CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant Luis Martinez guilty of six felonies arising from three separate gang-related attacks, and found true various firearm and gang enhancements. The trial court sentenced defendant to 29 years plus 32 years to life in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancements, and (2) the trial court violated his right to due process and a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the California Constitution by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. In supplemental briefing, defendant contends newly-enacted Senate Bill No. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, §§ 1 & 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2018; hereafter Senate Bill No. 620) requires that his case be remanded to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike firearm enhancements imposed pursuant to Penal Code sections 12022.53 and 12022.5, subdivisions (a) and (d).

Pedro R., father of 18-month-old Angel V., sexually molested Angel’s 13-year-old stepsister, Y.O., while the mother of Y.O. and Angel was dying in the hospital. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) brought a dependency action on behalf of Angel concerning that conduct, as well as other violent conduct. The juvenile court dismissed all counts concerning father’s sexual abuse of Y.O. and sustained one count concerning father’s violent conduct. DCFS appeals from the dismissal of the sexual abuse counts and the grant of family reunification services. We find the challenge to the dismissal of the sexual abuse counts non-justiciable and therefore affirm.

Defendant Roberto Santana appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate his felony conviction under Penal Code sections 1016.5 and 1473.7. Defendant, a Mexican citizen, was convicted of conspiring to possess, transport, and sell cocaine. We affirm the order.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Santos Ernesto Cruz Membreno of two counts of sexual intercourse with a child 10 years old or younger, continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14, and three counts of forcible rape of a child under the age of 14. Cruz Membreno appeals, contending (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements he made to a detective and a letter he wrote to the victim, both allegedly obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda), and (2) he is entitled to presentence custody credits. The latter contention has merit, but the former does not. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to award Cruz Membreno presentence custody credits and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Plaintiffs Dorothy and Dietrich Lacey sued Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles in Long Beach (“Roscoe’s”) and obtained default judgments against Roscoe’s. Subsequently, plaintiffs moved to amend the default judgments to add Shoreline Foods, Inc., the owner of Roscoe’s, as a defendant/judgment debtor pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187. Shoreline appeals the court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that the court erred because Roscoe’s was never properly served and Shoreline was not properly represented in the underlying litigation. We agree and reverse the order adding Shoreline as a defendant/judgment debtor and vacate the default judgment against Roscoe’s.

Defendants and appellants Homeowner Rights Law Group, APC (HRLG), Consumer Litigation Law Center, APC (CLLC), September J. Katje (Katje), Diana Torres-Brito (Torres-Brito), and Sanam Alicia Nikkhoo (Nikkhoo) (collectively defendants) challenge the trial court’s order denying their petition to compel arbitration of a complaint filed against them by plaintiff and respondent Stephanie Wagner. We affirm.

Defendant SOLO 1 Kustoms, Inc. (SOLO) appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiff Christopher Vasquez. After a bench trial, the court found SOLO liable for performing unauthorized repair work on Vasquez’s car in violation of Business and Professions Code section 9884.9, and awarded Vasquez $12,000 in damages. On appeal, SOLO contends there is no private cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 9884.9. We agree and reverse the judgment.

In 2013, City of Glendale police officers received reports that a man was behaving oddly and was trying to open doors in an apartment complex. When officers arrived at the complex, they found plaintiff and appellant Donald W. Morgan, who appeared to be homeless and incoherent. Based on the reports and Morgan’s behavior, officers found probable cause to place him on a 72-hour hold under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 (a 5150 hold). Morgan spent seven days at College Hospital Cerritos (CHC). Claiming that probable cause did not exist for the hold, Morgan sued CHC, the police department, and the officer who detained him. The trial court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Morgan appeals. We affirm the judgments.

Plaintiff Syed Nazim Ali appeals a judgment entered in favor of defendant Softsol Technologies, Inc. (Softsol) following the entry of an order sustaining without leave to amend Softsol’s demurrer to Ali’s second amended complaint. Softsol hires independent contractors to provide services to clients of Softsol. Pursuant to a written contract between Softsol and Cybersecurity Associates, Inc. (Cybersecurity), of which Ali is the sole shareholder, Softsol recruited Cybersecurity to provide software engineering services for the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF).

T.G. (Minor) pleaded no contest to allegations in a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 that she committed misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor vandalism. At disposition, she was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on probation subject to a condition that allowed searches of her electronic devices for text and voicemail messages, photographs and email accounts, but not web sites, Internet sites or social media sites. On appeal, Minor challenges the search condition as unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) and unconstitutionally overbroad. We conclude she has forfeited her challenges, and therefore we shall affirm.

On January 25, 2017, plaintiff and appellant Jane Feng (appellant) filed a complaint asserting a cause of action for fraud against defendant and respondent David Yang (respondent). The complaint alleged respondent conspired with another person, Chen Hang, in “making [a] false October 6, 2010 Jane Feng’s declaration in order to damage” Feng’s “cases.” The trial court sustained respondent’s demurrer without leave to amend, concluding the fraud claim is barred by the three-year statute of limitations (Code of Civ. Pro., § 338, subd. (d)).

Appellant Oscar Tapia-Felix was convicted of second degree murder for causing the death of Rosalina Perez while driving under the influence of alcohol and certain other charges. Appellant contends the trial court’s admission of several prior acts of uncharged misconduct constituted prejudicial error. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant Gerardo Rodriguez reached a plea agreement with the prosecution and entered a plea of no contest to threatening an officer. One of the terms of the plea agreement provided that Rodriguez would be released on his own recognizance prior to sentencing with the promise he would meet certain conditions, including not committing any new offenses, and that he waived his right to withdraw his plea if those conditions were not met (the so-called “Cruz waiver” ). At sentencing, the trial court found Rodriguez committed a new offense while he was released, and sentenced him to two years, eight months in prison pursuant to the stipulated higher sentence agreed to in the Cruz waiver. Rodriguez contends there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he violated the terms of the Cruz waiver. We affirm.

This is a long-running dispute between neighbors. The parties participated in four days of judicially supervised settlement discussions. Finally, on August 22, 2016, in a settlement conference at which the parties were represented by counsel, the parties reached a settlement, which was placed on the record before the trial court, the Honorable Joseph C. Scott. Appellants Dr. Stanley Fischman and Linda Fischman, individually and as trustees of the Fischman Family Trust (the Fischmans), each affirmed on the record their understanding and willingness to be bound by the terms of the settlement, that they had authority to bind the parties to the agreed upon settlement, and that they were not entering into the settlement under duress. Thereafter, the Fischmans’ counsel drafted a written settlement agreement setting forth the terms of the agreed upon settlement agreement.