CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant, appeals from a default judgment entered in favor of defendant, Miracle Mile, Inc., on September 13, 2005. Defendant also appeals from a order denying his motion to set aside the default entered on September 16, 2005. Defendant contends his motion to set aside his default should have been granted. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Appellants Simon Marketing, Inc., and Simon Worldwide, Inc., (collectively Simon) brought this action against respondents Federal Insurance Company (Federal) and Gulf Insurance Company (Gulf) on insurance policies providing coverage for losses to property caused by theft or forgery committed by Simons employees. Gulf and Federal moved for summary judgment on the ground that the policies did not cover the losses that Simon claimed to have incurred. The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment. Court affirm.

Court reverse the entry of summary judgment in favor of Autoliv ASP, Inc. (Autoliv). Autoliv failed to provide any evidence negating the theory that the airbag it manufactured was defective under the risk-benefit theory of design defect. Therefore, the summary adjudication of Sister Guadelupe Gonzalezs cause of action for strict products liability was error. The trial court correctly summarily adjudicated Gonzalezs remaining causes of action for negligent products liability and breach of warranty.

The demurrer of the City of Los Angeles (City) to Liliana Castillos operative second amended complaint (SAC) was sustained without leave to amend. Court treat this appeal as from the order of dismissal. Castillo contends her employer retaliated against her because she filed complaints of sex discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). The City relies on judicial admissions in her initial and first amended complaints, which stated in part that the conduct of her supervisor was for personal, non work related reasons. Concluding that in the context of these pleadings there was no judicial admission and that appellant should be given leave to amend to plead with specificity, Court reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand for that purpose.

Defendant, appeals from his convictions for: 17 counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,[1] 211); evading an officer with resulting injury (Veh. Code, 2800.3; Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (a)); and unlawful taking of an automobile. (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a).) The trial court also found that defendant had previously been convicted of two serious felonies. ( 667, subds. (a), (b) (i).) Defendant argues the prosecutor committed misconduct and there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions in counts 10, 16, and 17.
The judgment is affirmed.

Property owner, Mike Avedissian (Avedissian), appeals the judgment entered after a bench trial granting adjacent property owner, respondent Saeed Hakmat Niaz (Niaz), an equitable easement in his property. Court find the trial court abused its discretion in exercising its equitable powers to create the easement and reverse.

On March 6, 2006, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that appellant came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he unlawfully possessed a concealable firearm. (Count 1, Pen.Code 12101, subd. (a)(1).) It was further alleged that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction or, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further and assist in criminal conduct by gang members. Appellant denied the allegations contained in the petition.
An adjudication hearing was held on March 28, 3006. The juvenile court found the allegations of the petition to be true and sustained the petition. The court ordered that appellant remain a ward of the court, and that he be placed in a nine-month camp community placement program, and that the maximum term of confinement was seven years, eight months. Appellant was awarded 128 days of predisposition credit and was ordered not to associate with anyone known to him to be a member of a criminal gang, especially the Drifters.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order sustaining the petition.The judgment of the trial court that appellant unlawfully possessed a concealable firearm is affirmed. The trial court is directed to strike the criminal street gang enhancement.

Plaintiff Bryan Dattilo appeals from the default judgment he obtained against defendant Brett McCartney in an action for battery and defamation. The trial court awarded Dattilo his prayer for compensatory damages in the amount of $292,667.51, but denied any award of punitive damages on the ground Dattilo failed to present evidence of McCartneys financial condition as required by Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105 (Adams).
Dattilo argues Adams does not apply to a default judgment, because it was not possible for him to obtain discovery or proof of McCartneys financial condition. Dattilo further argues that evidence of a defendants financial condition is no longer required as a result of the Supreme Courts decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408 (State Farm), which indicated a defendants wealth is irrelevant to the issue of punitive damages.
Court conclude Adams continues to represent the state of California law and that proof of financial condition is required before punitive damages may be awarded, even in a default setting. The Supreme Courts decision in State Farm did not overrule Adams, as matters of entitlement to punitive damages remain an issue of state law. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Alexander K. appeals from the juvenile courts order of wardship after findings he committed one count each of second degree robbery and attempted second degree robbery. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602; Pen. Code, 211.) Alexander K. contends the evidence is insufficient to prove he committed the robberies as an aider and abettor. Court modify the dispositional order to correct the maximum term of confinement and affirm the order as modified.

Lan Fang An filed a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court challenging the ruling of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board) denying her claim for unemployment insurance benefits from her former employer, Trade Union International, Inc. (Trade Union). The trial court denied Ans petition after a hearing, finding that An voluntarily left employment when there was work available, without good cause for doing so. An appeals from the judgment denying the petition.
An contends that substantial evidence does not support the judgment. An failed to designate the reporters transcript of the trial court proceedings for purposes of the record on appeal. This court advised the parties by letter of the apparent inadequacy of the appellate record. An responded to the court with a supplemental brief, but has not filed a motion to augment the record. Without a transcript of the oral proceedings, we are required to presume the judgment is correct. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis the record does not establish reversible error. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295 1296 [in the absence of a proper record on appeal, the judgment is presumed correct and must be affirmed].)

Jessie James, also known as Jessie Boyus, appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of first degree murder by personally discharging a firearm and found the gang enhancement to be true. (Pen. Code, 187, 12022.53, subd. (b); 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court sentenced him to serve 50 years to life in state prison, imposed $200 in fines and awarded 572 days credit for time served.

Appellant, an attorney who filed the instant suit for wrongful eviction of his clients against a motel owner, appeals from the trial courts order denying his special motion to strike a cross-complaint brought by the motel owner against him that appellant claims is a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). (See Code Civ. Proc., 425.16.) Court conclude the trial court did not err in denying the motion to strike. Appellants representations and promises to the motel owner regarding payment of his clients back rent were not made in furtherance of appellants constitutional right of petition and free speech. Court affirm.

Appellant Mario Garay appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of count 3, willful infliction of corporal injury in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a); count 4, dissuading a witness in violation of section 136.1, subdivision (b)(2); and count 5, attempted forcible rape in violation of sections 664 and 261, subdivision (a)(2). Appellant was sentenced to the midterm of three years in state prison for count 3; the midterm of two years in state prison for count 4; and the midterm of three years in state prison for count 5 to run concurrently to the sentence imposed in count 3. Appellant contends that, pursuant to section 654, the trial court erred in failing to stay the sentence on the attempted forcible rape count. Court affirm.

Following reversal by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board of a favorable decision from the Workers Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCALJ), petitioner Scott Pontiac GMC filed a petition for reconsideration of that decision via a messenger service on the last possible day for filing. The messenger filed the petition at the correct address but on the wrong floor. The reconsideration unit known as the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is located on the ninth floor. The San Francisco District Office of the Department of Workers Compensation is located on the first floor. The Board did not receive the petition for seven days. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely pursuant to Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 10840.
Scott Pontiac GMC petitioned this court for a writ of review. (Lab. Code, 5950.) Court hold the petition was timely filed pursuant to Labor Code sections 5900 and 5911.