CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Ahmadpour Abulghasem (plaintiff) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Johnnie’s Restaurant, Inc. (defendant), following a jury trial in this action concerning injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained as the result of a fall at defendant’s restaurant. Plaintiff contends the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted because the trial court erred by failing to remove a biased juror, admitting into evidence plaintiff’s prior felony conviction for forgery, failing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and failing to apply that doctrine at the trial. Plaintiff also challenges the credibility of defendant’s witnesses and the substance of their trial testimony.
We affirm the judgment.

In this appeal from a domestic violence restraining order, Pablo Bravo challenges the trial court’s order that he participate in a 52-week “batterer’s intervention program.” He argues that substantial evidence does not support that order. We disagree and affirm.

Frederick Wayne Kook petitioned for recall of sentence under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126). The superior court denied the petition, finding Kook was ineligible for relief because he had a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense. On appeal Kook, whose disqualifying prior conviction was for committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)), contends the court erred by reviewing the trial transcript to make its finding the offense involved the use of duress and in applying a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, standard of proof. Kook also contends the evidence did not support the court’s finding.

Defendant and appellant Melanie Vanessa Cardenas was Azteca America’s payroll manager. Based on allegations that Cardenas diverted Azteca funds to herself and to the other defendants and appellants—Marlin Alarcon Najarro, Jazmin Garcia Moreno, Alberto Eduardo Garcia Moreno and Guadalupe Pilar Castaneda—defendants were charged with and found guilty of, among other things, receiving stolen property. They all appeal, contending that a severance motion should have been granted, the prosecutor violated Brady, evidentiary errors prejudiced them, the prosecutor engaged in pervasive misconduct, there was insufficient evidence to support the judgments, and the jury instructions lowered the burden of proof. We reject all contentions except one: Cardenas and Najarro could not be convicted of and sentenced on grand theft and on receiving stolen property, and we therefore reverse their convictions for receiving stolen property. We otherwise affirm the judgments as to them and the other

Defendants and appellants Thomas Liu and Squire Patton Boggs (US), LLP (Squire), erroneously sued as Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, LLP (collectively, Respondents), appeal from an order denying, in part, their special motion to strike the verified complaint filed by plaintiff and respondent Zina Dolzhenko pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, hereinafter, the anti-SLAPP statute. After an article appeared in the L.A. Weekly newspaper discussing numerous frivolous lawsuits filed by Zina and her brother, Gennady Dolzhenko, they filed suit against the newspaper, the author of the article, and all individuals and businesses that were quoted or discussed in the article, alleging the “libelous article” ruined their reputation and caused them harm. Respondents, a partner of the law firm Squire, was mentioned in the article as saying Zina had “snuck past building security” and “created a ruckus.” Liu contends that Zina cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing o

This action is one of the coordinated “Transient Occupancy Tax Cases,” in which certain cities have sought to impose liability on online travel companies (OTCs) for transient occupancy tax (TOT). In a typical transaction, an OTC charges a transient room rental, plus a markup, and service fees. In this matter, appellant City of Los Angeles (the city) assessed alleged unpaid TOT against the OTCs based on the full amount of the OTCs’ markup and service fees. The OTCs filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate, seeking reversal of the assessments. The OTCs argued that the language of the city’s TOT ordinance did not encompass the OTCs or their markups and service fees. The trial court granted a motion for judgment in favor of the OTCs, and the city appeals.

R.M. (Mother) and L.J.O. (Father) appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to four of their children, J.O., I.O., L.O., and C.O. Mother also challenges the juvenile court’s order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to modify an order terminating her reunification services. Mother and Father allege the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction at the time it conducted the section 322.26 hearing, and the Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (Bureau) failed to provide adequate notice to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Mother further asserts the court erred by finding the children adoptable, declining to apply either the beneficial parent relationship or sibling relationship exceptions, and failing to consider the children’s wishes. We disagree and affirm the order.

On December 31, 2013, appellant Da’Shawn Cooper approached a parked car and opened fire on its four occupants with a semiautomatic pistol, killing one of them. Although he was 17 years old at the time, he was prosecuted as an adult and sentenced to prison for a term of 78 years to life after a jury convicted him of one count of second degree murder, three counts of attempted murder, one count of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle, and three counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm accompanied by various firearm and great bodily injury enhancements. Appellant was sentenced on October 14, 2016, and timely filed a notice of appeal.

Devyn Coney appeals from an order revoking his probation. He contends the evidence was insufficient to establish a probation violation. We disagree, and affirm.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant Charles Leroy Shaffer pleaded no contest to involuntary manslaughter. The court then found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity and committed him to Napa State Hospital. Defendant raises only one issue on appeal: whether the trial court erred in not awarding him conduct credits based on time spent in county jail prior to his commitment. We affirm.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant Charles Leroy Shaffer pleaded no contest to involuntary manslaughter. The court then found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity and committed him to Napa State Hospital. Defendant raises only one issue on appeal: whether the trial court erred in not awarding him conduct credits based on time spent in county jail prior to his commitment. We affirm.

Police make a valid traffic stop, in daytime, which leads to a valid decision to impound the vehicle because the driver’s license and vehicle registration are expired, and the driver is unable to furnish proof of insurance. The driver of the vehicle accepts the offer to be driven to the nearest town in a police cruiser. The driver asks for a sealed cardboard box from his vehicle to take with him on the trip. The box is large; one of the officers described it as “two foot by three foot.” After the tow truck arrives, the driver is seated in a nearby police cruiser, without the box. The driver is not under any physical restraint. At this point the officers discover—in the impounded vehicle—a forged driver’s license with the driver’s photograph but a different name (“Todd Planters”). The sealed box is promptly cut open and discovered to contain a large quantity of marijuana and methadone pills. The stated reason for opening the box was to “check for weapons or t

A jury found defendant Darren Cleveland guilty of attempted premeditated murder, shooting from a vehicle, assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm by a felon.
Cleveland contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel did not move to exclude evidence that the victim identified him as the shooter from a photographic lineup. In addition, he claims a term of his sentence should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654, he identifies errors in the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order, and he requests remand for resentencing in light of recent changes in the law on firearm enhancements.
We order corrections to the abstract of judgment and the sentencing minute order and remand for resentencing. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

The dispositive issue of this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting an ex parte application for judgment and dismissal of plaintiff Lumack Bellot’s action, brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2) and California Rules of Court, rule 1.1320(h) by defendants The Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America, N.A., ReconTrust Company, N.A. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively, defendants). Defendants based their application on the ground that plaintiff had not timely filed his first amended complaint after the trial court had granted defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s original complaint.
Defendants did not present sufficient evidence to the trial court that plaintiff failed to timely file his first amended complaint, the court’s files indicate plaintiff timely filed it and defendants concede on appeal that plaintiff timely filed it.