CA Unpub Decisions

After a jury trial, Teecha Chamblee obtained a $50,000 judgment against her former employer, Inland Behavioral and Health Services, Inc., (IBHS) for wrongful constructive termination and retaliation for reporting what she perceived to be illegal practices. Chamblee appeals orders after entry of judgment (1) denying her motion for attorney fees, (2) denying her motion to tax IBHS's costs, and (3) granting IBHS's motion to tax her costs. Chamblee contends the court should have awarded her attorney fees pursuant to either Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, subdivision (a), for proving facts IBHS did not admit in responses to written requests for admission or section 1021.5 for enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest. She also contends IBHS's offer to compromise her claim pursuant to section 998 for $75,000 plus reasonable attorney fees was invalid and the court erred in awarding IBHS its postoffer costs and in denying her postoffer costs. We

In this writ proceeding, petitioners Comercializadora Travel Advisory, S.A. de C.V. (Advisory), and a related company Holiday Club Management de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Holiday; sometimes together Petitioners), challenge the trial court's denial of their motion to quash the service of summons and complaint of plaintiff and real party in interest Serge Nayshtut (Plaintiff). Petitioners, who are Mexican corporations, argue the undisputed facts demonstrate that California lacks jurisdiction over either of them to adjudicate Plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and misrepresentations concerning a timeshare membership agreement he entered into with Advisory in Mexico, for which Holiday provides customer service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10; all further statutory references are to this code unless noted.)

In 2001, a jury convicted Ted Darnell Daniels of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). Daniels was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life plus five years for a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
In 2016 Daniels filed a petition under Proposition 47 (Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act; § 1170.18) to reduce his convictions to misdemeanors because section 245, subdivision (a)(1) was a "wobbler" offense. The petition was denied. Daniels filed another petition in 2017, which petition was again denied because section 245, subdivision (a)(1) was not one of the enumerated offenses in section 1170.18. Daniels filed a timely notice of appeal from the 2017 denial of his second petition.

In 2003, plaintiff Jack Koch sued several state prison officials in federal court, alleging they violated his federal civil rights by wrongfully taking a DNA sample from him while he was an inmate. The federal lawsuit concluded in August 2009. In November 2016, Koch filed this action asserting state-law claims against the same prison officials arising from the same 2003 DNA-sample incident. Several of these defendants (Demurring Defendants) demurred on the bases of res judicata and statute of limitations. The trial court sustained their demurrer without leave to amend on untimeliness grounds, and denied Koch's motion for reconsideration. He appeals both rulings. We affirm.

Frankie Kirven pleaded guilty to second degree robbery. The court sentenced him to 365 days in county custody and three years' formal probation. On appeal, Kirven challenges two probation conditions: (1) a waiver of his Fourth Amendment rights pertaining to electronic devices; and (2) a prohibition from possessing "any instrument used as a weapon." These challenges are without merit.

The juvenile court found true the allegation that 15-year-old R. M. (RM) engaged in misdemeanor disorderly conduct when he hid in the bushes outside a woman's home with his pants down. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (i).) The court placed RM with his mother under supervised probation. RM contends the court erred in failing to conduct a Marsden hearing after his stepfather requested a continuance to seek to replace appointed defense counsel. (See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).) We find no prejudicial error and affirm.

John L. Ervin appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandamus. The trial court ruled that, by failing to participate at the administrative hearing on his grievance, Ervin had not exhausted his administrative remedies. We disagree and reverse. Ervin requested and received a grievance hearing; on the present record, the fact that he chose not to attend a hearing does not mean that he failed to participate in the administrative process. On remand, the trial court should reconsider the briefing and related documentation in support of and in opposition to Ervin's petition and rule on the merits of the issues presented.

Dylan O'Bosky sued his former employer, Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Labor Code § 2698 et seq.) to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations that Starbucks allegedly committed. O'Bosky appeals from a judgment entered after the court granted Starbucks's
motion to strike a portion of his complaint and a subsequent motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

On July 12, 2016, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, former subdivision (a), alleging that appellant D.A., a minor, committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 213, subd. (b)) (the “first petition”). Following a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered appellant suitably placed on the sustained first petition.
In another petition, filed on August 30, 2016, it was alleged that appellant committed assault upon a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c)) (the “second petition”). The juvenile court found the alleged assault to be true, sustained the second petition, and ordered appellant to remain detained in juvenile hall. Appellant entered into a plea agreement whereby the juvenile court would dismiss the sustained second petition if appellant did not engage in any assaultive behavior while placed at the Dorothy Kirby Center.

Robert Gonzales is 42 years old and a convicted pedophile. He had nearly concluded a prison sentence for child molestation when he struck a fellow prisoner breaking his jaw. Gonzales received a two year prison sentence for this offense and Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) proceedings were instituted based on the diagnosis that he is also bipolar. The trial court made the requisite findings under the MDO act (Pen. Code, § 2960, et seq.) and committed him for the latter offense. No finding was made on the child molestation convictions. Relying on People v. Sheek (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1606 (Sheek), Gonzales contends that because he did not also receive treatment as a pedophile he could not be declared an MDO. Sheek is inapposite.

Defendant and appellant Wardell Joe was originally sentenced in 2004 to life without possibility of parole (LWOP) for first degree murder with a special circumstance finding as an aider and abettor. Based on new authority, the trial court resentenced him in 2017. Joe appeals. He contends that he is entitled to a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) and to the benefit of newly enacted Senate Bill No. 620, and that other sentencing errors must be corrected. The People concede all issues. We correct the sentencing errors and remand for a Franklin hearing and for resentencing.

S.M., a mentally disordered offender (MDO; Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.), appeals an order authorizing the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) to involuntarily administer psychotropic medication to treat his severe mental disorder. (In re Qawi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1.) Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to represent himself and the evidence does not support the finding that he lacks the capacity to refuse treatment. We affirm.

A jury convicted Alfonso Gonzalez of one count of oral copulation of a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(1)) and three counts of lewd acts on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to 55 years to life in prison. It awarded him 1,246 days of actual custody credit and zero days of local conduct credit.
Gonzalez contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights when it admitted evidence of his prior sexual offenses. He also asks us to review documents he subpoenaed to determine whether the court properly denied one of his discovery requests, and contends he is entitled to local conduct credits. We modify the judgment to correct the conduct credit calculation, and affirm.

Following the denial of his renewed motion to suppress, defendant Victor Jonathan Gudino pled no contest to felony possession of a firearm by a juvenile offender. On appeal, defendant contends evidence of the shotgun seized from the trunk of his car should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful warrantless search. The People initially argued the search was justified under the inventory search, search incident to arrest, and automobile exceptions. In a supplemental brief, the People concede the search was not justified under the search incident to arrest or automobile exception, but maintain the search was valid under the inventory search exception. Because there is insufficient evidence to justify the warrantless search of defendant’s car under any of these exceptions, we reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for further proceedings.