CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Phillip C. Sanders appeals from the dismissal of his action against respondents Stuart Ryan, the warden at Calipatria State Prison (CSP), Gerald Janda, the associate warden at CSP, and Mary Sosa, a correctional officer at CSP. Sanders ordered specialty food items from a joint Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) food sale that was held at the prison as part of a fundraiser. The food items were to be distributed on May 1, 2005. However, the food items were not delivered to Sanders because personnel at CSP determined that the food was contaminated. After the contamination was discovered, CSP prepared similar food items to distribute to inmates. Sanders refused to accept the substitute food items and sought a refund of the $21.50 he had paid for the food. After he was denied a refund, Sanders filed a complaint for breach of contract and concealment, naming as defendants Ryan, Janda, and Sosa individually, as well as Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. and Narcotics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Sanders attached to his complaint a copy of the order form for the food items. He alleges that the order form constitutes a contract between him and the defendants.
We conclude that Sanders failed to state facts sufficient to maintain his causes of action against the three respondents. Court further conclude that the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents Sanders from relitigating his status as a vexatious litigant, and that the trial court did not err in issuing a prefiling order pursuant to the vexatious litigant statute. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Gloria R. seeks review of juvenile court orders terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing regarding her children, Felicity D., Lorenzo D., Jr. (Lorenzo, Jr.), and Michael D. In her petition for extraordinary writ relief ( 366.26, subd (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452), Gloria contends the court erred by not extending services for another six months. She argues there was no showing that returning the children to her posed a substantial risk of detriment and there was a substantial probability they could be returned by the 18-month date.
Court issued an order to show cause, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) responded and both parties waived oral argument. Court deny the petition.

The City of Palm Springs (the City) brought a condemnation action against landowners to acquire property for a project to expand the operating capabilities of the Citys regional airport. Ronald Miller (Miller) is one of those landowners. The only issue tried was the value of Millers property that was taken. The jury determined that the value was $209,500. Miller appeals. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Salvador Garcia Mendez appeals from his conviction of two counts of sale of tar heroin. Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that a copurchaser of contraband is not an aider and abettor of the seller and refusing to allow defense counsel to argue that theory to the jury. He further contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request to strike one of defendants two strike priors. Court find no error, and affirm.

Katrina S. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights to M. (born in 1998), J. (born in 2000), A. (born in 2003), and T. (born in 2004), pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Frank S. (Father) also appeals from the same order terminating his parental rights to J. On appeal, both parents challenge the finding that M. and J. are adoptable. They further contend the notice requirements for complying with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) were not satisfied as to J.

Defendant was charged with the murder of Juan Jorge Solano in violation of Penal Code section 187(a), and the use of a firearm during the commission of the offense. As the jury trial was beginning, defendant entered a guilty plea to the second degree murder in exchange for an agreed-upon sentence of 15 years to life. The court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant subsequently appealed, and his application for a certificate of probable cause was granted. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Samuel Piilani Juarez was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and attempted voluntary manslaughter for killing Manuel Lopez and injuring Jose Luna when he drove his truck into them after a party. On appeal, he contends (1) the trial court erred by failing to respond properly to the jurys questions, (2) the trial court erred by instructing the jury with both alternative paragraphs of CALJIC No. 5.16, and (3) CALJIC No. 5.15 was misleading and lightened the prosecutions burden. Court affirm.

Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
S.L.(hereafter father) appeals from the trial courts order terminating his parental rights to his then nine year old daughter, T.S. The only issue in this appeal is whether that order should be reversed because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry to determine whether father has Indian ancestry and as a result failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (hereafter ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). Court conclude the trial court conducted an adequate inquiry. Therefore court affirm.

This is an appeal by an incarcerated, pro se litigant from the trial courts dismissal of his complaint after sustaining a defense demurrer. The argument made by plaintiff is that the trial court erred when it denied [him] the right to be heard at his hearing on the demurrer. Court affirm.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained an allegation against Jonathan C. (appellant) that he committed battery (Pen. Code, 242) and that the battery was committed with the intent to assist a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (d)). The court adjudged appellant a ward of the court, declared the offense a felony under section 186.22, subdivision (d), and placed him on probation, ordering that he serve five days in juvenile hall and 49 days on house arrest. Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the section 186.22, subdivision (d) alternative sentencing provision. Specifically, he contends that there is insufficient evidence that the primary activity of the gang was the commission of the violent crimes enumerated in section 186.22, subdivision (e), and insufficient evidence that he committed the battery with the specific intent that it promote the gang. Court find no merit to appellants claims and affirm.

E.C. (appellant) appeals from the juvenile courts order reducing her visitation from weekly to twice a month. Finding no abuse of discretion, court affirm.

Plaintiffs, a homeowners association and several of its individual members, filed several lawsuits seeking damages for construction defects. The lawsuits, including cross complaints filed by the defendants, were consolidated and ultimately settled. The parties involved in that litigation included the Buie Corporation (Buie), a licensed general contractor, and Altifillisch Contractors, Inc. (ACI), a grading subcontractor. The liability insurance carriers for both Buie and ACI contributed to the payment made to plaintiffs.
In the present action, plaintiffs jointly sued three insurance companies that provided liability insurance to ACI seeking equitable subrogation, contribution, and declaratory relief. They allege Buie was either a named insured or an additional insured under ACIs policies, the settlement payments by Buies carriers in the construction defect litigation arose from ACIs grading work, and both Buie and its carriers assigned their contribution and subrogation rights against defendants to plaintiffs.
The trial court entered judgment for defendants after granting their motions for summary judgment. First, as to the insurance policies that included additional insured endorsements extending the named insureds liability insurance coverage to others where the named insured was contractually obligated to do so, the court found plaintiffs had failed to present admissible evidence establishing a triable issue of fact as to whether ACI had agreed to name Buie as an additional insured on its liability insurance policies. Second, the court found the partnership exclusion clause contained in the policies issued by one defendant excluded coverage.
Court conclude plaintiffs presented sufficient admissible evidence creating a triable issue of fact as to whether the contracts between Buie and ACI obligated ACI to include Buie as an additional insured on ACIs liability policies and reverse the judgment as to two insurers. However, we conclude the court properly found the partnership/joint venture exclusion in the third carriers policies barred plaintiffs right to recover from it.

The City of Fullerton (the City) appeals from a judgment against it in this inverse condemnation action brought by Matthew and Alison Van Steenhuyse after their residential property, located adjacent to and at the bottom of a natural watercourse, suffered significant flooding during a rainstorm. The City contends the trial court failed to apply the pertinent legal principles set forth in Locklin v. City of Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal.4th 327 (Locklin), pertaining to public entity liability for discharge of runoff surface water into a natural watercourse, and when properly applied, those rules preclude a finding of inverse condemnation liability in this case. Court agree and reverse the judgment with directions to enter judgment in favor of the City.

Manuel A. appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights and freeing his children for adoption. He contends there is insufficient evidence his children are adoptable, but court disagree and affirm the judgment.