CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
Plaintiff and appellant Alexandre Stoilkov sued defendants and respondents (1) Yong Cha Yim ; (2) N&C Trucking Inc.; (3) Jennifer A. Wells; (4) Daimler North America Corp.; and (5) Daimler Trucks North America LLC. Stoilkov sued Yim for negligence. Stoilkov alleged N&C Trucking was a necessary party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 389.) Stoilkov did not allege any causes of action against N&C Trucking. The trial court voided the clerk’s entry of default against Yim and granted summary judgment in favor of Yim and N&C Trucking.
Stoilkov raises three contentions on appeal. |
Defendant and appellant, Solera Oak Valley Greens Association (Solera) appeals the trial court’s ruling on Solera’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs (collectively referred to as attorney’s fees). After plaintiff and respondent Aristea Hupp filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of her first amended complaint (Aristea’s appeal, Hupp v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Association (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1300), Solera filed a motion for attorney’s fees. In the instant appeal (Solera’s appeal), Solera contends the $3,000 attorney’s fees award constitutes an abuse of discretion because it is unreasonably low.
Because in Aristea’s appeal, we partially reversed the dismissal of Aristea’s first amended complaint, the instant appeal is moot. Solera is no longer the prevailing party and an award of attorney’s fees as to Aristea is premature. The $3,000 order for attorney’s fees must be vacated, if the trial court has not done so. Under these circumstances, Solera’s |
Defendant Gerald Wayne Crutcher appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of three counts of identity theft, three counts of theft of access card information, and one count of burglary. The trial court enhanced defendant's prison sentence by seven years because defendant previously served prison terms for various felony offenses. (Pen. Code § 667.5, subd. (b)). On appeal, defendant argues that Proposition 47 (the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act) reclassified certain of these prior felony offenses as misdemeanors. Accordingly, defendant claims that the trial court erred by declining to strike the prior prison term sentencing enhancements based on those reclassified offenses. Defendant further contends that the trial court's ruling violates his equal protection rights under the federal and California Constitutions.
|
A jury convicted Patrick Nicholas Lawrence of one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)); one count of vandalism of real or personal property amounting to $400 or more (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)); and one count of failure to appear after being released on bail (§ 1320.5). Lawrence was granted probation subject to 365 days in county jail.
Lawrence appeals challenging only the conviction for vandalism. As to that count, Lawrence contends the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction. Based on our review of the record we will conclude there is ample substantial evidence to support the conviction and affirm the judgment. |
In March 2017, a jury found defendant Allan Molina guilty of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 1) and hit-and-run driving (Veh. Code,
§ 20002, subd. (a); count 2). The court found true that Molina had two strike prior convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)); two serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and three prison prior convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced Molina to a total term of 39 years to life in prison, consisting of 25 years to life for count 1; four years for the personal firearm use enhancement; and 10 years for the two serious felony priors. Molina received credit for time served on count 2, and the court struck the punishment for the three prison priors. At sentencing, Molina filed a Romero motion asking the court to strike a prior strike conviction under section 1385. The prosecution filed opposition and the court denied the motion. |
In this case we reverse an order entered in favor of a surety. The surety had issued an injunction bond after the holders of junior liens and the debtor had obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the defendants, senior lienholders, from foreclosing on a deed of trust. Although the parties agree the senior lienholders in the underlying action were the intended beneficiaries of the injunction bond, the surety erroneously named one of the junior lienholders as the beneficiary of the bond.
After the injunction had been lifted and the senior lienholders had foreclosed on their deed of trust, they attempted to recover their losses from the surety. At that point, the parties discovered the surety's erroneous designation of one of the junior lienholders as the beneficiary of the bond and the senior lienholders asked the trial court to correct the bond. The trial court refused to correct the bond to conform to the parties' intention and entered judgment in favor of the sure |
Dymos Marks appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint as a sanction for his repeated failures to appear for his deposition and a related independent medical examination. Marks filed his complaint for wrongful termination against his former employer, Crossroads Carriers, LLC (Crossroads). After his counsel withdrew, Marks effectively abandoned the case and refused to be deposed. Marks ignored multiple warnings and an order from the trial court to appear for his deposition, leading to the court's order granting Crossroads's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On appeal, Marks appears to contend his failure to attend depositions is excusable and the dismissal order should be reversed. Our review of the limited record provided does not reveal any abuse of discretion by the trial court. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Steven Ray Gibbens filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the underlying cases and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we have found clerical errors in the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment that must be corrected. We will direct the trial court to correct the clerical errors and affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural background of the underlying cases. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) |
Juan Anthony Torres appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)), and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced appellant to two years eight months state prison and ordered appellant to pay a $515.08 Criminal Justice Administrative Fee (§ 1203.096), a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45).
|
Appellant Misael Agid Martinez was driving under the influence of alcohol when he “T-boned” a car carrying a father and his two sons, killing the older son and seriously injuring the others. He then walked away from the scene. He was convicted of second degree murder and four related counts. He challenges the judgment, contending only that his due process rights were violated because the second degree murder conviction was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. We correct an error in the abstract of judgment and affirm.
|
Defendant Norma Lilian Cortez was convicted by jury of premeditated murder and premeditated attempted murder, and gang and firearm enhancements were found to be true. Following remand of this case from the California Supreme Court and our court, defendant appealed the denial of her new trial motion. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), defendant’s counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issues existed on appeal. We reviewed the entire record and affirmed the order below. (People v. Cortez (B280911, Nov. 6, 2017) [nonpub. opn.].)
After we issued our opinion, defendant filed a petition for rehearing, asking this court to reconsider the appeal in light of Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). |
In the underlying action, a jury awarded $56,000 in compensatory damages to respondent Jeff Shaw in his action for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion against appellants Eric Schlaifer and Bandit RC, LLC (Bandit). Appellants challenge the judgment on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary error, and error in the trial court’s rulings on appellants’ post-judgment motions. They also allege inconsistency in the jury’s special verdicts. While we reject the first three challenges, we conclude that the special verdicts are irreconcilably inconsistent. Accordingly, we reverse.
|
Plaintiff and appellant Imelda Godoy appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Universal Switching Corporation following a bench trial in this action for failure to accommodate a disability and failure to engage in the interactive process under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Government Code section 12900 et seq.). Godoy contends on appeal that her request for accommodation was reasonable because she could have been reassigned to a vacant position for a mechanical assembler in January 2015. We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that there was no vacant position in January 2015 to which Godoy could have been reassigned, and therefore affirm the judgment.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023