CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff N.V. Heathorn, Inc. (Heathorn), a construction company, entered into a contract with the County of Alameda (the county). Defendant United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF and G) issued a performance bond in connection with the contracted work. Prior to completion of the work, the county declared Heathorn in default and demanded that USF and G make good under the bond.
USF and G also filed a cross appeal challenging the merits of the jury's findings on its cross complaint. Because we affirm the trial court's grant of a new trial on the cross complaint, court dismiss this cross appeal as moot.

In this appeal from a ruling on a demurrer, court consider this factual predicate: a woman is told she has a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer. She undergoes chemotherapy and has a radical mastectomy in an attempt to save her life. The pathology report prepared after the surgery shows the woman did not have cancer at all. The woman's doctors learn their patient did not have cancer, but they do not tell her. As a result, the woman lives for more than two years believing she has a fatal disease. Court hold these facts can support her husband's independent cause of action for loss of consortium.

Defendant, a minor, pleaded no contest to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (b), possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana, a misdemeanor. She appeals from a dispositional order that in part ordered formal probation. The court ordered that she not be made a ward of the court and placed her on probation in her mother's home for six months. Defendant's timely notice of appeal asserted error in placing her on probation under the circumstances of this case.
Defendant's counsel filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was notified of her right to file a supplemental brief and has not submitted anything. Court have reviewed the record on appeal and find there are no meritorious issues to be briefed.

A modification decision.

Counsel appointed for defendant has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Counsel advises that defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but defendant has not elected to exercise that right. Court have conducted our review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child and one count of continuous sexual abuse. (Pen. Code, SS 288, subd. (a); 288.5, subd. (a).) Appellant contends: (1) the convictions for violating section 288, subdivision (a) should be reversed, as prosecution for those crimes is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his section 995 motion; (3) his statement to police was taken in violation of his Miranda rights;[2] (4) his section 1118.1 motion should have been granted; (5) his tape recorded statement should not have been played to the jury because much of the recording is inaudible; (6) the prosecutor misstated the evidence on the tape in her closing argument; (7) the court erred by giving CALJIC Nos. 2.50 and 2.50.1; (8) evidence admitted pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) should have been excluded; (9) he is entitled to a new trial; and (10) he should be granted bail on appeal. The Attorney General agrees that the statute of limitations bars prosecution for the two charges brought under section 288, subdivision (a). Court concur with the parties and reverse those convictions. Court otherwise affirm the judgment.

ORIX Capital Markets, LLC (ORIX) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation (GMACCM) after a bifurcated court trial limited to the issue of ORIX's standing to pursue its breach of contract action against GMACCM. Court affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

Court reverse the order denying the appellant lien holder's motion for leave to intervene in a quiet title action in which the respondent obtained a default judgment that eliminated all liens against the property without naming any of the lien holders as defendants in the action.

A modification decision.

Defendant 21st Century Insurance Company appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion to compel an uninsured motorist (UM) arbitration in a bad faith insurance action by plaintiff Donald Dalby, as Executor of the Estate of Mary Ann Dalby, on the basis that defendant had waived its right to arbitration. The case arises out of defendant's handling of plaintiff's claim for UM benefits. Court affirm.

Court affirm appellant Luis Alex Vaca's conviction for possession of a controlled substance. After reviewing the entire record, court find no arguable issue.

Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's denial of attorney's fees which they sought as private attorneys general pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (section 1021.5). They were successful parties against defendant City of Los Angeles (City), with New Paradise Church of God in Christ as real party in interest (Church), in a writ of mandate proceeding brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial. The jury found defendant guilty on two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, SS 187, 664). It found true the allegations that the attempted murders were committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation (id., S 664, subd. (a)), that a principal personally and intentionally used and discharged a firearm, a rifle, in the commission of the crimes (id., S 12022.53, subds. (b) and (e)(1), (c) and (e)(1)), and that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (id., S 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). The jury found untrue the allegations that a principal caused great bodily injury to one of the victims (id., S 12022.53, subds. (d) and (e)(1)), and that defendant personally used and discharged a firearm, a handgun, causing great bodily injury to one of the victims (id., S 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), and (d)).
On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to count 3, he challenges certain evidentiary rulings, he claims ineffective assistance of counsel and he claims sentencing error. Court agree as to the insufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction on count 3, and that there was sentencing error. Court disagree with the remainder of defendant's contentions. Court remand for resentencing.

Appellant appeals from the order of the juvenile court that terminated her parental rights to her third child, eight year old D. She contends the juvenile court erred by finding that D. is adoptable and by failing to apply the exception to adoption set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E). Court affirm.