CA Unpub Decisions

In this marital dissolution action, husband and wife are attorneys who, prior to separation, worked together at their jointly owned law firm, Ito & Johnson. Appellant challenges the trial court’s award to respondent of a portion of the fees earned in certain cases he asserts were distributed to him postseparation. Plaintiff relies on certain admissions made by respondent during discovery to argue that the trial court erred in allowing respondent to contest his right to these fees at the trial. Appellant also contends the trial court erred in its valuation of a community car and its denial of his post-trial motions. Court disagreed with his contentions and affirmed judgment.

Appellant pled guilty to charges of possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell and driving with a suspended license. The court sentenced him to serve a total of five years in state prison, and imposed fines totaling $3,900, with a $1,200 fine stayed pending completion of parole. The court later modified the restitution component of the sentence, reducing the total fines to $2,900, with a $1,000 fine stayed pending completion of parole. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence; (2) imposing a sentencing enhancement for appellant’s prior drug conviction under the mistaken belief that it was mandatory to do so; (3) imposing a laboratory fee, drug program fee and fine for the Vehicle Code section 14601.1 conviction, and penalty assessments; and (4) imposing a restitution fine. Court modified fines and confirmed judgment.

This appeal comes to us from a lawsuit alleging personal injuries arising from two separate rear-end automobile collisions. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants following a special jury verdict, finding that neither accident was a substantial factor in causing her injuries. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial. Court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment entered after the trial court: (1) set aside a default and default judgment entered against respondent; (2) construed the appellant’ complaint to be a petition to compel arbitration; and (3) granted respondent’s motion to deny the petition. The appellant contended that the court erred in (i) precluding them from conducting discovery before setting aside the default; (ii) granting respondent’s motion to set aside the default and default judgment; and (iii) construing their complaint to be a petition to compel arbitration. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of uttering or attempting to utter a forged check and second degree burglary. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court improperly found true various prior conviction allegations. Court affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin for sale and possession of heroin. This appeal asserts instructional error, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing error. Court reversed the conviction for simple possession and ordered the judgment modified to correct the fines imposed. In all other aspects court affirmed.

Defendant appeals asking for an independent review by the court. The court found no error in the trial court’s rulings. Judgment affirmed..

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to stipulation after the trial court confirmed a binding arbitration decision in favor of defendants. Court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying a motion for class certification in an action brought on behalf of persons currently and formerly employed as dealers at defendants’. Court affirmed.

Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Defendant claims the trial court erred in denying its motion on the ground the provision in Appellant’s arbitration clause waiving the right to class action arbitration is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. Court disagreed and affirmed the order.

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit as a putative class action against their employer, for violation of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance and related claims. The trial court denied their motion for class certification, finding the proposed class was not ascertainable and lacked a well-defined community of interest and class treatment was not the superior means to resolve the litigation. Because the complexities of the case on which the trial court relied to find class certification inappropriate can be addressed by the use of subclasses and, with those issues resolved, the requirements for class treatment are satisfied, court reversed the order denying certification and remanded the matter with directions for the trial court to certify two subclasses of employer's employees and to conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

After plaintiff and appellant fell from a ladder and injured his leg, defendant and respondent treated him. Dr. Sobeck performed surgery on Brown’s leg, and it thereafter became infected and required a second surgery. Claiming that Dr. Sobeck’s care was negligent, plaintiff sued him for negligence. Plaintiff and his wife also sued Dr. Sobeck for loss of consortium. Dr. Sobeck filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The court found that although plaintiff raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Sobeck’s conduct fell below the standard of care, Brown did not raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Sobeck caused Brown’s injury. Plaintiff filed an appeal and a petition for writ of mandate. Court consolidated the proceedings. Because court agreed that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to causation, court affirmed the judgment.

Minor appeals from an order declaring her to be a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and placing her in the camp-community placement program. On appeal, she challenges the juvenile court’s failure to calculate her maximum period of confinement and predisposition custody credits, as well as one of the conditions of probation imposed. Court agreed that the case must be remanded for calculation of appellant’s maximum period of confinement and predisposition custody credits, and that the challenged probation condition was improper.

A jury convicted defendant of, among other things, murder, attempted murder, and assault with a firearm, and the jury also found true gang allegations. The main issue at trial was identification. Before trial, the defense moved for discovery of a gang book to challenge the People’s gang expert’s credibility and expertise and to question eyewitnesses on third party culpability. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court’s order denying the discovery request violated his federal and state constitutional rights to due process and to confront witnesses. Defendant also contends that the trial court improperly imposed a sentence enhancement and that his consecutive sentence violates Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. Court agreed that the sentence enhancement was improperly imposed, modified the judgment to correct that sentencing error, but court otherwise affirmed the judgment.