CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs Dieter Abt (Abt) and Meteor Worldwide, LLC (Meteor) appeal from judgments in favor of defendants: (1) The Marketing Store Worldwide, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (TMS), (2) Mark Landolt, (3) Vimby, LLC, (4) Peter Sterling, and (5) Patrick Lerandeau. The judgments were entered after the trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint without leave to amend.We affirm the judgment in favor of Sterling. As to TMS, Landolt, Vimby, and Lerandeau, we reverse the judgments and direct the court to enter an order sustaining their demurrers as to the fifth, sixth, seventh, tenth, and eleventh causes of action, and overruling their demurrers to the twelfth cause of action.

Freddie Battle and Daniia Davis (collectively appellants) were convicted by jury of three counts each: count 1, first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) ; count 2, first degree burglary (§ 459); and count 3, attempted first degree robbery (§§ 664/211). The jury found true allegations that the murder was committed while appellants were accomplices in the commission of burglary and robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). We reverse the special circumstance findings and remand for resentencing as to Battle and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Plaintiff Glenn Smith (plaintiff) sued defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company (collectively, defendants) for various claims, most of which were dependent on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The trial court granted summary adjudication in defendants’ favor on nine causes of action, finding that plaintiff was an independent contractor—not an employee—and plaintiff’s written agreement expressly precluded oral modifications. After plaintiff dismissed the remaining causes of action, the court entered judgment for defendants.
Plaintiff contends the proceedings below were riddled with procedural errors, collateral estoppel precludes defendants from asserting he was an independent contractor, and the court erred by summarily adjudicating his employment and contract claims.

Representing himself, plaintiff Monte Haney, an inmate in state prison, sued his former, court-appointed appellate attorney, William J. Capriola, for legal malpractice allegedly committed in the appeal of an underlying criminal action. Capriola demurred on various grounds, including that Haney had not and could not plead facts establishing his “actual innocence.” The trial court sustained the demurrer and entered judgment in favor of defendant Capriola. On appeal, Haney contends his legal malpractice claim does not require him to establish “actual innocence.” We disagree and affirm.

Plaintiffs, current and former students at various campuses within the California State University (CSU) system, filed a class action lawsuit against defendant the Board of Trustees of CSU (defendant or Board). Plaintiffs alleged defendant breached its contract with students and violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in that contract when, having required plaintiffs to pay a mandatory State University Fee (fee) or non-resident tuition for the Fall 2009 academic term at specific lower amounts, it then increased the amount twice—a 10 percent increase in May 2009 and an additional 20 percent increase in July 2009. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication on the breach of contract claim and granted summary adjudication for CSU on that cause of action, finding no breach of the implied contracts between CSU and its students.

Defendant By Faith Productions, Inc. (BFP) appeals from an adverse summary judgment holding it liable for payment on a promissory note for which it became obligated under an agreement assuming the obligations of the party from whom it purchased a business. None of BFP’s challenges to the summary judgment have merit and we shall therefore affirm the judgment against it.

Plaintiffs Eric M. Shockley and Charles E. Fetters appeal a judgment of dismissal following a demurrer to their complaint alleging wrongful foreclosure and related claims. The court sustained the demurrer on several grounds. We conclude the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata as plaintiffs seek to relitigate claims previously decided against them. We shall affirm the judgment on that basis.

Following a jury trial, defendant Danny George Brumsey was found guilty of false imprisonment by violence (count 1), infliction of corporal injury on a person with whom he had a dating relationship (count 2), attempting to dissuade a witness or victim (count 3), two counts of attempted violation of a protective order (counts 4 & 5), and knowingly inducing another person to give false material information pertaining to a crime to, or to withhold true material information pertaining to a crime from, a law enforcement official (count 6). Following a court trial the court found true that defendant had suffered two prior “strike” convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law and six prior prison terms. After striking the six prior prison term enhancements, the court sentenced defendant to a four-year prison term on count 2, a concurrent four-year prison term on count 1, and a concurrent six-month term on each of counts 3 through 6.

Defendant Kenneth Mark Doolittle was convicted of 20 criminal offenses against multiple victims in connection with an investment scheme. In a previous appeal, we reversed the judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss two counts on limitations grounds and to recalculate the aggregate sum taken from victims, as found for purposes of a sentence enhancement. On remand the trial court again ruled that the aggregate takings met the statutory threshold for the enhancement. I We have concluded that the first four claims of error all fail on the merits, were forfeited in the trial court, or both. Respondent concedes that the abstract of judgment must be corrected as prayed. We will modify the judgment and affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Daniel Steven Phillips of orally copulating and committing a lewd act on four-year-old L. Doe, the daughter of friends who rented a room in his home. The trial court sentenced defendant to a 15-year-to-life prison term. On appeal, defendant challenges the court’s response to a jury question, the admission of L.’s statements during a recorded police interview on confrontation clause grounds, and the denial of his new trial motion. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

This is the third appeal related to the parties’ ongoing divorce that began when plaintiff and appellant Deborah Restaino filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in 2005. In 2013, Deborah filed a civil complaint against John M. Restaino, Jr., alleging causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment related to the distribution of community assets. Specifically, Deborah alleged that John negotiated an agreement for the buyout of his shares in his former law firm to fraudulently conceal material information from her about his community property interest in the firm and the value thereof. Deborah appeals from the court’s judgment of dismissal following its sustaining of John’s demurrer to her second amended complaint (SAC).

Appointed counsel for defendant Darrell Andre Jones 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.

This appeal involves two default judgments. The first default judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs in February 2013 and was subsequently vacated as void because the underlying default was taken while an automatic bankruptcy stay was in effect. The second default judgment was entered in favor of the defendant and cross-complainant in March 2015 and remained in effect after the trial court denied a motion to set it aside pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend their 2013 judgment should be reinstated and the 2015 judgment against them should be vacated. They argue only a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the default they obtained violated an automatic bankruptcy stay and, in any event, defendant waived the protections of the automatic stay.

Appellant/defendant Steven Lovely was an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison and housed with Scott McInnis. On the morning of December 25, 2011, correctional officers discovered McInnis was dead and the cell was covered in blood. The coroner later determined that McInnis had been beaten from blunt force trauma, and strangulation was the cause of death.
Defendant was charged with the first degree murder of McInnis. At trial, defendant testified that McInnis was a violent man who tried to kill him, and was jealous that defendant was about to be released on parole while McInnis was serving a lengthy sentence. Defendant testified that McInnis tried to strangle him, he fought back, and he strangled McInnis in self-defense.