CA Unpub Decisions

A long-running dispute between plaintiff and defendant concerns the issue of whether a grant of property from defendant’s mother in 1960 was subject to a reservation of the riparian rights. The trial court concluded that defendant had not established that riparian rights had been reserved when his mother conveyed the parcel. Court agreed with that conclusion and affirmed.

Plaintiff is a former employee of the of defendant. Plaintiff resigned from defendant and took early retirement, claiming he had been subjected to a campaign of harassment from a superior. Plaintiff filed an action for wrongful termination, which proceeded to trial on claims for breach of an implied employment contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following the close of Ravella’s case, nonsuit was granted on his claim for punitive damages. The jury found for Plaintiff on both of his causes of action, but the trial court subsequently granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff challenges the adverse rulings on his claims for punitive damages and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff also takes issue with the manner in which the trial court calculated prejudgment interest. In its cross-appeal, defendant contends that the claim for breach of contract was preempted by a federal statute and precluded by a novation and that any award of prejudgment interest was improper. Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, but court vacate its award of prejudgment interest and remand for recalculation.

As relevant here, appellant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher. Appellant was sentenced to six months for each offense, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the conduct involved a single driving incident and that Penal Code section 654 permits punishment for one of the two offenses but not both.
Accordingly, execution of sentence on appellant’s conviction of violating Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b) is stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654 and the abstract of judgment is ordered amended to reflect said stay. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant has filed an appeal limited to the sentence imposed upon him after entry of a final judgment of conviction based upon his plea of no contest. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence after he entered a plea of nolo contendere. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking the courts independent review of the record, in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. Court found no arguable issue and affirmed.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant entered a no contest plea to lewd act with a child under 14 years of age in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). In exchange for the plea, the trial court indicated a sentence of “not more than three years in state prison” and dismissal of a remaining count. Appellant was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated disposition, receiving a low-term sentence of three years in state prison and dismissal of the remaining count.
The sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant probation. Court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Appellant who accepted a plea agreement for his role in a marijuana growth and sales operation, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained under a search warrant. Appellant further contends that the court erred in imposing a parole revocation fine because imposition of his sentence was suspended. Court concluded that the warrant was supported by probable cause, but that the fine was not authorized. Court therefore modified the judgment by striking the fine and affirming.

In this appeal, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding respondent damages for unjust enrichment in finding that the statute of limitations periods had expired on appellant’s cross-claims for conversion and unjust enrichment. Court affirmed.

In this appeal, court determined that an English insurance brokerage firm is subject to personal jurisdiction in California. The brokerage firm purposefully interjected itself into California for a period of 50 years, transacting millions of dollars in business with 12 California insurance brokers for the purpose of obtaining insurance premiums and commissions from California clients. In particular, the English company brokered the insurance coverage that is at issue in this case, on behalf of California residents. Notions of fair play and substantial justice support the conclusion that the English company should defend its conduct with respect to the insurance policy, in California. The order granting respondent’s motion to quash is reversed.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Plaintiff, a police officer for the City of Covina whose employment was terminated for misconduct, filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus alleging that she was denied the protections of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (the Act) while she was being interrogated by her supervisor. The trial court denied her petition, and she appeals. Court affirmed.

Defendant’s parental rights with respect to his daughter were terminated pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Defendant appeals on the ground that the Department of Children and Family Services failed to give adequate tribal notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act. Court reversed and remanded with directions.