CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs (ZLG) and (Zent) filed a first amended complaint for damages and for an injunction. They stated causes of action against David Loya for libel, for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and for invasion of privacy, based on an e-mail Loya sent to attorneys affiliated with ZLG informing them that Zent had been involved with a convicted murderer. Loya filed a special motion to strike the complaint as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti SLAPP statute). The trial court denied the motion, finding that Loya had not established that his statements qualified for protection under either subdivision (e)(2) or subdivision (e)(4) of section 425.16. After conducting an independent review, Court find that Loya's e mail was protected speech under subdivision (e)(2), in that it was a "writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by . . . a judicial body," and also under subdivision (e)(4), in that it was made "in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest." (S 425.16, subd. (e)(2), (4).)
If a defendant bringing an anti-SLAPP motion makes the initial showing that the lawsuit arises from protected speech as defined in section 425.16, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing on the merits of the claim. (City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 76.) Since the trial court did not reach this second part of the test, court remand this matter so that the trial court may make this determination in the first instance. Court therefore reverse the order denying the special motion to strike.

Appellant pleaded guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine and was placed on probation pursuant to Proposition 36. She violated probation three times and failed to appear for the sentencing hearing. The court subsequently imposed the upper term of three years in state prison. On appeal, she contends the court abused its discretion and improperly imposed the upper term. The judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiffs are homeowners in Novato who oppose construction of a proposed subdivision by real party in interest Woodview Properties, LLC (Woodview). As will be explained in detail, plaintiffs opposed the project in extensive administrative proceedings before the City of Novato's Design Review Committee (DRC). Plaintiffs also opposed approval by the city council of a settlement of a lawsuit brought by Woodview that would in essence have declared that the administrative proceedings were ended. When these efforts failed, plaintiffs sought a writ of administrative mandamus to set aside the city council's action. The trial court denied relief, on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to commencing the action at law.
Plaintiffs appeal from that denial. They first contend that the trial court erred in concluding they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not appealing from one or more decisions by the DRC. Plaintiffs also contend that, by reason of the city council vote, they did not receive adequate notice of the starting of the period within which they could commence an administrative appeal of the DRC decision to approve the project. Court conclude that neither of plaintiffs' contentions has merit, and court affirm.

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's judgment after a bench trial in his dispute with defendant, the administrator of the estate of Francis Mathews, plaintiff's deceased father and former law partner. Court affirm the trial court's judgment in its entirety.

This appeal arises out of an action by respondent Affiliated Brokers to recover a real estate commission from appellant who cross complained against Affiliated Brokers and others for fraud. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Affiliated Brokers on the complaint and against appellant on her cross complaint, awarding Affiliated Brokers damages and costs totaling $24,083. Appellant claims among other things that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. Court affirm.

Gwendolyn Rowe Lee Sykes cross appeals from an order denying her application for a residence exclusion order against cross respondent Douglas Sykes under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, S 6200 et seq.) (Act). Court affirm the order because cross-respondent has sole right of possession to the residence in question under the parties' premarital agreement, and under the unusual circumstances of this case the cross appeal is essentially moot. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the residence exclusion order.
The order denying Gwen's request for a residence exclusion order is affirmed.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of the murders of Michael Boyd (count 1) and Anthony Wells (count 2). (Pen. Code, S 187.) The jury found true the special circumstance allegations that defendant committed multiple murders (Pen. Code, S 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and that the victim in count 2 was intentionally killed because he was a witness to a crime. (Pen. Code, S 190.2, subd. (a)(10).) The jury also found defendant guilty of attempted murder of Howard Littleton (count 3) and found the attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. (Pen. Code, S 664, subd. (a).) On all counts, the jury found defendant personally used a firearm. (Pen. Code, S 12022.5, subd. (a)(1).)
In the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death. At the sentencing hearing the penalty was modified, without objection by the People. As to counts 1 and 2, the court sentenced the defendant to life without the possibility of parole plus an additional five years for the use of a gun in the commission of the offenses. As to count 3 defendant was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole plus an additional five years for the use of a gun. All sentences were to run consecutively to one another. Court affirmed.

