. (PBC) brought this action against its insurer, respondent St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company (St. Paul). St. Paul asserted that it was required to cancel the insurance policy pursuant to Insurance Code section 673 (section 673) once it received notice from Premium Financing Specialists of California, Inc. (Premium), the company that financed the insurance premiums, that PBC had defaulted on its loan obligation. The trial court agreed, and granted St. Paul summary judgment. PBC appeals, contending that section 673 does not apply for a host of reasons.
Court are not convinced by any of PBCs arguments. Accordingly, Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Hollywood Commercial Realty, Inc. (Hollywood), as assignee of Ramsey Shilling Commercial Real Estate (R/S), brought this action for breach of contract against William Sands (Sands) after he allegedly failed to pay lease and sales commissions owed under the terms of the parties agreement. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Hollywood, finding that Hollywoods claim for lease commissions was time-barred, but that Hollywoods claim for a sales commission was timely and due. As the prevailing party, Hollywood moved for attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717; the trial court denied Hollywoods motion.
Both Hollywood and Sands have appealed. Sands contends that the judgment should be reversed because all of Hollywoods contract claims are time barred. Hollywood argues that the trial court erroneously denied its request for attorney fees. Court are not convinced by any of the arguments on appeal. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Appellant Nicholas Anthony Sena appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)), attempted murder ( 664, 187, subd. (a)) and mayhem ( 203). The jury also found true the sentence enhancement allegations that appellant used a gun ( 12022.53, subds. (b)-(e)), and acted in furtherance of criminal street gang activity ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) when he committed the crimes. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Dorothy K. Watts argues the trial court erred in granting defendants petition to compel arbitration because the arbitration provision in their contract is unconscionable, and because she was entitled to litigate her Business and Professions Code section 7160 (section 7160) claim in court. Court affirm.

The appellants are Thomas Olesen, a Danish national, and Danish limited liability partnerships (collectively the Partnerships). The Partnerships sued respondents Parsons Behle & Latimer (Parsons), a Utah professional law corporation, and Mark Rinehart (Rinehart) for fraud and negligence. Parsons and Rinehart successfully moved to quash service of the summons and complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal the Partnerships contend that the motion should have been denied because Parsonss and Rineharts contacts with California are sufficient for specific or general jurisdiction. This argument is meritorious.
Court reverse.

Matthew S. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding by the court that he possessed on school grounds a locking blade knife with a blade more than two and one half inches long in violation of Penal Code section 626.10, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor, and his admission that he carried a switchblade knife in violation of Penal Code section 653k, a misdemeanor, and possessed 28.5 grams or less of marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (b), a misdemeanor. He was placed home on probation upon various terms and conditions, including probation condition number 21 that he not use or possess narcotics, controlled substances, poisons, or related paraphernalia and stay away from places where users congregate. He claims that probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague in violation of his federal constitutional right of association and right to travel. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court modify that condition of probation and affirm the order of wardship.

After a court trial, defendant Sierra Gamache was convicted of the second degree murder of Rose Bennett. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).) The trial court also found true two enhancements; (1) that defendant had, in the course of the offense, personally used a deadly weapon, specifically a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and (2) that defendant had inflicted great bodily injury on the victim who was 79 years or older. ( 1203.09, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for an indeterminate term of 15 years to life, plus a consecutive one year term for the weapon enhancement.
On appeal defendant claims the trial court erred in admitting into evidence her statements to Lieutenant Gill confessing to the killing. Defendant claims her confession was involuntary as she was mentally disabled and coerced by previous promises of leniency from Sergeant Hatfield who earlier interviewed her without proper Miranda warnings and after she had invoked her right to counsel. As Court conclude there was no error, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant appeals following his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) and active criminal street gang participation (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (a)), with a finding that a principal to the gang offense was armed with a firearm ( 12022, subd. (a)(1).) Carrillo was placed on probation. On appeal, he contends (1) ineffective assistance of counsel denied him a full and fair determination of a motion to suppress evidence; (2) the trial courts refusal to bifurcate trial of the gang charges deprived him of his federal due process right to a fair trial; and (3) the trial court misinstructed on the arming enhancement. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a); count three) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364; count five). It acquitted him of transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a); count one) and possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a); count two). Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years on the condition, among others, that he serve 170 days of incarceration.
Defendant contends, and the People concede, the trial court erred reversibly by admitting evidence that he elected not to answer questions deputies directed at him during a traffic stop. For guidance on remand, Court consider defendants claims that prejudicial photographs and a codefendants statement were erroneously admitted in evidence; and that CALJIC No. 17.01, which was limited to the stolen property count, should have applied as well to the paraphernalia count.

A modification decision.