CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Dan Shavolian appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs Nader & Sons, LLC (Nader) and Sisko Enterprises, LLC (Sisko) (collectively Nader/Sisko or plaintiffs), who prevailed on a motion for summary judgment. While arising from a complex set of facts, the motion for summary judgment centered around one legal issue: the validity of the assignment of a guaranty, and whether an appellate court decision in New York precludes further action in California with respect to that assignment. We conclude that the New York courts have never decided the particular issue relevant here, and that the guaranty was properly assigned. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

This case concerns the estate of Alan Kohn. Unable to locate a will, Alan’s brother, Byron Kohn, filed a petition for letters of administration and published notice of it pursuant to the Probate Code. After the probate court appointed Byron administrator of the estate and reviewed the final report he prepared in that role, it ordered a final distribution by which Byron received all property of the estate. Months later, Svend Mejdal, Jr., Alan’s godson, came forward with a copy of a will purportedly executed by Alan 40 years earlier; which ostensibly left half of the estate to Mejdal.
Mejdal filed a petition to probate the will. Following a bench trial, however, the probate court concluded the petition to probate the will was not timely under Probate Code section 8226, subdivision (c). Mejdal challenges that conclusion, arguing the deadlines specified in the statute do not apply because he never “received notice” of Byron’s petition for letters of administration.

Jay Garbutt, representing himself, appeals from a judgment in favor of respondents New Penn Financial, LLC, and the Bank of Mellon (formerly known as the Bank of New York (Mellon)), entered after the trial court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment. Garbutt and his wife, Deborah, sued respondents, among others, regarding a home mortgage. The Garbutts’ complaint was eventually reduced to claims for breach of contract, the alleged breach being respondents’ failure to offer the Garbutts a loan modification.

Plaintiff Paul Vogelgesang was employed in a risk management capacity by the Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club, LLC (the Ducks). He informed his superiors about what he believed were safety problems at the arena where the Ducks play, the Honda Center. Eventually, according to Vogelgesang, he was told to resign or that he would be fired, and he resigned. His attorneys then sent a demand letter to defendants which included a draft complaint. In response, defendants filed an arbitration claim, seeking a declaration of non-liability with respect to Vogelgesang’s claims. Vogelgesang then filed the instant lawsuit, and defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration, which was eventually granted. Vogelgesang, at that point, decided not to have his claims heard as cross-claims by the arbitrator. In due course, the arbitrator ruled in defendants’ favor, and the court confirmed the award, denying Vogelgesang’s petition to vacate.

The most famous stadium in the United States is not the house that Ruth built. Hard as it is for baseball fans to admit, it is not even Fenway Park or Wrigley Field. It is, rather, the stadium that has dominated New Year’s Day since 1923, and continues to, even when national collegiate titles are often decided in other venues. It’s the Rose Bowl.

Appellant Breanne S. (mother), appealed from a judgment terminating her parental rights as to her now one-year-old daughter, Haven S. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Mother filed an opening brief contending the juvenile court failed to adequately comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Respondent conceded error and stipulated to reversal and an immediate remand with instructions to comply with the ICWA. After reviewing the record, we conclude the juvenile court failed to adequately comply with the ICWA and reverse with the requested directions.

Daryl S. appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights to his now nine-year-old daughter, Nicole S., and three-year-old son, Carlos P., (collectively the children) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. He also petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. In his appeal, Daryl contends evidence he is the children’s presumed father was ignored by the juvenile court and court-appointed counsel, resulting in prejudicial error. In his petitions, as well as in his appeal, he contends counsel was ineffective because she did not establish his status as presumed father.

Steven Oscar Blackwell Austin stands convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a); count I), carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a); count II), being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a); count III), and evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count V). As to counts I and II, the jury found he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), but did not personally and intentionally discharge a firearm (id., subd. (c)). After a bifurcated court trial, he was found to have suffered a prior conviction for a serious felony that was also a strike, and for which he served a prison term. (§§ 667, subds. (a) & (d), 667.5, subd. (b).) His motion for a new trial was denied, and he was sentenced to a total term of 32 years 4 months in prison. Various financial obligations were imposed.

An amended information filed November 10, 2015, charged defendant with four counts of second degree robbery (counts 1, 2, 4, 8; Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c)), one count of transporting methamphetamine (count 3; Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), two counts of making criminal threats (count 5, 9; § 422), one count of possessing of methamphetamine for sale (count 6; § Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), one count of failing to notify of property damage after a vehicle accident (count 7; Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)); and one count of felony vandalism (count 10; § 594, subd. (b)(1).)

A jury found defendant and appellant David Jerry Torres guilty of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found true that in the commission of the murder, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 40 years to life in state prison as follows: 15 years to life on the murder charge plus a consecutive 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement allegation pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d).

This case involves a nuisance abatement action brought by the City of Riverside (City) against Golden Valley Collective (the Collective). The Collective opposed the issuance of the preliminary injunction by relying on the recently enacted Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The trial court issued the preliminary injunction based on the Collective’s violation of the City’s zoning law prohibiting any property use that violates state or federal law, and the Collective’s lack of proper license required to operate a marijuana business under state law. The Collective appealed.
On appeal, the Collective argues that the City’s medical marijuana restrictions were preempted by and violate Proposition 64. We affirm.

Defendant Darryl Keith Bryant appeals from an order denying a petition to recall his so-called “three strikes” sentence of 25 years to life, brought pursuant to the provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), codified at Penal Code section 1170.126. (See Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595.)
Defendant’s petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing was denied upon determination that he was not eligible for relief under the Act because resentencing defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (See § 1170.126, subd. (g).)

Anne Ringkamp (mother), an elderly and chronically ill woman, passed away at Sutter Davis Hospital after being removed from a ventilator. Her son, plaintiff Brian Scaccia, sued family members, the treating physician, and “Sutter” entities he believed were associated with Sutter Davis Hospital, asserting a myriad of causes of action. This appeal deals with only one “Sutter” defendant -- Sutter Medical Foundation (the Foundation)--and the claims plaintiff seeks to assert against it.

Appellants Bruce Grego and Laurel Ames (collectively proponents) appeal following the trial court’s order finding unconstitutional a measure they proposed (Measure T) after it was passed by the voters of South Lake Tahoe. Plaintiff Jason Collin (plaintiff) and defendant the City of South Lake Tahoe (the city) (collectively respondents) argue proponents lack standing to appeal because the trial court denied them intervention. We conclude proponents do have standing to appeal, but only to challenge the court’s rulings in relation to their proposed motion to intervene. To this extent, proponents argue the trial court erred in denying their motion to continue and their oral motion to intervene. They also argue they were denied notice and the opportunity to be heard. We disagree and affirm.