Appellant cross appeals from an order denying her application for a residence exclusion order against cross respondent under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, S 6200 et seq.) (Act). Court affirm the order because cross respondent has sole right of possession to the residence in question under the parties' premarital agreement, and under the unusual circumstances of this case the cross appeal is essentially moot. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the residence exclusion order.

This appeal arises out of an action by respondent Affiliated Brokers to recover a real estate commission from appellant, who cross complained against Affiliated Brokers and others for fraud. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Affiliated Brokers on the complaint and against appellant on her cross complaint, awarding Affiliated Brokers damages and costs totaling $24,083. Appellant claims among other things that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. Court affirm.

This case concerns whether the immunity from suit provided to public employees pursuant to Government Code section 821.6 immunizes employees of the Medical Board of California from suit when they falsely report to a third party that a doctor has been the subject of discipline and must take and pass a professional competency examination. Court hold that it does. Accordingly, court affirm the trial court's judgment entered upon a demurrer sustained without leave to amend.

In this case we consider whether a complaint sufficiently alleges that contaminated polio vaccine produced by defendants was a substantial factor in causing the death of plaintiffs' decedent from mesothelioma. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrers without leave to amend on the basis that the complaint was uncertain because plaintiffs did not allege which defendant produced, or had a role in producing, vaccine that was actually administered to the decedent. Court reverse.

Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights as to her daughters. Appellant contends the order must be reversed because (1) the court's conclusion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) that the children would not benefit from a continuing relationship with her is not supported by substantial evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion, (2) the court misinterpreted section 366.26 subdivision (c)(1)(A) when ruling the children would not benefit from a continuing relationship, (3) the court abused its discretion by not considering the children's wishes before terminating her parental rights, (4) the court's conclusion that the children were adoptable is not supported by substantial evidence, (5) the court abused its discretion when it ordered adoption rather than legal guardianship as the permanent plan, and (6) she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court reject these arguments and affirm the order terminating parental rights.

Disregarding multiple staff recommendations to the contrary, the Town of Woodside (Town) issued a permit to Steve Jobs authorizing the demolition of a mansion of historic significance to permit the construction of a smaller single family residence. The Town council (Council), like the planning commission, found that the proposed alternatives to the demolition identified in an environmental impact report (EIR) are not feasible and that overriding considerations justify approval of a conditional demolition permit despite the adverse impact on the environment. Upon a petition by respondent Uphold Our Heritage (Heritage), a private group of preservationists, the superior court concluded that these findings are not supported by substantial evidence and issued a writ of mandate directing the Town to set aside its approval of the demolition permit. The Town and Jobs have jointly appealed. Court are not unsympathetic with the manner in which the Town has attempted to strike a balance between the competing interests in permitting the property owner to improve his property as he wishes and preserving as much of the historical resource as possible. Nonetheless, based on our independent review of the administrative record, court agree with the trial court that the Town's feasibility findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Disregarding multiple staff recommendations to the contrary, the Town of Woodside (Town) issued a permit to Steve Jobs authorizing the demolition of a mansion of historic significance to permit the construction of a smaller single family residence. The Town council (Council), like the planning commission, found that the proposed alternatives to the demolition identified in an environmental impact report (EIR) are not feasible and that overriding considerations justify approval of a conditional demolition permit despite the adverse impact on the environment. Upon a petition by respondent Uphold Our Heritage (Heritage), a private group of preservationists, the superior court concluded that these findings are not supported by substantial evidence and issued a writ of mandate directing the Town to set aside its approval of the demolition permit. The Town and Jobs have jointly appealed. Court are not unsympathetic with the manner in which the Town has attempted to strike a balance between the competing interests in permitting the property owner to improve his property as he wishes and preserving as much of the historical resource as possible. Nonetheless, based on our independent review of the administrative record, court agree with the trial court that the Town's feasibility findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Court therefore affirm the judgment.