CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
This lawsuit arose after salesman Paul Good, who was working for one commercial printing company, Madison/Graham ColorGraphics, Inc. (ColorGraphics), went to work for a competitor, Graphic Press, Inc. (Graphic Press). Soon thereafter,ColorGraphics realized some of its clients had shifted their business toGraphic Press. It sued on the theory Graphic Press and its owner, John Zamora,conspired with Good to spy on ColorGraphics, lure away clients, and steal tradesecrets. Graphic Press and Zamora maintained they were unaware of Good's alleged misconduct and they had no reason to suspect any wrongful conduct. It was their belief ColorGraphics lostbusiness to Graphic Press for legitimate business reasons, such as its state of the art equipment, better connections, and its excellent reputation in the industry. They filed a cross complaint against ColorGraphics.
A juryfound Good liable for (1) breach of hisemployment contract ($25,000); (2) breachof fiduciary duty ($182,000); and (3) misappropriation of trade secrets ($161,400). In addition, it determined Good was not acting within the scope of his employment when he intentionally interfered withColorGraphics's prospective economic advantage (intentional interference). Thisopinion also addresses ColorGraphics's appeal from the court's refusal to instruct the jury Good was acting in the scope of his employment when he intentionally interfered with its customer relationships. ColorGraphics maintains the court should not have forced it to choose between theories of recovery and challenges the court's order denying its JNOV based on the argument the evidence clearly supported its other tort claims against Zamoraand Graphic Press. Court conclude these arguments lack merit and the portion of the judgment concerning these claims is affirmed. |
A jury found defendant guilty of resisting an officer and committing a battery onan officer. He raises three meritless contentions.
First,defendant complains his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to evidence of his violent character. Court agree that evidenceof the officer's purportedly violent conduct before defendant resisted arrest did not open the door for the prosecution to offer evidence of defendant's violent character. But the admission of that evidence was harmless. Counsel's failure to object did not prejudice defendant. Second,defendant claims the court wrongly found citizen complaints against the officerwere unresponsive to his Pitchess motion. Court find no abuse of discretion. Finally, in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, defendant contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance by advising him to testify about the details of a prior conviction. He contends his testimony allowed the court to find the prior conviction constituted a serious felony strike. But the court could have made that determination from the record of conviction, without defendant's testimony. Thus, this ineffective assistance claim fails as well. Accordingly, court affirm the judgment and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
A jury convicted Defendant of aggravated assault (Pen.Code,S 245, subd. (a)(1)) and found true the allegation he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, S 12022.7). Defendant contends (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct by cross-examining him about the veracity of other witnesses, and (2) a probation condition governing his association withother persons should be stricken as a clerical error. Court agree the probationcondition must be stricken. In all other respects court affirm the judgment.
|
Mother of minoir, born in February 2005 (the child), appeals from ajudgment terminating her parental rightsand the parental rights of Jack H. and Patrick W., two men identified as the child's alleged fathers. Mother's sole claim is that the juvenile court and Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to adequately inquire as to whether Patrick W. had Indian heritage. Since this claim lacks merit, court affirm the judgment.
|
Defendant moves to recall the remittitur. Several years after this appeal became final, the California Supreme Court clarified an aspect of the law of second degree felony murder that was central to defendant's case. As a result of that clarification, defendant stands convicted and sentenced under an invalid theory of felony murder. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, we grant the motion. Court recall the remittitur, order that a new remittitur issue that reverses the second degree felony murder conviction and affirms defendant's remaining convictions, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
|
Defendant was convicted of robbery after he came up behind an elderly man, put him in a headlock, and stole his wallet. In light of defendant's 30 year criminal history, which included crimes of violence, the trial court refused to strike defendant's past serious felony convictions under the "Three Strikes" law, and defendant received a sentence of 35 years to life. He contends that the sentence violates the federal and state constitutions because it is cruel and unusual and constitutes double jeopardy. Court affirm.
|
Following a plea of nocontest, defendant challenges his conviction on one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale with a prior conviction and a prior prison term, and one count of possession of drugs in jail. Defendant has directly appealed his conviction and has also petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Court find his challenges to be without merit and therefore affirm the conviction and deny the petition.
|
Plaintiff appeals from two orders granting motions to quash service of summons on Mercy Services Corporation and Francis of Assisi Community, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mercy Corporation that owned and managed property providing housing to low-income tenants. Court affirm.
|
Appellant and Respondent executed an agreement in October 2001, settling two actions brought by Adena arisingfrom the parties' 1987 maritalsettlement. After this court affirmed the enforceability of the 2001 settlement agreement in an earlier appeal, Peter moved successfully in the trial court for an award of attorney fees that he incurred in litigating that issue to resolution. Adena contends that the award is unauthorized by Civil Code section 1717 or by the parties' agreement. Court disagree, and uphold the award.
|
Appellant minor, born in August 1989, appeals a juvenile court order committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA). Appellant contends there was no substantial evidence that less restrictive alternatives would have been ineffective or inappropriate, or that he would probably benefit from a CYAcommitment. Appellant also contends, and the People concede, the court erred incalculating his maximum term of confinement.
|
Appellant, as director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles(DMV), appeals a judgment granting the petition of Lauren Elizabeth Barry (Barry)for a writ of administrative mandamus directing the DMV to vacate the suspension of her driver's license. The DMVcontends Barry failed to show sufficient medical evidence she could operate a vehicle safely.
|
The father of minor, appeals from an order of the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court finding that minor was adoptable and terminating appellant's parental rights. (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 366.26.) Appellant contends that the juvenile court's finding that minor was adoptable was not supported by substantial evidence. MInor also contends that the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C.S 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). Court affirm the order.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77269
Regular: 77269
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77269
Last listing added: 06:28:2023