CA Unpub Decisions

Ernie Lopez appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court corrected an unauthorized sentence, which did not increase defendant Ernie Lopez’s state prison term. We affirm.

A jury found defendant and appellant Joshua Kane Smith guilty of multiple serious felonies, including torture, assault, and causing injury to a spouse. The jury also found true special allegations that defendant personally used a firearm and inflicted great bodily injury. Defendant was sentenced to a state prison term of 100 years to life, plus 44 years.
Defendant contends the trial court committed prejudicial error in the admission of prior acts of domestic violence against a former girlfriend, and abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant also raises three sentencing errors.

A jury convicted James Duane Grzeslo (defendant) of first degree murder of his girlfriend Cathy Ann Carrasco-Zanini (Cathy) (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true the allegation that defendant personally used a knife in the commission of the murder. (§ 12022, subdivision (b)(1).) The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in state prison for the murder conviction, plus a one-year enhancement term for use of the knife. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Robert W. Brown (Brown) filed an action against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), ReconTrust Company, N.A. (ReconTrust), and Bank of America, N.A. (BofA) (collectively respondents) to stave off a foreclosure. His case was dismissed after the trial court sustained a demurrer and he subsequently failed to amend. On appeal, he contends his action should not have been dismissed because he has a viable Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim.
We find no error and affirm.

Appellant Kenneth Roberts (Roberts) appeals from an order granting the motion of respondent Oliver Wolfgang Ruehr (Ruehr) to set aside, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473, subdivision (b) and 473.5, a default and a default judgment entered against Ruehr. After a hearing, the trial court found service was defective and granted the motion. The hearing was unreported and the trial court denied Roberts’s motion for a settled statement. Roberts failed to challenge the denial of his motion by means of a writ petition. He thus has not provided us with a record adequate for our review. Because we must presume that the court’s findings, both express and implied, support its ruling, we affirm the order.

Defendant Wayne Spindler (Spindler) appeals from a workplace violence restraining order limiting Spindler’s contact with City Council President Herman (Herb) Wesson, Jr. (Wesson). Spindler argues that the restraining order is invalid because it was sought by the Office of the City Attorney, rather than by the City of Los Angeles, was not supported by substantial evidence, and was inconsistent with his right to free speech. We conclude that Spindler’s contentions are without merit, and thus we affirm.

Plaintiff Aphection, Inc. (Aphection) entered into a two-year manufacturing contract with defendant Blvd Supply, LLC (Blvd Supply), through which Aphection agreed to be the exclusive manufacturer of clothes and apparel bearing Blvd Supply’s designs. Aphection spent about $600,000 on fabric, rent, and employees’ salaries in preparing to perform under the contract. While the contract was still in effect, Blvd Supply used a different manufacturer to produce clothing bearing the company’s designs. Aphection later sued Blvd Supply for breach of contract. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in Aphection’s favor, awarding the company $138,000 in reliance damages. On appeal, Blvd Supply contends insufficient evidence supports the court’s award of damages. We affirm.

Min Maw International, Inc. (Min Maw) and Ju-Tsun (George) Chang (Chang) appeal from the judgment of dismissal of their cross-complaint against David Shao Wei Fang (Fang) and David S.W. Fang, a Professional Law Corporation (Fang PLC). The judgment of dismissal was entered after the trial court sustained demurrers to some causes of action alleged against Fang and Fang PLC, and granted judgment on the pleadings as to others.
We conclude that the trial court properly sustained demurrers and/or granted judgment on the pleadings as to the first four causes of action (breach of contract to pay salary, breach of contract to pay rent, equitable indemnity, and equitable contribution), but erred in sustaining the demurrer to the fifth cause of action (fraud) as to Fang. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of dismissal and direct the trial court to reinstate the fraud cause of action as to Fang.

Plaintiff Terri Atwell resigned from her position as a public safety dispatcher with the City of Long Beach about two months before the end of her probationary period, citing a burdensome commute to and from work each day as her reason for leaving the job. Atwell then sued the City under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) for (1) race discrimination, (2) harassment, (3) retaliation, and (4) failure to investigate protected complaints. The trial court granted summary judgment in the City’s favor, concluding Atwell did not suffer any adverse employment action and, in any event, the City did not discriminate against, or harass, Atwell on the basis of her race or retaliate against her for engaging in protected activity. On appeal, Atwell contends triable issues of fact exist as to each of her causes of action and the court erred by denying her request to continue the summary judgment hearing. We affirm.

Jessica B. (Mother) petitions this court for extraordinary relief from dependency court orders terminating her family reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for her 15-year-old daughter H.S. (Minor). Mother contends the Sonoma County Human Services Department (Department) did not provide her reasonable services or reasonable visitation. We deny the petition.

Following our decision in New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Public Utilities Com. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 784 (New Cingular), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), on remand, issued Decision No. 17-04-007 and Decision No. 17-11-038 (collectively, the Remand Decisions), awarding intervenor compensation to The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) in the same amounts that had been awarded in the decisions we vacated in New Cingular. AT&T now petitions for review of the Remand Decisions. For the reasons that follow, we grant the petition.

Defendant Terrence Singleton was one of three men who robbed two patrons at a San Francisco gas station. A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of second degree robbery, and that he did have a prior felony conviction as alleged. After denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, the trial court sentenced him to state prison for terms prescribed by law. Defendant contends: (1) his convictions are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying him a new trial; (3) the trial court abused its discretion with evidentiary rulings; and, (4) he is the victim of several instructional errors. We conclude defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, and affirm.

When Dr. Raad Al-Shaikh, an orthopedic surgeon, moved his Fremont practice a couple of miles from its original location, he applied to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), pursuant to Medi-Cal regulations, for approval of his new office as an “established place of business.” He had been an approved Medi-Cal provider at his prior location for six years. Much to Dr. Al-Shaikh’s surprise, the DHCS denied his application on two grounds, only one of which is at issue here. The DHCS claimed Dr. Al-Shaikh’s fee arrangement with the medical billing service he used was unlawful. When Dr. Al-Shaikh filed an administrative appeal, the DHCS agreed the regulatory provisions it had cited in asserting his fee arrangement was unlawful, were inapplicable.

Defendant Jane Malek was convicted of felony arson. She raises one issue on appeal: whether the court erred in denying her Batson/Wheeler motion. We conclude there was no error, and affirm.