CA Unpub Decisions

Gloria Marmolejo sued her former employer, L.A. Fitness International, LLC (L.A. Fitness), for wrongful termination and related claims, after she was fired from a janitorial position she had held for about five years. L.A. Fitness moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement to arbitrate Marmolejo had signed when she submitted her employment application, as a condition to being considered for the job. The trial court granted the motion, the arbitrator ultimately dismissed the action with prejudice, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of L.A. Fitness.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly granted the motion to compel arbitration. Marmolejo argues L.A. Fitness failed to prove an arbitration agreement existed and that even if it did, it is unenforceable because she did not understand it and its terms are overly oppressive. We conclude these arguments lack merit and the trial court properly granted the motion to compel.

Defendant Lequan Imeen appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of one count of evading an officer with reckless driving, one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale, one count of transportation of methamphetamine, one count of possession of heroin and cocaine, and one count of driving without a license.
On appeal, Imeen makes five arguments.

The People charged Joshua David Lopez with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1), unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 2), false representation of identity to a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a); count 3), and driving without a valid driver's license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a); count 4). A jury convicted him of all counts except the robbery charge. In a retrial, another jury convicted him of that count, finding true allegations that Lopez personally used a deadly and dangerous knife in the commission of the robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 12022, subd. (b)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23).) The court sentenced him to a total of four years in prison.

M.M., father of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court’s order continuing the minors in out-of-home placement. Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding of detriment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e) (further unspecified statutory references are to this code). The El Dorado County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) concedes the issue in a letter that offers no explanation for its position. We reject the Agency’s concession and affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Defendant Jason Matthew Robinson pleaded no contest to leaving the scene of an injury accident resulting in the death of a person in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (b)(2) (statutory section references are found in the Vehicle Code unless otherwise set forth), commonly known as hit-and-run, and misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 23152, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced him to four years in prison and ordered him to pay direct victim restitution to the victim’s sister in the amount of $30,600.
On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that the restitution order must be reversed because his criminal conduct, unlawful flight from the scene of the accident, did not cause the victim’s injuries and therefore the economic losses claimed by the victim’s sister were not incurred as the result of his criminal conduct. We will reverse the restitution order and remand this matter for further proceedings.

A jury found defendant Kevin Gary Stewart guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded and operable firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of four years eight months in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends, and the People concede, the trial court erred in failing to stay sentence on his convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a controlled substance under section 654. We agree. Accordingly, we will order the sentence on those convictions stayed, and affirm the judgment as modified.

The parties have a long history of litigation arising from hard money loans secured by deeds of trust. The Rutherfords contend they should have prevailed as a matter of law because (1) Holt acted with malice when he brought an action to quiet title to a lot when earlier litigation had established that he had no ownership interest in it; (2) Holt is barred from asserting any claim on the promissory note by the doctrine of res judicata because he could have litigated it in the quiet title action; and (3) the note was not supported by consideration. We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Holt reasonably believed he had an interest in the property when he brought the quiet title action, he could not have enforced the note in the quiet title action, and the note was supported by consideration. We affirm.

Robert Manuel Diaz, Sr. appeals a judgment following conviction by plea of possession of a firearm by a felon with an admission that he served three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court denied Diaz’s motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm. (§ 1018; People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 894 [statement of rule regarding plea withdrawal].)

Appellant Satish Shetty acquired a home from a homeowners’ association that foreclosed on an assessment lien for unpaid dues. At the time Shetty acquired the property, a bank was foreclosing on it pursuant to a purchase money first trust deed. Shetty did not tender the debt secured by the senior encumbrance. Respondent Bank of New York Mellon (Bank) was the successful credit bidder at auction. Shetty’s junior interest in the property was eliminated.
Shetty sued Bank and the foreclosure trustee, claiming that they wrongfully clouded his title to the property. The second iteration of the pleading added Bank’s attorneys as defendants. The trial court struck Shetty’s claim against the attorneys as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), and sustained demurrers to the pleading without leave to amend.

Wajuba Zymaal McDuffy was 17 years old at the time he shot and killed Mr. Dixie Gibson during an attempted robbery. In 1998, a jury convicted him of first degree murder and found true a personal firearm use enhancement. The trial court sentenced him to a prison term of life plus 10 years without the possibility of parole (LWOP). We affirmed the conviction on appeal.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant John Jaramillo of one count each of assault with a firearm, possession of ammunition, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 22 years four months, including a four-year term pursuant to Penal Code former section 12022.5. Defendant contends the trial court committed evidentiary errors and abused its discretion in denying his motion brought pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
In our original unpublished opinion filed September 29, 2017, we affirmed the judgment of conviction. Defendant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. While defendant’s petition was pending in the Supreme Court, the Legislature amended Penal Code section 12022.5 effective January 1, 2018. The amended statute grants trial courts the discretion to strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement under section 12022.5 in the interests of justice.

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.

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.

Eric Wayne Caples appeals the denial of his Proposition 47 resentencing petition. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) The petition arises from appellant’s 2012 felony conviction for unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851.) The trial court ruled that Vehicle Code section 10851 convictions are ineligible for resentencing; it did not consider whether the facts of this case support reduction of the conviction to a misdemeanor.
After appellant’s petition was denied, the Supreme Court decided People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175 (Page). Page holds that Vehicle Code section 10851 convictions are eligible for resentencing if the petitioning defendant shows (1) the vehicle was worth $950 or less, and (2) the sentence was imposed for theft of the vehicle rather than posttheft driving or a taking without the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. (Page at p. 1188.)
The record is inadequate regarding the two factual showings that must be made under Page.