CA Unpub Decisions

Petitioner John Goines, an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department, appeals from the judgment denying his challenge to the 10-day suspension imposed because Goines made remarks to a civilian that were both discourteous and of an “ethnic” nature. Goines contends that: (1) respondents violated his due process rights by not giving him adequate notice that the charges against him had been amended; (2) he was deprived of a fair hearing; (3) we should independently review the factual basis for the charges against him; and (4) the 10-day suspension was excessive. We reject these contentions and therefore affirm the judgment.

Defendant Alfredo Vasquez pleaded no contest to willfully inflicting corporal injury on a child’s parent—his son’s mother. He received formal probation. As a condition to his probation, Vasquez was subject to a protective order requiring him to stay away from the victim and not contact her. The trial court found Vasquez had violated the protective order by assaulting her and sending her threatening text messages. The trial court revoked Vasquez’s probation and executed the previously suspended seven-year state prison sentence.

Defendant Sand Canyon Corporation appeals from an order denying its motion to set aside a default judgment under the mandatory relief provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). In denying the motion, the trial court found it was “a deliberate decision by Defendant’s counsel” that led to Sand Canyon’s default, not counsel’s good faith mistake, inadvertence or neglect. Although supported by substantial evidence, we conclude the court’s finding, which squarely placed the blame for default on Sand Canyon’s attorney, was not a valid basis to deny Sand Canyon mandatory relief under section 473, subdivision (b). We reverse.

Plaintiff and appellant Malcolm Neuman-Sample (plaintiff) brought suit against the State of California alleging correctional officers denied his requests for a usable walker, which he needed due to recent brain surgery in order to move around the prison facility where he was incarcerated. He asserted the employees’ conduct violated Government Code section 845.6, which imposes liability when a public employee knows or has reason to know that a prisoner has a serious and obvious medical condition requiring immediate medical care and fails to take reasonable action to summon such care.

Clients are entitled by statute to arbitrate fee disputes, even if the attorney-client agreement does not provide for it. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.; Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP (2009) 45 Cal.4th 557, 565.) Calling it an “unproductive waste of time,” attorney Ralph T. Ferguson did not participate in mandatory arbitration of a fee dispute with his client, Camarillo Health Care District (CHCD). The arbitrators ruled in favor of CHCD.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In a joint trial before two separate juries, defendants and appellants Rudolfo Alcantar (Alcantar) and Rosie Lisa Morales (Morales) were convicted of murdering Christian Bojorquez (Bojorquez). The People’s theory was that a representative of the Mexican Mafia directed defendants to kill Bojorquez because he was a snitch. Defendant Morales’s defense was that even though she admittedly lured Bojorquez to a remote location, she did not harm him herself and she believed defendant Alcantar would do no more than beat him up. Defendant Alcantar’s defense was that he did not participate in Bojorquez’s killing at all.

Petitioners Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA) and Brian Moriguchi (Moriguchi), the president of PPOA and a lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, filed a first amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint (petition) against defendants County of Los Angeles (County) and the Board of Supervisors for the County of Los Angeles (collectively, defendants). The petition alleged defendants violated the collective bargaining agreement between PPOA and the County, as well as petitioners’ free speech rights, when the Sheriff’s Department reprimanded Moriguchi after he submitted a character reference letter to the judge presiding over the criminal trial of a PPOA member. Petitioners sought a writ of mandate, declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting defendants from interfering with Moriguchi’s ability to issue character reference letters on behalf of other PPOA members.

Defendants and appellants Yehuda Berg (Berg) and Kabbalah Centre International (KCI) appeal from the order denying their respective motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), and from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Jena Scaccetti (plaintiff) after a jury awarded plaintiff $85,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages on her claim against Berg for intentional infliction of emotional distress and $42,500 in compensatory damages on her claim for negligent supervision against KCI. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdicts and we therefore affirm the judgment.

Manuel Navarro, Jr., appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no contest to driving while having .08 percent or more alcohol in his blood and causing injury. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b).) Defendant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. Defendant has been informed of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he has not done so. After our independent review of the record, we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, and we affirm.

Defendant Ronald Mitchell appeals from a sentence of one year in county jail and two years’ probation after he was found guilty by a jury of felony robbery, misdemeanor assault, and misdemeanor giving false information to a police officer in connection with taking a woman’s cell phone by force and giving a false name to the police when he was arrested. Mitchell’s counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find none and affirm.

Kathleen S. (mother) is the mother of Jazmine S., who is the subject of a dependency proceeding initiated under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Mother appeals from the court’s six-month review hearing orders on the ground that the court incorrectly ruled that notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) had been provided as by law. We agree with mother and conditionally reverse to ensure ICWA compliance.

Scott Ernest Madison challenges his conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). He claims the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury “on the legal meaning of the terms ‘theft’ and ‘stolen.’ ” We affirm.

Appellant Robert Allen Lopez-Cole pled guilty to one count of corporal injury to a co-habitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5) and admitted one prior strike (§§ 1170.12 & 667(b)–(i)). The trial court imposed the upper term of four years, doubled to eight pursuant to the Three Strikes Law. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court relied on improper aggravating factors to impose the upper term. We will affirm.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (Foot Locker) operates retail stores in the Bay Fair Center Mall in San Leandro (the mall). Three of the lease agreements between Foot Locker and Madison Bay Fair LLC (Madison), which operates the mall, included a “Protected Use” clause forbidding Madison from leasing other premises in the mall for the operation of a store whose primary use was the sale of athletic footwear or athletic apparel. “Primary use” was defined to mean that the store “displays athletic footwear or athletic apparel in more than fifteen percent (15%) of the floor area of such premises.” Under the agreements, if Madison violated this provision, Foot Locker was entitled to pay “in lieu” rent in the amount of five percent of its gross monthly sales, plus utilities, rather than the normal rent.