CA Unpub Decisions

Erin Blakemore suffers from a painful nerve disorder called trigeminal neuralgia. The primary factual dispute at trial was whether this condition was caused when her car was rear-ended by a vehicle Akizumi Ohgi was driving. In large part, the trial was a battle of medical experts. The jury apparently found Ohgi's expert to be persuasive and awarded Blakemore $9,000 (she asked for approximately $2.5 million).

In this consolidated appeal, mother D.S. contends the juvenile court erred in denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for the reinstatement of reunification services with respect to the minor M.T. , We will affirm.

Joseph M. (father) appeals from exit orders made when the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction over his daughter N.M. We affirm.

Defendant Charlene Marshall appeals her conviction for grand theft following a bench trial. Appointed counsel on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.

The juvenile court awarded legal and physical custody of dependent child Hannah W. to her father, Timothy D., and terminated dependency court jurisdiction. Mother Jennifer W. appeals the court’s orders. We affirm the orders as modified.

Defendant and appellant Antonio Velez (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered after he was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale. Defendant challenges only his sentence, seeking retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 180, to vacate two sentence enhancements imposed under the recently amended Health and Safety Code section 11370.2. Respondent agrees that the enhancements should be stricken. We affirm the judgment, but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Defendant and appellant Lamar Ahmad Tatum (defendant) contends that the prosecution’s peremptory challenge of an African-American prospective juror was racially motivated, and that the trial court improperly overruled his Wheeler/Batson objection made on that ground. Finding no merit to defendant’s contention, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff, cross-defendant, and appellant IQAir North America, Inc. (IQAir) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendant, cross-complainant, and respondent CHA La Mirada, LLC (CHA or the hotel) following a bench trial in this action concerning the interpretation and enforcement of a reciprocal parking and maintenance agreement (RPMA) that governs parking on both parties’ properties. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Martha L. Welborne (Welborne) appeals the February 21, 2017 judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained respondent SFE Investment Counsel, Inc.’s (SFEIC) demurrer to Welborne’s second amended complaint without leave to amend. Welborne contends she sufficiently pleaded that SFEIC had aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by Stern Fisher Edwards, Inc. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.

A jury found Miguel Nava Cervantes guilty of corporal injury to a cohabitant or girlfriend (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 2), brandishing a firearm at a person in a motor vehicle (§ 417.3; count 4), attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 5), and two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 6 & 7). The jury found true allegations that Cervantes personally used a firearm as to counts 2, 5, 6 and 7 (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), personally discharged a firearm which caused great bodily injury as to count 5 (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and personally committed great bodily injury as to count 6 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
On appeal, Cervantes contends there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for brandishing a firearm at a person in a vehicle. Alternatively, he contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He also argues the trial court erred in calculating his presentence custody

Plaintiff and appellant Teena Colebrook (plaintiff), as trustee of the Empire Revocable Living Trust (the trust), appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent CIT Bank, N.A. (defendant) after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s third amended complaint. We affirm the judgment.

In 2015, the trial court decided an unlawful detainer action brought by plaintiff and respondent Isaac Gabriel (plaintiff) against defendants and appellants Joseph Gabriel and Michael Gabriel (defendants) in favor of defendants, without prejudice. Plaintiff filed another unlawful detainer action against defendants in 2016, and the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff in that case. We consider whether the record on appeal establishes the trial court erred by not according preclusive effect to an issue decided in the parties’ 2015 unlawful detainer action.

Plaintiff John McKissock owns three suites in a medical plaza, parts of which are located above a suite owned by defendant Barry Kashfian. After McKissock purchased his suites, a dispute arose between McKissock and Kashfian over the interpretation of the plaza’s declaration of conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, McKissock contends he has a right to enter, and perform construction within, Kashfian’s suite to connect certain utility lines originating in McKissock’s suites to utility systems located in the common areas surrounding Kashfian’s suite. After Kashfian refused to allow McKissock to enter his suite to perform such construction, McKissock sued Kashfian for, among other things, trespass and declaratory relief, alleging he had violated the CC&Rs.

In May 2009, appellant Embassy Apparel, Inc. and respondent Pixior LLC entered into an unsigned written contract under which Pixior agreed to provide Embassy with storage and distribution services for Embassy’s goods, and Embassy agreed to pay Pixior for those services. Over the course of their business dealings, the parties had a number of disputes about the fees charged by Pixior and the payments made by Embassy. In June 2012, Pixior served Embassy with a notice of enforcement of a warehouse lien on the goods in its possession, and later sold the goods to a third party. Embassy then filed this action against Pixior for, among other claims, breach of contract and violation of Commercial Code section 7210. At trial, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of Pixior on all claims. On appeal, Embassy contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, and the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict on its Commercial Code claim. We a