CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant Xianglie Jin appeals from a portion of a judgment following a bench trial in an overtime compensation lawsuit against his employer, defendant and respondent Soon Poong, Inc. Jin contends the trial court erred in finding him to be an hourly employee rather than a salaried employee. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Jose Ulysses Padilla appeals from a finding of incompetency to stand trial. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. Appellant has also been informed of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he has not done so since the time his court appointed counsel filed her brief. After our independent review of the record, we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, and we affirm.

At the age of five weeks, A.M. (Minor) was found to have multiple cracked ribs at different stages of healing, two broken clavicles, retinal hemorrhaging, and severe brain damage. The doctors who treated him concluded his injuries were sustained through abuse, rather than through accident or trauma during birth. The juvenile court found Minor a dependent child, denied reunification services to his parents, and set a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Minor’s parents, G.F. (Mother) and G.M. (Father), contend the juvenile court improperly refused to continue the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing to allow them to secure expert testimony that Minor’s injuries could have occurred during birth. We shall deny the petition on the merits.

Plaintiff Dennis Fitzpatrick sued Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific), alleging that he suffered personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos and other toxic chemicals while working for Union Pacific’s predecessor. Fitzpatrick moved to compel Union Pacific to produce documents that Fitzpatrick authored or received when he worked as a legal consultant for its predecessor company. All of these documents, according to Union Pacific, are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. The trial court, in an apparent attempt to reach a middle ground, declined to address whether the documents are privileged, and instead ruled that they must be disclosed to Fitzpatrick for the limited purpose of allowing him to review them prior to his deposition, but not retain them.
Neither party was satisfied.

Plaintiff John H. Stewart challenges the trial court’s orders declaring him to be a vexatious litigant and barring him from filing future litigation in propria persona without permission of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (a).) We conclude substantial evidence supports the orders and affirm.

Defendant Carl Anthony Phillips appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of auto burglary. Defendant argues the trial court erred by admitting prejudicial propensity evidence that he had stolen items from a vehicle in an uncharged prior act the previous year, and by admitting hearsay statements by witnesses who identified him as the burglar in the present case. We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion to admit the uncharged prior act evidence and reject defendant’s hearsay arguments because either the evidence was not hearsay or, assuming it was, its admission was harmless. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

While on probation for driving under the influence, Denis Demacedo chose to drive when his blood alcohol content was almost three times the legal limit. He struck a car and sped away through a residential neighborhood, reaching a speed of almost 70 miles per hour before colliding with a Toyota Tercel. The collision killed a young man, his teenage brother, and their mother. The young man’s fiancée survived, but was severely injured. Demacedo was convicted of three counts of second degree vehicular murder and related charges. He contends the court erred when it (1) excluded expert defense testimony on the general probability a drunk driver will cause a fatal collision; and (2) admitted evidence of his prior drunk driving and a prior accident to show he was aware of the dangers of drunk driving.

In this dependency action, mother appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights and ordering a permanent plan of adoption. She argues that she established the beneficial relationship exception to adoption and that the juvenile court erred by implicitly finding inapplicable the relative caregiver exception to adoption. Finding no error, we will affirm.

Defendant Abbas Mustapha Hammoude appeals from a split sentence that included a period of mandatory supervision under various conditions, including one which required him to maintain his residence as approved by probation. Defendant contends the residence approval condition is unconstitutionally overbroad. We disagree.

A.M. is an adjudicated sexually violent predator over whom the State Department of State Hospitals (SDSH) has custody pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.). A.M. resides at a SDSH facility in Coalinga (SDSH-C), where he receives treatment for previously diagnosed mental disorders. He appeals from an order requiring him to submit to involuntary administration of psychotropic medication. The order in question was only valid for one year, however, and expired on February 27, 2018. Accordingly, and for the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

Appellant Ashlan Alyce Labostriagee pled no contest to bringing drugs into a jail in violation of Penal Code section 4573, subdivision (a). On appeal, she contends she did not violate section 4573 because she had a “recommendation” to use medical marijuana. We affirm.

On October 27, 2017, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Larry L. Judge with possession of methamphetamine for sale under Health and Safety Code section 11378 (count 1), and transportation for sale under Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a). The complaint also alleged that defendant was previously convicted of two prior strike convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and served a prior term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

In February 2015, defendant and appellant Jesus Jaime Munoz pled guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a)), and one count of corporal injury to a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). In return, defendant was placed on formal probation for a period of three years on various terms and conditions, including serving 365 days in county jail.
After defendant violated several terms of his probation, in 2017 the trial court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced defendant to a total term of five years in state prison. On appeal, defendant argues the case must be remanded because the trial court failed to knowingly exercise its discretion when it mistakenly concluded it had no option to reinstate probation with additional local jail time. We find no error, and affirm the judgment.

In 2011, the family court entered a judgment of dissolution for the marriage of Respondent Louie R. Hernandez (Husband) and appellant Jacquelyn A. Hernandez (Wife). In 2014, the family court modified the amount of spousal support paid by Husband to Wife. The family court modified the amount to zero.
Wife contends the family court (1) violated her right of due process by not permitting Wife to question Husband as her own witness; (2) violated her right of due process by refusing to let Wife’s witnesses testify; (3) erred by relying on speculative expert testimony; (4) erred by not issuing a statement of decision; (5) failed to consider the statutory factors when ruling on the request to modify spousal support; and (6) erred by denying her request for attorney fees. We affirm the judgment.