CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Teresa Martine (Martine) hurt her knee while skiing at Heavenly Valley Ski Resort and was being helped down the mountain by a ski patrolman when the rescue sled in which she was riding went out of control and hit a tree. Martine sued resort owner Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership (Heavenly) for negligence and for damages arising from her injuries.

Defendant Miguel Carranza Sanchez appeals following his conviction for the first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187 ) of his ex-girlfriend Y.P. and her boyfriend J.L., who were ambushed and gunned down as they left Y.P.’s workplace. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole for the murders, plus two consecutive determinate terms of 25 years for the firearm use enhancements.

David Gordon Mountford (Mountford) pleaded nolo contendere to one count of grand theft of property with a value in excess of $950. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) The court sentenced him to a seven-year suspended sentence, and imposed the sentence after Mountford violated the terms of his probation. Mountford petitioned the court for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47, but the court denied the petition on the ground that his conviction rendered him ineligible for Proposition 47 relief. On appeal, Mountford argues that the court erred in denying his petition, and further argues that his conviction should be reversed and the charges dismissed because his plea and sentence are void.

Stephan Lomani appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two felony counts of using force or violence to resist police officers who were performing their duties (Pen. Code, § 69); one felony count of battery causing injury to a police officer engaged in the performance of her duties (§ 243, subd. (c)(2)); and one misdemeanor count of resisting a police officer in the discharge of his duty (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of three years in county jail.

Cross-complainant Joel D. Kettler contends the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney fees to cross-defendants Leslie and Susan Gould, after cross-defendants partially prevailed on an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial court’s order.

In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, defendant and appellant Adekunle Olobayo-Aisony was charged with criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a); count 1), false imprisonment by violence (§ 236; count 2), misdemeanor battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1); count 3), dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 4), assault with intent to commit a felony (§ 220, subd. (a)(1); count 5), and attempted forcible rape (§§ 664/261, subd. (a)(2); count 6). The jury found defendant guilty of counts 2 and 4.

Defendant Pascual Rosas appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a) ; count 1—Stephanie V.), committing a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a); count 2—Arianna D.), and two counts of attempted commission of a lewd act upon a child (§§ 288, subd. (a), 664; counts 3 & 4—Arianna D.). The jury found true the allegation defendant committed crimes against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e)(4)). The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 15 years to life on counts 1 and 3 (count 2 as reflected in the verdict form) and imposed concurrent terms of three years on counts 4 and 5 (3 and 4 as reflected in the verdict form). The court imposed various fines and assessments, ordered defendant to register as a sex offender, and ordered him to submit to AIDS testing.

Defendant and appellant Curtis Ray Weaver appeals from his conviction by jury of one count of first degree murder, with a true finding on a firearm use enhancement, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant contends the trial court made prejudicial evidentiary and instructional errors, and also requests remand for resentencing in light of the amendment of Penal Code section 12022.53 during the pendency of this appeal.
We affirm.

Madison Leann McLaughlin pled guilty to two felony counts of conspiracy to commit shoplifting (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and ordered her to serve three years of formal probation with terms and conditions, including 60 days in county jail. McLaughlin contends the court erred when it refused to reduce her felony convictions to misdemeanors under section 459.5. We dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiffs Sun Soo Kim and Min Ja Mun appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant Moon Joo Hyun after a bench trial. They challenge the trial court’s dismissal of their cause of action for breach of written contract. Appellants dispute the court’s finding that appellants had failed to prove the existence of a written contract, and argue that a valid written contract was introduced at trial. We disagree and affirm.

On February 21, 2017, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed an amended information charging defendant and appellant William Artell Miles with three counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c); counts 2, 3, & 4). It was also alleged as to each count that the crime had been committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), rendering each offense a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(28).

In these consolidated appeals, we conclude plaintiff Kristin Simmons’s conversion and fraudulent concealment claims based on the failure of attorney Christopher Cella and his law firm, Cella, Lange & Cella, LLP (collectively, Cella), to pay her a portion of the settlement proceeds in an underlying lawsuit (the Heritage action) did not arise from protected activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Accordingly, we reverse the orders granting the anti-SLAPP motion and awarding attorney fees and costs to Cella. We remand with directions to vacate those orders and enter a new order denying Cella’s anti-SLAPP motion.

On July 3, 2014, Robert L. Joiner (Robert Sr.), Mary Joiner (Mary), and Robert D. Joiner (Robert Jr.) (collectively, the plaintiffs) filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, fraud and conversion against Al’s Body Shop, Narciso Sanchez (Narciso), Idilio Sanchez (Idilio) and Idelsis Sanchez Gheldof (Idelsis) (collectively, the defendants) over the repair of a Flying Spur Bentley belonging to Robert Jr. and the defendants’ failure to return a S500 Mercedes Benz and a Chevrolet Biscayne belonging to Robert Sr. and Mary. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court found that the defendants were not liable for breach of contract or fraud with respect to any of the vehicles but did find that the defendants had taken actions constituting conversion with respect to the Mercedes and the Chevrolet. While the trial court awarded the plaintiffs no damages for the conversion of the Chevrolet, the court awarded the plaintiffs $211,590.06 for the conversion of the Mercedes.

This case arises out of an incident occurring on September 15, 2015 at Chaparral Middle School, operated by defendant Walnut Valley Unified School District (District). Plaintiff Andrea London’s (London) minor daughter, Vanessa London (Vanessa), was called out of class by a counselor, defendant Christina Aquino (Aquino). Aquino detained Vanessa in her office while questioning her about a missing Spanish placement exam.
The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend as to parties and causes of action not set forth in the claim it deemed London and Vanessa had presented to the District. It then granted judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining parties and causes of action on the ground Aquino’s actions were justified and not tortious.
On appeal, London and Vanessa challenge both of these rulings on various grounds. We conclude the trial court did not err and affirm the judgment.