CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants and appellants Thomas Girardi (Girardi), G&L Aviation (G&L), 1122 Wilshire Partnership, 1126 Wilshire Partnership, and Girardi Keese (G&K) (collectively, the Girardi defendants) appeal an interlocutory judgment of partition of real property.
The essential issue presented is whether plaintiff and respondent Lee Lipscomb (Lipscomb) established an entitlement to the remedy of partition. We conclude the trial court applied incorrect criteria to conclude that Lipscomb did not waive the right to partition. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

Anthony Enrique Mompeller appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, and driving with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol level. The jury also found true allegations that Mompeller had previously been convicted of a DUI offense, and willfully refused to submit to a chemical test. The trial court sentenced him to a total term of six years in state prison. On appeal, Mompeller contends the trial court erred by denying his request to bifurcate the trial on his prior DUI conviction, and by informing the jury that he was charged with a prior DUI allegation. Mompeller also contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no prejudicial error and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Jamie Willard challenges his convictions on two counts of attempted murder. He contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to opinion testimony from a police witness regarding the reliability of witness perception and memory shortly after a traumatic event. In addition, Willard contends that he is eligible for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 620), which became effective after Willard’s conviction, and which gives trial courts the discretion to strike certain firearm enhancements during sentencing. We affirm Willard’s convictions but remand the case for resentencing regarding the firearm enhancements.

A mother and her adult son, Sara and Guy Hart, assert an interest in a piece of real property whose title is in the name of another son, Don Hart. The property is in foreclosure, and Sara and Guy seek to stay the foreclosure until such time as they can obtain legal title to the property and then, as owners, remedy the default by negotiating a loan modification. While their title suit against Don was pending, they brought this action against the foreclosing lender, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, seeking a declaration that Nationstar could not proceed with the foreclosure until their title dispute was resolved. The trial court concluded Sara and Guy had no right to delay the foreclosure, and granted summary judgment to Nationstar. Sara and Guy appeal; we affirm.

Lamujadu Koromah appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of one count of attempted murder. He contends the evidence of intent and deliberation was insufficient and the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on attempted voluntary manslaughter. We affirm.

Eric Suarez appeals judgments following conviction of second degree robbery with a finding that the crime was committed to benefit a criminal street gang (Case No. 2013039515), and second degree robbery with findings of a prior serious felony and strike conviction (Case No. 2014035243). (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 667, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) We strike the three year four month term imposed for the criminal street gang enhancement, but otherwise affirm.

Nestor C. Tuazon filed a complaint against his former employer, respondent Southern California Permanente Medical Group, alleging age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing that appellant had failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation, and that even if he did, respondent had presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonretaliatory reasons for the adverse employment action. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed the complaint. Appellant contends the trial court erred, arguing he produced evidence sufficient to meet his burden to make a prima facie case.

Josue Farfan and his brother Edgar Farfan (defendants) were convicted by jury of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), kidnapping for robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)) and second degree robbery (§ 211). The jury found true the special circumstances allegation that the murder was committed while the defendants were engaged in the commission of a robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (17).) The trial court sentenced both defendants to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) plus five years for the robbery conviction. The court stayed the sentence for the kidnapping conviction pursuant to section 654.
Defendants appeal from the judgment of conviction. Josue contends the trial court erred in compelling his wife, Jennifer Medina to testify and also erred in admitting Edgar’s pretrial statement to police. Josue also contends the abstract of judgment must be corrected to match the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence.

Plaintiff and appellant Frances Archibold worked as a customer service agent for defendant and respondent Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC) until 2013, when the company terminated her employment. TWC alleged that Archibold had violated company policy by falsifying customer satisfaction surveys. Archibold filed a complaint alleging disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) and wrongful termination. She claimed that TWC’s explanation for her termination was a pretext, and that the company fired her because of her recurrent medical leaves and need for accommodation for several medical conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of TWC, and Archibold appeals from the judgment. We affirm.

Herberth Danilo Granados (Granados) appeals an order denying his motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to one count of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1) and one count of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a), count 2), and asserts sentencing error. Because Granados waived his appellate rights when he entered his plea, and because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause with respect to the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea, we dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiffs and appellants Steven Wayne Keefer and Patricia Ann Nelson Keefer (the Keefers) appeal a judgment on a special verdict in favor of defendant and respondent Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) in a lemon law action involving their 2015 Hyundai Genesis. The issues presented relate to two evidentiary rulings excluding certain evidence proffered by plaintiffs. The trial court disallowed the testimony of Joseph Bartlett (Bartlett) because plaintiffs did not disclose this witness until after the close of discovery, even though they were aware of Bartlett for nearly a year before the discovery cutoff date. The trial court also excluded a work order on the ground it was double hearsay.
We perceive no abuse of discretion in either of these evidentiary rulings and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted appellant Kendrick D. Chester of robbery, in violation of Penal Code section 211, and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of section 422, subdivision (a). The jury also found true an allegation pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b), that Chester personally used a firearm in the robbery. The trial court sentenced Chester to 15 years in prison, including a 10-year enhancement as a result of the firearm allegation.

The Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) and minor Joseph H., through counsel, appeal from juvenile court orders declining to terminate parental rights and selecting legal guardianship as Joseph’s permanent plan at a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Appellants contend the court’s finding that the benefits of continuing Joseph’s relationship with his father (Father) outweighed the benefits of adoption was unsupported by the evidence and an abuse of discretion. The Agency also asserts the finding that Father maintained regular visitation is unsupported by substantial evidence. The court’s orders have evidentiary support in the record and are within its discretionary authority, so we affirm.

Appellant Manuel Martinez is a prisoner, now at Centinela State Prison in Imperial. Earlier, while he was at Pelican Bay State Prison, Martinez ordered a book, Sword Song I: Sisterhood of Steel (2008) (the book). The prison officials confiscated it, on the basis it depicted nude paintings and violence.
In October 2015, Martinez filed a petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or declaratory relief, naming two defendants: Jeffrey Beard, then the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department), and C.E. Ducart, warden of Pelican Bay. The petition alleged that the book was confiscated based on an invalid regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3006, subd. (c)(17)), and that it was confiscated because it depicted nude and partially nude women and acts of violence. The petition also challenged the confiscation as “an infringement on his statutory rights” and “the overbroad policy of not allowing inmates to view confiscated items.”