CA Unpub Decisions

These appeals arise out of a series of apparently related disputes among family members involving the sale of real estate and the handling of the proceeds of that sale. There are four parties involved: an elderly father, Thomas Edward Breazeale (Edward); his two adult children, daughter, Debra Shottelkorb, and son, Thomas Clarence Breazeale (Tom); and Tom’s former wife, Majun Breazeale (Majun). Underlying the appeals are three separate lawsuits, each of which has generated an appeal—No. 152327, No. A152926, and No. A152593. Majun is pursuing all of the appeals pro se. On our own motion, we ordered the appeals consolidate.

Constance Therapeutics, Inc. (CTI) and Constance Finley appeal from an order denying their petition to compel arbitration of claims brought against them by Steve Koskie. Appellants contend that those claims, allegedly arising out of an oral agreement with Koskie, must be arbitrated pursuant to a written arbitration agreement between CTI and SPK Ventures LLC (SPK Ventures). Their arguments are meritless, and we will affirm the order.

Plaintiff and appellant Robert Berkeley Smith, a licensed general contractor doing business as Log Jam Construction, contracted with a homeowner to tear down an existing deck and build a new deck and stairs connected to the home. Dissatisfied with Smith’s work and unable to resolve the issue with him, the homeowner filed a complaint with the Contractors State License Board (Board), resulting in a citation. After the Registrar of Contractors affirmed the citation following an administrative appeal hearing, Smith filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate, which was denied.
On appeal, Smith contends there is no substantial evidence his conduct was done “willfully” as required for a violation of Business and Professions Code sections 7109 and 7110, and there is no substantial evidence he violated section 7113 because he was not allowed to complete the deck project. He also argues the order of correction is excessive. We affirm.

Rael & Letson (R&L, or the company) brought this action against defendants Michael Clark and the Clark Family Partnership (CFP), alleging Clark, the company’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), misappropriated more than $3,000,000 in company funds under the guise of business expenses. The trial court entered judgment for R&L. R&L appeals, contending the judgment does not accurately reflect the jury verdict, that it was entitled to additional prejudgment interest, and that it was entitled to additional damages. We interpret the jury verdict to reflect a total damage award of $2,939,974, with CFP jointly and severally liable for $1,267,129 of that amount, and shall order the trial court to modify the judgment accordingly. We shall also order the trial court, on remand, to recalculate prejudgment interest and damages for breach of the duty of loyalty.

Plaintiff Michael Clark is a minority shareholder in defendant Rael & Letson (R&L, or the company), and was formerly its chief executive officer. He alleges R&L wrongfully issued new shares in order to dilute his interest in the company and prevent him from voting himself onto the board of directors, and that he receives no benefit from his stock because R&L has not declared any dividends since terminating his employment. As a remedy for these alleged wrongs, he seeks to have R&L involuntarily dissolved.
The trial court sustained R&L’s demurrer without leave to amend on the ground Clark did not allege facts warranting dissolution as a remedy. In his appeal from the ensuing judgment, Clark argues he alleged facts showing grounds for involuntary dissolution and that the trial court erred in concluding, without trial, that the remedy of dissolution was too drastic. We shall affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs David Karow and Tiffany Karow filed a wrongful death suit against their daycare provider and Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo) after their eight-month-old daughter died while taking a nap. A jury awarded plaintiffs a total of $8 million in past and future noneconomic damages against Evenflo. Evenflo appeals from the verdict, arguing it is unsupported by substantial evidence, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on a consumer expectations theory of liability, the trial court erred in allowing punitive damages to be argued to the jury, and the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault. We conclude the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on comparative fault based on Evenflo’s alleged waiver of its affirmative defense was prejudicial error. We reverse for a new trial on apportionment of damages, and otherwise affirm.

Petitioner Carlos S. (father), seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing terminating his reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his now three-year-old son, Noah. He contends the juvenile court should have either returned Noah to his custody or continued reunification services to the 18-month review hearing. We deny the petition.

Appointed counsel for defendant Ivan Blanco asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He responded, raising the issue of sentencing error. Our review of the entire record reveals no arguable issues on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

Appellant Veronica Ann Delarosa pled no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)/count 1). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Appellant Heath Michael Dobias pled no contest to possession of child pornography with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (b)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Appellant Francisco Raymond Guerrero pled no contest to possession of an illegal substance in a jail facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a)/count 1), possession of methamphetamine while required to register pursuant to section 290, subdivision (c) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)/count 2), and he admitted allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
On appeal, Guerrero contends his sentence violates section 654’s proscription against multiple punishment. We agree, modify Guerrero’s sentence accordingly, and affirm as modified.

Appointed counsel for defendant Dalvir Singh asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) The charges in this case arose from two incidents.

Brent Capriotti was charged with and convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 years of age by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm, and one count of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under fourteen years of age, in relation to three incidents involving his girlfriend’s daughter, T.R. Capriotti was sentenced to a determinate 18-year prison term.
On appeal, Capriotti challenges the denial of his motion to dismiss the case or sanction the prosecution for a police officer’s failure to preserve evidence, exclusion of certain evidence regarding the victim and her father, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, amendment of the information following the close of the People’s case-in-chief, defense counsel’s failure to move for a judgment of acquittal, and denial of a motion for new trial and the release of juror identifying information.
We reject appellant’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant, Anthony Perez, pled guilty to committing a lewd act on a minor more than 10 years younger than he, oral copulation, possession of images depicting a minor engaging in a sex act, and two counts of sexual intercourse with a minor prior to preliminary hearing, pursuant to Penal Code section 859a. He was sentenced to two years in prison, which was ordered to run consecutive to the term imposed by the San Bernardino Superior Court in a case involving similar charges and appealed.