CA Unpub Decisions

Salvador Alexis Torres appeals the judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of the first degree murder of Ramiro Lobos and found true the special circumstance allegation of lying in wait and multiple firearm use and gang allegations. The trial court sentenced Torres to life without the possibility of parole for the special circumstance murder, plus a consecutive sentence of 25 years to life for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm causing death.

Premiere Medical Center of Burbank, Inc. and its principal Dr. Michael D. Marsh (collectively Premiere) appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Premiere’s landlord NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I, LLC (NHP) following a court trial in NHP’s unlawful detainer action. Premiere contends the court’s finding it remained in possession of a medical suite it had surrendered to NHP prior to NHP’s filing of the unlawful detainer action was based on a legally incorrect theory of “constructive possession” and, in any event, was not supported by substantial evidence. Because Premiere was not in possession of the surrendered suite, it argues, NHP’s notices to quit or pay rent, which identified rent due for that suite, were incorrect, creating a fatal defect in NHP’s unlawful detainer action. Premiere also appeals from the order denying its motion to vacate the judgment for intrinsic fraud, claiming a NHP principal had testified falsely at trial. We reverse.

Paulette Johansen defaulted on a home loan secured by a deed of trust on her property. Following a notice of foreclosure, her house was sold at a trustee’s sale. Two weeks after the trustee’s sale, but before the trustee’s deed had been recorded, Johansen sued PHH Mortgage Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and NDeX West, LLC, alleging the commencement of foreclosure proceedings was in violation of a loan modification agreement executed by the parties. The matter settled, and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. Johansen remained in her home.

The People charged Appellants with conspiracy to distribute illegal gambling machines, branded as “Skill Thrusters,” and seized approximately 88 of the machines in raids on Appellants’ business, Treasure Box, Inc. (Treasure Box). The trial court dismissed the charges due to the People’s failure to prosecute within the applicable limitations period; however, the court denied Appellants’ request to return the Skill Thrusters, having previously found probable cause to believe they were illegal gambling devices.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered after the court denied the plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitration award in favor of defendant and respondent Sajahtera, Inc. (Sajahtera), owner of the Beverly Hills Hotel (hotel). Plaintiff and appellant Nino O’Brien (plaintiff) worked for many years as a sommelier at the hotel and during his tenure he signed an agreement to arbitrate all employment-related disputes which might arise. After plaintiff filed the present lawsuit against Sajahtera in the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging he had been misclassified as an exempt employee and was improperly denied overtime wages, meal breaks, and rest periods throughout the time he worked at the hotel, Sajahtera sought to compel arbitration.

A jury convicted Edward F. Osorio of the first degree murder of Matthew Martin and possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury also found true gang allegations as to both counts and firearm use allegations as to the murder count. After Osorio admitted prior convictions including a serious or violent felony conviction, the trial court sentenced him to state prison for a term of 80 years to life.

Plaintiff and cross-defendant PNG Investments, Inc. (PNG) sued defendants and cross-complainants RG Real Estate Investments (RG) and Surya Gupta (collectively, Defendants) for fraud, breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, and declaratory relief in connection with a real estate loan transaction. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of PNG on its claims and against Defendants on their cross-claims. The judgment awarded PNG declaratory relief, $25,000 in damages on the fraud claim, and contractual attorney fees. Defendants appeal from the judgment. We reverse on the fraud claim, and affirm in all other respects.

California and federal law favor arbitration as an efficient, cost-effective alternative to litigation. An employer and employee may voluntarily agree to arbitrate their legal disputes, but as with other contracts, courts will not enforce agreements that violate public policy. While plaintiff and respondent Maria del Rosario Martinez (Martinez) worked for Ready Pac Produce, Inc. (Ready Pac), defendant and appellant, Martinez signed an agreement requiring the parties to arbitrate most types of legal claims arising out of the employment relationship. After Martinez filed a wrongful employment termination suit against Ready Pac, the company sought to compel arbitration under the arbitration agreement.

Gary Randa sued his mother Catherine Randa and others, seeking partition and sale of a house in North Hollywood that Gary and Catherine owned as joint tenants. Catherine filed a cross-complaint. The trial court adopted the findings of a referee, and filed an order denying partition and ordering Gary to reimburse Catherine for $15,000 she had paid against a lien on the property for Gary’s unpaid child support. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm.

Appellant Jeanine Denise Morgan was employed as the Director of Operations for McDonald’s franchise restaurants owned and operated by respondents JCAL, Inc. and JC-4, Inc. Following the termination of her employment, Morgan filed suit against JCAL, JC-4, and two affiliated companies, respondents JWEST, LLC and Inland Sun Management Corporation (collectively, “Respondents”), for age discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code § 12900 et seq. (FEHA) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondents. We conclude there are triable issues of material fact as to whether Respondents terminated Morgan’s employment on the basis of her age, and accordingly, reverse.

Defendant and appellant Greg Tuttle (Tuttle) appeals orders denying his motions for attorney fees after he successfully opposed requests for civil harassment restraining orders that were sought by plaintiffs and respondents Richard Pacheco (Pacheco), Manuel Lozano (Lozano), and Monica Garcia (Garcia) (collectively, Plaintiffs).
Tuttle contends the trial court erred in refusing to award him attorney fees pursuant to either the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16), or pursuant to the civil harassment statute (§ 527.6).
We find no error and affirm. The record reflects Tuttle did not request attorney fees pursuant to section 425.16; therefore, he cannot assert any error in that regard. Further, the trial court refused to award Tuttle any attorney fees under section 527.6 on the ground his request for $94,934 was excessive; Tuttle has not shown the trial court abused its discretion in doing so.

In 2015, defendant Juan Manuel Hernandez appealed from a judgment imposed after a jury convicted him of possession for sale of methamphetamine and marijuana, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing a one-year enhancement for a prison prior that was subsequently reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. In 2016, we concluded that Proposition 47 did not apply retroactively to properly-imposed enhancements and affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review and has now transferred the case back to us for reconsideration in light of People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857 (Buycks). Having reconsidered the matter, we now hold that the prison prior must be stricken and defendant must be resentenced.

In these two consolidated cases, Eric Montiel Hall appeals from orders resentencing him in case no. 2012024033 (hereafter case no. 033) and denying his petition for resentencing in case no. 2012031834 (hereafter case no. 834). Appellant filed petitions for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, enacted by Proposition 47 on November 5, 2014. As to case no. 834, appellant claims that the trial court erroneously refused to strike prior prison term enhancements imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The underlying offenses for the prior prison terms were felonies when appellant was sentenced. They were subsequently reduced to misdemeanors pursuant to section 1170.18.

“Welfare and Institutions Code section 391[ ] authorizes the juvenile court to terminate its jurisdiction over a nonminor dependent in foster care who is between the ages of 18 and 21, but only in three narrowly defined circumstances and only after the county welfare department has submitted a report containing recommendations and verifying it has provided the nonminor with certain information, documents, and services.” (In re Nadia G. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1113 (Nadia G.), italics added; §§ 391, subd. (b)–(e), 452, subd. (c).)