CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Linda Reitman (Reitman) tripped and fell over a raised portion of a tree well cover on a sidewalk in front of real property owned by 26 Oak Partners, LLC (Oak Partners). Reitman sued Oak Partners and the City of Los Angeles, alleging a single cause of action for premises liability. Two years into the litigation, Reitman named Oak Partners’ property management company, respondent ADR/Preferred Business Properties (ADR), as an additional defendant. Shortly thereafter, Oak Partners filed a motion for summary judgment arguing, among other things, Reitman could not demonstrate Oak Partners owed her a duty of care. ADR joined in Oak Partners’ summary judgment motion and the trial court granted summary judgment for ADR, finding it owed no duty to Reitman because it did not own, possess, or control either the sidewalk or the tree that caused the portion of the tree well cover to rise. We consider whether the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for ADR wa

Human Electronics Co., Ltd. (Human) appeals from a judgment following a court trial. The trial court found that Human breached an oral contract with respondent Caravan Canopy International, Inc. (Caravan) by providing defective shade canopies that Caravan sold to retailers, such as Costco, for purchase by end users. The trial court also found that Human breached its contract with Caravan by failing a Costco audit of Human’s manufacturing facilities that Costco claimed revealed the use of child labor. The trial court awarded damages in the amount of $906,753.38.
On appeal, Human does not dispute the trial court’s findings that Human supplied canopies that did not conform to contractual requirements. Human’s arguments focus on the trial court’s damage award.

In April 2014, Raul Rodriguez (Rodriguez), while helping his friend, Raymond Cazares (Cazares) repair a rooftop air conditioning unit, lost his balance and tumbled off a wooden pallet attached to a forklift, and fell to his death. Rodriguez’s wife and sons—Antoinette Rodriguez, Julian Rodriguez, Richard Gastelum, and Joseph Gastelum (Plaintiffs)—initiated a wrongful death action against a number of defendants, including Cazares, who was operating the forklift at the time of Rodriguez’s fall, and Hamilton Prototypes, Inc. (Hamilton), Cazares’s landlord. Against Hamilton, Plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: negligence and premises liability. The trial court granted Hamilton summary judgment, finding, inter alia, that Hamilton did not owe a duty to Rodriguez.
On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that under Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 (Rowland), Hamilton, as Cazares’s landlord, owed a duty to Rodriguez, which Hamilton breached. We disagree and, accordingly, aff

While on probation for vandalism, Deandre R.—a ward of the juvenile court and a Regional Center client with an IQ of 52—failed to maintain satisfactory grades and was ordered suitably placed. Despite his intellectual disability, Deandre went on to graduate from high school. But the court, citing the probation violation, denied Deandre’s motion to seal his records. Because under California law, when a ward of the juvenile court substantially complies with his probation conditions, the court must dismiss the delinquency petition and seal the ward’s records, we reverse.

A jury found defendant Alexy Hovsepians guilty of two counts of felony driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23153, subds. (a), (b)). He appeals the judgment, contending the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that while driving under the influence of alcohol, he “concurrently [did] any act forbidden by law.” (Ibid.) We disagree and affirm.

A dispute arose between a former property owner and her secured lender that purchased the property at a foreclosure sale following the owner’s default. The dispute centered on which of them was entitled to certain insurance proceeds occasioned by fire damage to the property. The lender obtained a court order awarding it the disputed proceeds, and the former owner sued the lender for conversion. The former owner eventually assigned her conversion claim to her attorneys, who lost at trial and were ordered to pay the lender’s attorney fees pursuant to a provision in the foreclosed upon deed of trust for the property. We are asked to decide whether the conversion claim is within the scope of the trust deed’s attorney fee provision and, if so, whether that provision could be asserted against the attorneys that obtained the assigned conversion claim.

Ani Avetisyan, a former associate at the law firm of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, sued the firm for, among other things, breach of contract, wrongful discharge, and fraud, after the firm terminated her employment in December 2013. Avetisyan also asserted causes of action against four of the firm’s partners, Michael W. McTigue Jr., Sheldon Eisenberg, George T. Caplan, and Kristopher S. Davis (collectively, the partners), for libel, slander, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, intentional interference with contractual relations, and violation of Labor Code section 1050.
Avetisyan appeals from the judgment dismissing her complaint against the partners after the trial court sustained their demurrer to each cause of action against the partners—and most of the causes of action against the firm—without leave to amend. We affirm.

Chad Padilla sued Kahuna Restaurant Group and its restaurant manager, John Bakalar, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging Bakalar sexually harassed and accosted Padilla at the restaurant. Kahuna and Bakalar filed a cross-complaint against Padilla for defamation, alleging Padilla posted false statements on the Internet about his alleged assault and the restaurant. Following a trial at which Padilla represented himself and there was no court reporter, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Kahuna and Bakalar on Padilla’s complaint, and in favor of Kahuna and Bakalar on their cross-complaint. The jury awarded Kahuna $200,000 and Bakalar $300,000 in presumed damages, as well as $50,000 each in punitive damages.
Padilla makes three arguments on appeal. First, he argues counsel for Kahuna and Bakalar violated a court order granting one of Padilla’s motions in limine. Second, he contends the trial court made several erroneous rulings that deprived him of a f

Tanya Cohen appeals from an order denying her special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; anti-SLAPP statute) a complaint for declaratory relief filed by her landlord, Richard S. Hirschfield, as trustee of The Richard S. Hirschfield Trust. Cohen contends the trial court erred in denying her motion because Hirschfield’s complaint arises from Cohen’s prior filing of a complaint with the local rent control board, which was protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. Hirschfield cross-appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request for attorneys’ fees in connection with the denial of Cohen’s special motion to strike.

17-year-old A.W. (appellant) appeals from the juvenile court’s order continuing him as a ward of the court and placing him in a rehabilitation facility for violating his probation. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Devin Lee James Schmidt appeals from a judgment of conviction, after a jury trial in which he was found guilty of committing arson on an inhabited structure for setting fire to the home he shared with his mother and her boyfriend in Eureka, California. Schmidt raises a single issue involving admission of two pieces of evidence he claims were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, specifically, that his blood was on a gasoline can firefighters found inside a bedroom in the home, and that he admitted having earlier in the day turned up burners on the stove in an attempt to burn his mother’s food because he was angry at her. We find no error and therefore affirm.

Plaintiff Candy Zuniga appeals from a judgment entered on a grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Henry Hamilton. The court correctly ruled that Zuniga’s action was barred by the statute of limitations that governs medical malpractice claims, so we affirm.

Defendant Melvin Junior appeals from a judgment of conviction for auto theft, entered after a jury trial. He contends the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his previous auto theft conviction and his “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City” video game tattoo because it was propensity and character evidence admitted in violation of Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a). He also argues the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument. We conclude the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of his prior auto theft conviction; that defendant forfeited his appellate claim regarding the court’s admission of evidence of his “Grand Theft Auto” tattoo; and that defendant does not establish the prosecutor committed misconduct. Therefore, we affirm.

Following a bench trial, the superior court entered a judgment requiring appellant Steven Vail to reimburse his deceased mother’s trust for amounts he withdrew from trust accounts while acting as the trustee during her lifetime. He contends the judgment must be reversed because the evidence showed he acted with his mother’s permission at all times and because a claim for some of the amounts at issue is barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.