CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant and appellant Andy Khau owned a commercial property located at 729 Merchant Street in downtown Los Angeles. Khau represented in advertising materials and, ultimately, a sales agreement, that the property included 8,450 square feet of warehouse space. Plaintiffs and respondents Patrick Hallett and the company he formed to buy the property, 729 Merchant, LLC, purchased the property from Khau for $1.85 million. Hallett subsequently discovered that the property had only 7,490 square feet of warehouse space, approximately 11 percent less than was advertised. Plaintiffs sued Khau for damages, alleging intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. A jury found for plaintiffs on all counts and awarded them $481,000 in compensatory damages.
On appeal, Khau contends that a disclaimer on a property information sheet and a provision in the sales agreement imposed a duty on plaintiffs to inspect the property.

Plaintiff and appellant All Green Electric, Inc. (All Green), appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of its insurer, defendant and respondent Security National Insurance Company (SNIC). All Green requested that SNIC defend a lawsuit alleging that All Green negligently installed electrical equipment for a medical scanner. The trial court concluded that the lawsuit fell under a coverage exclusion for loss of use of property caused by a deficiency in All Green’s work, and SNIC had no duty to provide a defense. We affirm.

James Smith appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him on nine counts of sexual offenses committed against five women - Jane Does 1 through 5. The offenses were two counts of forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A)); one count of forcible sexual penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(A)); three counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)); one count of attempted forcible sodomy (§§ 664, 286, subd. (c)(2)(A)); one count of forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(A)); and one count of kidnapping for the purpose of committing oral copulation (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)). The jury found true allegations that appellant had kidnapped Jane Doe 1 (§ 667.61, subds. (a), (e)(1) & (4)); personally used a deadly weapon against Jane Does 2-5 (§ 667.61, subds. (a), (e)(3) & (4); and personally used a firearm in the commission of an offense against Jane Doe 3 (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant to prison for 150 years

This case involves a family dispute over the transfer of a piece of real property located at 1001 Hillcrest Road, Beverly Hills, California (the Hillcrest property). Feridoun Dardashti is the father of appellant Mahyar Dardashti and respondent Mehrdad Dardashti. On March 26, 2015, title to the Hillcrest property was transferred from the Feridoun family trust to Mehrdad’s family trust. Subsequently, Feridoun filed a quiet title action, seeking to void the transfer on the basis of fraud. Respondent Mehrdad then filed a cross-complaint against his father Feridoun and his brother Mahyar. The cross-complaint alleged that in 2012, Feridoun had agreed to transfer the Hillcrest property to Mehrdad. However, it alleged, Mahyar wrongfully persuaded Feridoun to repudiate the 2012 agreement and challenge the 2015 transfer of the Hillcrest property.

The trial court determined by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Activor Corporation fraudulently transferred assets to its principal shareholder, defendants Chanda Zaveri, and two other entities she formed (Actiogen Corporation and Chanda LLC) to avoid paying plaintiff the entire judgment in his favor in the underlying action. Plaintiff was awarded compensatory and punitive damages. We modify the judgment as to Activor alone and otherwise affirm.

Farshid Ghavashieh and Sanaz Motazadian (plaintiffs) brought an action for injuries sustained when the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (LACMTA, defendant) bus they were riding was involved in a traffic accident. The trial court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion on the ground plaintiffs failed to initiate this action within six months after defendant served its written denial of their claim. (Gov. Code, § 945.6.) We affirm.

Kenneth Hammond and Eddie Garlin appeal from judgments entered after a jury convicted them of conspiracy to commit robbery and found not true an accompanying special allegation that the crime had been committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. A companion charge of robbery was dismissed after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. Hammond and Garlin contend on appeal there was insufficient evidence apart from their own statements to support the conspiracy conviction in violation of the corpus delicti rule and the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion to bifurcate trial on the gang allegation. We affirm.

In this trip and fall case, Sedigheh Ansari (Ansari) and Abbas Taheri (collectively appellants) appeal from a judgment in favor of El Proyecto Del Barrio, Inc. and El Proyecto Del Barrio Foundation (collectively respondents). Appellants contend the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury it could consider the failure of respondents to follow their own policies and procedures as evidence that they were negligent. We find no error and affirm.

Petitioner V.H., the mother of M.U. (Mother), seeks an extraordinary writ ordering the juvenile court to vacate its order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She maintains the court erred in denying her section 388 petition, which she claims affected the juvenile court’s decision to set the section 366.26 hearing. We deny the petition.

John Robert Finkelstein has moved to dismiss the City of San Mateo’s appeal of an order invalidating a warrant which authorized the search of his home. We agree that an order quashing a search warrant under Penal Code section 1539 is not an appealable order and therefore, we shall dismiss the appeal.

Terrell O. was adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court following sustained allegations that he had committed felony assault and criminal threats, as well as misdemeanor assault, battery, and vandalism. Terrell subsequently admitted a probation violation and, consistent with his request, the court imposed a two-year commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). After approximately four months, the DJJ recommended recall of the sentence. After a contested hearing on recall, the court found Terrell still needed the structure of DJJ and denied the motion. Terrell appeals this order.
Assigned counsel has submitted a Wende brief, certifying an inability to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also submitted a declaration confirming Terrell was advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted.

The County of Contra Costa (the county) certified an environmental impact report (EIR) and approved a land use permit for a “Propane Recovery Project” at an oil refinery owned and operated by Phillips 66 Company (Phillips) in Rodeo, California. In response to consolidated petitions filed by Rodeo Citizens Association (Citizens) and others, the trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate requiring the county to set aside the certification of the EIR and approval of the land use permit and to correct specified inadequacies in the EIR in the analysis of air quality issues.
On appeal, Citizens contends the trial court erred in rejecting its additional arguments that the project description and the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and environmental hazards fail to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). We find no error in the trial court’s conclusions and shall affirm the peremptory writ as

A jury found Avelino Gomez guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Gomez on three years of probation on condition he serve 120 days in county jail.
Gomez appeals. He argues the trial court erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant Demara Hatch was charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of Jay Hansen during an altercation among friends. A jury convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter with personal use of a firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, §§ 192, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a), 29800, subd (a)(1).) The court sentenced him to 22 years in prison.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury on involuntary manslaughter and in responding to a jury request for clarification on the element of malice. Defendant also seeks correction of the court’s award of presentence custody and conduct credits (§§ 2900.5, subd. (a), 2933.1) and requests remand to allow the trial court to exercise discretion conferred by a recent statutory amendment to strike the firearm enhancement (§ 12022.5). We shall affirm the judgment with a modification of custody and conduct credits and remand for resentencing.