CA Unpub Decisions

Appellants L.A. Closeout, Inc. and Ramin Javahery appeal the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award in favor of respondent Epsilon Electronics, Inc. (Epsilon). The award was issued six years after the matter was initially submitted to arbitration and represented a reversal of the arbitrators’ original decision in appellants’ favor. Appellants contend the original decision was final and binding, and that controlling law and the parties’ arbitration agreement forbad reconsideration or rehearing of the matter once that decision was rendered. We agree and reverse.

Nicollete J. Martinez Jones (mother) appeals from a 2016 order modifying custody of her son (child), who is now 10 years old. Before the order, mother had sole physical custody of child. Mother and her former spouse, Miguel Perez Amezcua (father), had joint legal custody. The family court left joint legal custody intact, but awarded father sole physical custody.

Andrew Krause and Cynthia Krause brought this action to enforce their right under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.), commonly known as the “lemon law,” to compel Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) to repurchase their defective vehicle. MBUSA appeals the judgment following the jury’s verdict in the Krauses’ favor.
MBUSA contends the trial court was biased against it, committed prejudicial evidentiary errors and incorrectly denied its request for a jury instruction on its “lack of maintenance” affirmative defense. We conclude each of these contentions lacks merit. We therefore affirm.

A jury found defendant and appellant Gaspar Medina (defendant), who was charged with murder, guilty only of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. In light of the instructions given during trial, the jury apparently believed defendant actually but unreasonably believed he needed to use deadly force when fatally stabbing 59-year-old victim Gregory Aggers (Aggers). Defendant asks us to decide whether the evidence he acted unreasonably is sufficient to sustain his conviction for the lesser offense.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Gantner sued her former employer, Lemonade Restaurant Group, LLC, alleging gender-pregnancy discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, wrongful termination and retaliation in violation of public policy. She appeals after judgment was entered on special verdicts in favor of defendant on all claims.

Plaintiff Robert O. Whitfield, III, and Ernestine Anderson (who is not a party to this appeal) filed this postforeclosure case against defendants Seterus, Inc., and Federal National Mortgage Association, alleging causes of action for fraud, declaratory relief, wrongful foreclosure, and quiet title, arising from the foreclosure of Ms. Anderson’s home. Plaintiff was not a borrower on the loan that went into default, and he had no security interest in Ms. Anderson’s home.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Stephen Justin Gonzales of first degree murder. He appeals the judgment, contending the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that the murder was premeditated and deliberate. We disagree, and affirm.

Filed 4/2/18 P. v. Latif CA2/5
Prior opinion filed with same docket number as to co-defendant, see footnote 2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

OSMAN YOUSAF LATIF,

Defendant and Appellant.
B266094

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. GA091530)

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cathryn F. Brougham, Judge. Affirmed.
William J. Capriola, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chi

In the underlying action, respondents Rahim Sabadia, Nafees El Batool, and Dr. Ishtiaq Khan asserted claims for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud against appellant Holland & Knight, LLP (H&K). Respondents alleged the claims as trustees of the Sabadia Family Trust and the Sabadia Family Irrevocable Trust, and Sabadia also alleged the claims as an individual. The claims arose from respondents’ participation in real estate investment projects created and managed by M. Shi Shailendra. At trial, respondents offered evidence that respondents made cash investments in the projects, that Sabadia executed personal loan guarantees relating to the projects, and that Shailendra improperly disbursed project funds. Respondents also offered evidence that attorney Reeder Glass, an H&K partner who provided legal services to Shailendra-related entities involved in the projects, also represented respondents in the course of the projects. Respondents alleged that they incurred d

Petitioner Danielle D. (Mother), mother of six-year-old J.D., filed in propria persona, an extraordinary writ, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, after the juvenile court set the matter for a permanency planning hearing on January 11, 2018, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. In her petition, Mother does not challenge any of the findings and orders made at the January 11 hearing, but instead seeks extraordinary relief from the jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders previously made on March 14, 2017.

Michael G. (Father), father of two-year-old Sophia G., appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his petition for modification, filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, and its orders terminating his parental rights and ordering adoption as the permanent plan, pursuant to section 366.26. Father contends the court (1) abused its discretion when it denied his section 388 petition for modification, and (2) erred when it found inapplicable the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption. We shall affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

A.W. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order denying placement of her three-year-old son, Christian W. (Christian), with her sister, Christian’s aunt (Aunt), after he was removed from Mother’s custody. She contends there was insufficient evidence to support any finding of good cause to deviate from the preference under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) for placing Christian, an Indian child, with relatives. We disagree, so we affirm.

Having pled guilty to second degree burglary and receiving stolen property, defendant Richard Chauncey was admitted to probation upon specified conditions, one of which was that he serve 90 days in the county jail. He was given 38 days of actual custody credits (Pen. Code, § 2900.5), which both sides agree should be 39. Over his objection, defendant was also ordered to pay $150 for the probation officer’s presentence report (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b, subd. (a)). This order he contends should be stricken because there is not substantial evidence that he had the ability to pay it.

18-year-old I.A. (appellant) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders placing him on wardship probation for committing misdemeanor assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4) ). He contends the court denied his request for non-wardship probation based on a misunderstanding of the law, and that the matter must therefore “be remanded for the court to exercise its informed discretion.” We reject the contention and affirm the orders.