CA Unpub Decisions

Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at the residence of defendant Tannere Michael Martinisko and obtained evidence of the sale and cultivation of marijuana. The Trinity County Superior Court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence.
Defendant now seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order, contending (1) the affidavit in support of the warrant did not establish probable cause to search his home, (2) the good faith exception does not apply, and (3) the affiant substantially misled the magistrate.
We will deny the petition for writ of mandate. The affidavit provided sufficient evidence from which the magistrate could find probable cause to search defendant’s home, and the affiant did not mislead the magistrate.

Defendant Edgar Lavagnino was charged by information with one count of possession of personal identifying information with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(2)). Following the preliminary hearing and denial of his motion to suppress under section 1538.5, defendant withdrew his guilty plea, pled no contest, and admitted his prior conviction under section 530.5, subdivision (c)(3). Defendant was sentenced to the low term of 16 months in county jail.

Defendant and appellant Joshua Hurtado, also known as Joshua Huerta, appeals from his conviction by jury of second degree robbery. We affirm.

Father T.B. challenges a juvenile court’s jurisdictional order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. He admits that jurisdiction was appropriate on multiple grounds but argues that there was no evidence his son M.B. was at risk of sexual abuse. We affirm.

After exercising jurisdiction over twin sisters M.F. and D.F. (born 2003), the juvenile court placed them with non-custodial father J.F. (father) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2. Father appeals, contending the court abused its discretion by retaining supervision over the girls and ordering him to take a parenting class. We disagree and affirm.

Petitioners David Moser and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association (together, Petitioners) challenge a judgment denying their petition for writ of mandate. Petitioners assert the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department (Department) failed to provide due process and violated the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) when it suspended Moser after he was charged with a misdemeanor for inflicting cruel punishment or treatment impairing the health of an inmate. The Superior Court determined the Department provided sufficient pre-deprivation process, and the post-deprivation hearing offered to Moser was sufficient under POBRA. We affirm.

Defendant Gilbert Neverez Loya appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (hereafter Proposition 36 or the Act; Pen. Code, § 1170.126). Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that the trial court used the incorrect standard of proof when it considered his petition, finding him disqualified from resentencing by a preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the trial court found the disqualifying factors beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm the order below.

Defendant Bijan Yaghoobia appeals the summary judgment against him in this unlawful detainer action involving his occupancy of a food stand on a parcel of land containing both a car wash and the food stand. Three basic facts are undisputed: Yaghoobia was assigned a lease in 1985 to occupy the entire property and operate both the car wash and the food stand. He transferred some interest in the lease when he sold the car wash business in 1996. Plaintiff Canoga Park Hand Car Wash (plaintiff car wash) eventually obtained an assignment of whatever interest Yaghoobia transferred under the lease in 1996.

Plaintiff Terri Doster believes that the defendant hospital charged her too much for emergency room services. She seeks to represent a class of similarly situated uninsured emergency room patients in a single cause of action for declaratory relief. In contrast to a cause of action for breach of contract, declaratory relief does not require proving damages.
Doster eschews class certification of any cause of action requiring proof of damages because damages for overbilling of emergency room services requires individual determinations and is fatal to class action status. (Hale v. Sharp Heathcare (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 50, 53 [affirming decertification of uninsured patient class because of individual issues related to damages].) Doster sought class certification solely to obtain a declaration that the hospital may charge only the “reasonable value” of its emergency room services.

Defendants Hachik “Kriss” Maskovian and Hovanes “John” Maskovian appeal from their convictions by separate juries for the attempted kidnapping and first degree murder with special circumstances of Joshua West, John’s former boyfriend. We affirm the judgments.

This attorney/client dispute began when the client, E.S.E. Electronics (ESE), suffered a loss due to employee theft. Specifically, one of ESE’s agents redirected a shipment of goods away from ESE for the agent’s own benefit. ESE then found itself embroiled in two disputes: (1) a lawsuit brought by the supplier, who sought payment for the goods it had sent to ESE; and (2) ESE’s action against its insurer, who refused to pay on ESE’s theft claim. ESE retained defendant Kaplan, Kenegos and Kadin (the Firm) to defend the first action and prosecute the second. The terms of the retainer were subject to dispute at trial. Both matters settled. As to the supplier’s suit, ESE agreed to pay the supplier a certain sum, including the first $80,000 that ESE might recover from the insurer. Eventually, the insurer agreed to pay ESE $135,000. Deducting the $80,000 owed the supplier left $55,000, almost all of which the Firm claimed as its fees and costs.

In this unlawful discrimination case, Esteban Vivanco alleges his former employer Stewart Title violated California law and public policy when it fired him for refusing to terminate a disabled employee who was over the age of 40. Stewart Title denies the allegation and contends Vivanco was terminated because his performance was substandard. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Stewart Title. We affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Roger Meyer appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent CIT Bank, N.A., successor by merger to OneWest Bank, N.A., as successor in interest to “IndyMac Mortgage Services, a division of OneWest Bank, FSB.” Meyer disputes the trial court’s conclusion that the parties never entered into an agreement allowing him to pay off a lien or, if they had, that the conditions precedent contained in that agreement had not been met. We affirm.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the owner and operator of a trampoline park in this personal injury action, brought by a minor who broke her ankle while jumping there and by her grandmother who saw the incident and claimed emotional distress damages. The court concluded the minor and her grandmother’s claims were barred as a matter of law on two alternative grounds: by the terms of a written release of liability the child’s grandfather had signed on the child’s behalf, and by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Both plaintiffs now appeal.
We affirm. It is unnecessary to address the parties’ contentions regarding the scope and effect of the liability waiver, because appellants have not met their burden of demonstrating the trial court erred in applying the primary assumption of risk doctrine to bar their claims.