CA Unpub Decisions

In this action for partition and other remedies relating to several pieces of real property, the trial court appointed a receiver to manage one of the properties and collect rents while the case is pending. Carol Unruh, who purports to hold a junior deed of trust on that property with an assignment of rents, appeals from the trial court’s order enjoining her from collecting those rents. We affirm.

Plaintiff Diane L. Sundeen appeals from the judgments entered after the trial court granted summary judgment motions filed by defendants Majestic Office Park Owner, LLC (Majestic); ABM Security Services, Inc. (ABM); and Crown Energy Services, Inc., doing business as Able Engineering Services, and Crown Building Maintenance Co., doing business as Able Building Maintenance Co. (collectively, Able). Sundeen tripped on the raised edge of a piece of carpet temporarily placed on the floor of an elevator while it was being used to carry freight. The trial court found the condition of the carpet was a trivial defect, and therefore was not dangerous as a matter of law. Sundeen contends the evidence creates a triable issue of fact as to whether Sundeen’s fall was caused by an unreasonably dangerous condition. We agree and reverse.

Plaintiffs in this consolidated proceeding allege state-law claims asserting that pharmaceutical manufacturers failed to warn consumers that a class of diabetes medication commonly known as “incretin-based drugs” increases the risk of pancreatic cancer. The manufacturers filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted under Wyeth v Levine (2009) 555 U.S. 555 (Wyeth) because the undisputed evidence showed the Food and Drug Administration would not have permitted a warning for pancreatic cancer. The trial court agreed and granted judgment in the manufacturers’ favor.
We reverse, concluding that the trial court erroneously interpreted Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee (2001) 531 U.S. 341 (Buckman) to preclude the consideration of scientific evidence that the Food and Drug Administration had not previously evaluated.

This is an appeal from the dispositional order entered after the juvenile court sustained allegations that minor D.W. (minor) committed robbery, assault, driving without a valid driver’s license, giving false identifying information to a peace officer, and petty theft. Pursuant to the dispositional order, minor was placed on probation subject to various terms and conditions, including that his probation officer would be authorized to require him to wear an electronic GPS tracking device to monitor his whereabouts. On appeal, minor challenges this condition of probation as an illegal delegation of the trial court’s authority to the probation officer. For reasons set forth below, we affirm the order.

Saviour Azzopardi (plaintiff) filed this lawsuit against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank) and others (collectively, defendants) to prevent a nonjudicial foreclosure of his property and to recover damages. After sustaining demurrers to plaintiff’s original and amended complaint, the superior court entered judgment in favor of defendants. On appeal, plaintiff contends the facts alleged in his first amended complaint (FAC) state causes of action for declaratory relief, cancellation of instruments, and wrongful foreclosure. We affirm the judgment.

Appellant Jaime L. Cisneros appeals from the trial court’s imposition of an electronic search condition as a term of his probation after he pleaded guilty to the sale of stolen property by means of a cellular phone application. Cisneros contends the search condition is unconstitutionally overbroad and violates his Fourth Amendment rights. He also argues the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence does not conform to the written minutes and this clerical error must be corrected. We conclude the search condition is proper and affirm with instructions to the trial court to conform the written order to the court’s oral pronouncement.

Appellant Jeffrey G. Randall appeals in propria persona from the trial court’s order establishing child support for his daughter G.E.C., based on petitions filed by respondent San Mateo County Department of Child Support Services (Department) (case No. 16FAM00587) and real party in interest Franchon Brianna Caldwell, G.E.C.’s mother (case No. 16FAM00725). On appeal, Randall contends the trial court (1) improperly imputed $1.5 million in income to him; (2) lacked jurisdiction to establish child support for G.E.C.; and (3) erred when it denied his motion to dismiss this matter to allow a pending paternity/support case regarding G.E.C. in Nevada to proceed. We shall affirm the court’s child support order.

Chantal Blosse appeals a judgment entered after a bench trial in these divorce proceedings, and a related order denying her post-trial motions (No. A146192). She also separately appeals two post-judgment orders: one reducing the amount of child and spousal support her former husband, Alain Blosse, was ordered to pay, and another dividing the proceeds from the sale of their marital home (No. A148826).

A jury convicted Kyle Clifton Vogt of committing multiple sex offenses against his girlfriend’s half sisters (J.A. and Jo.A.) and the daughter of a family friend (A.P.) when they were minors aged 15 or younger. Defendant raises a host of contentions on appeal. He argues the trial court erroneously admitted evidence linking him to a computer containing child pornography; his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present certain evidence and witnesses at trial, including experts on computer forensics and Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS); and the prosecution violated his right to due process by withholding evidence favorable to the defense and presenting false testimony at trial. We find no merit in these contentions and affirm.

Christopher Canon appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187). The jury also found true an allegation that defendant personally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). In a separate court trial, the court found defendant guilty of assault on a peace officer with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (c)) and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)). In his original brief, defendant contended that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on manslaughter and that the trial court’s imposition of a 49-years-to-life term constitutes a de facto term of life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Defendant Rickey Paul Murray appeals after a jury convicted him of 12 offenses involving weapons possession, narcotics possession, and shooting a firearm. The jury also found true several firearm allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 15 years 8 months. The aggregate sentence included a consecutive term for one of the firearm use allegations and consecutive terms for three counts of possession for sale of different narcotics.

Defendants Danny Mendoza and Mynor Daniel Galindo (defendants) were jointly charged with several crimes, including active participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a); count 3); and unlawfully taking or driving an automobile (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 4). The case was tried on the theory Mendoza was the direct perpetrator of count 4, as the driver of a stolen vehicle, while Galindo aided and abetted count 4, as a passenger in the vehicle; and that felonious criminal conduct was the basis for active gang participation as charged in count 3.

Plaintiff Sam Saber appeals from a judgment of dismissal following the trial court’s order sustaining Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank’s (Chase) demurrer to his First Amended Complaint (FAC). Saber contends the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer, arguing that he stated causes of action for violation of Civil Code section 2923.7, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the unfair competition law (UCL), and Business and Professions Code, sections 17200 et seq. For the reasons stated below, we conclude the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Monica Cruz 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 her 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.