CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant injured his knee while participating in a self-defense class conducted by the Self Defense Institute ("SDI"). He sued SDI, three related business entities, and David Moeller (the owner of SDI) (respondents) for negligence.
Respondents moved for summary judgment, claiming that they owed no duty of care to appellant because he signed a release prior to participating in the class. They also argued that they did not owe him a duty of care under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk set forth in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 (Knight), and that the action was barred by the "firefighter's rule." The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in respondents' favor. This appeal followed. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from revocation of his probation following his arrest for burglarizing a pickup truck. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from the judgment of the Marin County Superior Court revoking his probation and imposing an aggravated prison sentence upon finding that he had violated the terms of his probation for corporal injury on a spouse. (Pen. Code, S 273.5, subd. (a).) Court affirm.

A dispute arose between two brothers over the management of a family partnership. One of the brothers' sons provided legal representation and advice to the partnership and to each of the two brothers. When one brother sued the other in a partnership dispute, he asked the court to disqualify his nephew's law firm from representing the defendant. He claimed an attorney client relationship with the nephew and argued the nephew could not represent a client with interests adverse to his. The trial court granted the motion. Court affirm.

Appellants challenge the trial court's interpretation of provisions of a Stockholder's Agreement between the parties and findings on inputs made in a Completion Pro Forma which determined the interests of the parties in a joint venture to construct and operate an irrigation system and hydroelectric plant. Court conclude that the trial court properly interpreted the Stockholder's Agreement, and erred in only one of the numerous findings on the Completion Pro Forma inputs. Court therefore reverse the finding on the energy production and sale input, affirm the findings on the remaining inputs disputed in this appeal, and remand the case to the trial court for recalculation of the interests of the parties in light of our conclusions.

Lloyd W. Schloegel appeals from what appears to be the probate court's dismissal without prejudice of a motion for (1) certification of trust and for copy of trust instrument, and (2) an annual payment of $28,000 from the purported trust. Mr. Schloegel asserts he is the beneficiary of a trust consisting of salary payments he received from the United States Intelligence Service for the past 28 years; that the San Francisco Probate Court is in control of this trust; and that it is shirking its duties under Probate Code sections 17200 and 16062, subdivision (a) in failing to declare the existence of the trust and order that he be paid $28,000 annually, as he contends the superior court was ordered to do by the Supreme Court of both the United States and California.
The ruling of the probate court is affirmed.

Defendant was sentenced to probation after pleading no contest to several drug related offenses. On appeal, Vela's court appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Court have done so, and finding no issues that merit briefing, affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

A law firm was retained to give advice regarding a client's contemplated purchase of commercial real property. The lawyers failed to advise the client that an easement materially affected the property. The client belatedly learned of the easement after closing escrow, and sued the lawyers for malpractice. The lawyers filed a cross complaint against a civil engineering firm, seeking indemnity and contribution. The trial court dismissed the cross-complaint. Court affirm.

A condominium homeowner sued the attorney who represented his homeowners' association, asserting claims for invasion of privacy and defamation. Faced with a special motion to strike the pleading, the homeowner elected to dismiss all of his claims against the attorney. One year later, after the statutes of limitations had elapsed on his claims, the homeowner attempted to bring the attorney back into the action as a fictitiously named Doe defendant. The trial court rejected the homeowner's belated effort to resurrect his claims against the attorney with a Doe amendment, because the homeowner could not genuinely claim prior ignorance of the attorney's identity and involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. Court affirm.

By petition for writ of mandate, father Oscar V. challenges the juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing for his children. He claims reasonable reunification services were not provided to assist him in finding adequate housing. He also claims the court erroneously applied a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the clear and convincing evidence standard in its determination that returning the children to his care would create a substantial risk of danger. Court conclude the requested relief is not warranted.

A modification decision.

This case involves a land use dispute between two neighbors. Plaintiffs claim a prescriptive easement over adjacent land owned by defendant Arthur Jeppe, Jr., for the limited purpose of maintaining and repairing their narrow side yard and the side of their home.
Court find that permissive use allowed by Jeppe and the prior owners of the property of the two foot wide strip of land on the side of Jeppe's house, based upon tacit consent or neighborly accommodation, is insufficient to establish a prescriptive title to a right of way over Jeppe's property. Thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Jeppe on the Katzes' cause of action to quiet title to a prescriptive easement.

Defendant was charged with three counts of kidnapping and one count of robbery, with allegations that he had used a deadly weapon, suffered two prior serious felony convictions that also qualified as strikes, and served one prior prison term. After Davalos's mental competency was questioned and experts were appointed to evaluate him, Davalos (as part of a plea agreement) waived his right to jury as to the issues of competency and guilt, was found competent to stand trial, and then was convicted of three counts of false imprisonment and one count of robbery, with true findings on allegations that he had suffered one prior serious conviction that also qualified as a strike and served one prior prison term. (Pen. Code, SS 236, 211, 667, subd. (a)(1), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).) As agreed, he was sentenced to state prison for a term of 15 years. Davalos appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that he was competent to stand trial. Our examination of the record shows the finding is supported by substantial evidence, and court therefore affirm the judgment.