CA Unpub Decisions

A. G.M.’s Gestation and Birth
On May 26, 2016, Mayra Soto, G.M.’s mother, visited Dr. Fred Adams for a routine gynecologic visit. Soto reported she was 14 weeks pregnant.
Soto returned to see Dr. Adams on June 24, 2016. Dr. Adams’s examination findings were all within normal limits.
G.M. was born in November 2016. An initial examination showed a dark vesicular lesion on her lower sacral area that was initially diagnosed as a capillary hemangioma, but ultimately diagnosed as an intrathecal lipoma with a spinal dysraphism (anomaly) consistent with a lipomyelomeningocele, a “closed” neural tube defect.
The lesion was removed on October 12, 2017.
B. Litigation
On December 30, 2019, G.M., by her guardian ad litem Jose Maya, filed a complaint against several defendants, including Dr. Adams and Jazmin Cruz, his medical assistant. After substantial law and motion practice, the first amended complaint is operative.

A. G.M.’s Gestation and Birth
On May 26, 2016, Mayra Soto, G.M.’s mother, visited Dr. Fred Adams for a routine gynecologic visit. Soto reported she was 14 weeks pregnant.
Soto returned to see Dr. Adams on June 24, 2016. Dr. Adams’s examination findings were all within normal limits.
G.M. was born in November 2016. An initial examination showed a dark vesicular lesion on her lower sacral area that was initially diagnosed as a capillary hemangioma, but ultimately diagnosed as an intrathecal lipoma with a spinal dysraphism (anomaly) consistent with a lipomyelomeningocele, a “closed” neural tube defect.
The lesion was removed on October 12, 2017.
B. Litigation
On December 30, 2019, G.M., by her guardian ad litem Jose Maya, filed a complaint against several defendants, including Dr. Adams and Jazmin Cruz, his medical assistant. After substantial law and motion practice, the first amended complaint is operative.

Weischadle fell on an escalator at Los Angeles International Airport in September 2015 and sued the City (named in the lawsuit as Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), a City department) for premises liability. During most of the trial Weischadle represented herself; the Charboneau defendants represented the City. After Weischadle failed to present any admissible evidence to support her claim of dangerous condition of public property, the trial court granted the City’s motion for nonsuit. Weischadle moved for a new trial, arguing the court had erred in sustaining the City’s objections to her proposed evidence on hearsay grounds and excluding it. She also argued the City had failed to produce critical evidence she had requested during discovery, such as surveillance video footage depicting the accident and the identities of, and contact information for, two employees of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) who had witnessed the accident.

In a complaint filed May 29, 2020 Haas alleged he had been given Luna (a pit bull) in 2013 and she lived with him in his tent on the streets until January 2020. Luna suffered a seizure in 2019 that left her hind legs paralyzed.
According to Haas’s complaint, a man and a woman approached Haas on January 24, 2020 and offered him a table. After helping him set it up, the woman took Luna without Haas’s permission and put the dog in the couple’s car. When Haas asked for Luna’s return, the individuals said she looked sick and they wanted to take her to a veterinarian. They said they would return Luna to Hass after she had been evaluated. The couple then drove off with the dog.
Haas reported the incident to the police, who, after some investigation, told Haas the individuals who took Luna were friends of Littleton, the owner of Little Love Rescue.

On July 13, 2020, the trial court entered a postjugment order awarding attorney fees and costs to plaintiff Kareemah Mateen-Bradford, as prevailing party against defendant City of Compton (the City) but denying a separate request for fees and costs made by real party Wesierski & Zurek. All three parties appealed from the postjudgment order.
Shortly after Wesierski & Zurek filed its opening brief, we filed an unpublished opinion in the City’s separate appeal from the underlying judgment in which we reversed the judgment in favor of plaintiff. (Bradford v. City of Compton (Oct. 28, 2021, B300491) [nonpub. opn.].) Plaintiff then filed her opening brief conceding that once our unpublished opinion reversing the judgment became final, it would moot the appeals from the attorney fees award. In response, the City filed a motion for summary reversal of the fee award and dismissal of the appeals, but it withdrew the motion after plaintiff filed her petition for review in the Supreme Court.

BlockFi is a Delaware limited liability company and is licensed as a finance lender and broker by the California Department of Business Oversight.
In September 2019, Gerro obtained two loans from BlockFi secured by bitcoin.
In February 2020, Gerro refinanced the loans, which together totaled $2.275 million.
The parties executed a written loan and security agreement for each transaction. Section 4(d) or 4(e) in each agreement states, “Priority. Lender shall have actual possession of, and a first priority security interest in, the [c]ollateral.” (Bold omitted.)
Section 5(a)(vi) states that the borrower “pledges, assigns, transfers and delivers to Lender, and grants to Lender a continuing and unconditional first priority security interest in all of Borrower’s present and future rights, title and interest in the [collateral, including] . . . [¶] . . . [¶] (vi) all proceeds of the foregoing.”

Jarallah was a member of a wealthy Saudi Arabian family. In 1999, he was an undergraduate engineering and economics student at the University of Southern California. He met Kandeel, an economics Ph.D. student and teaching assistant, in an economics department computer lab and they became friends.
While at USC, Jarallah started a company called Native Names which “had the technology for typing website addresses in different languages.” Mohammad financed the company. Jarallah hired Kandeel as Native Names’ director of business development. Jarallah was satisfied with Kandeel’s performance and Mohammad was very satisfied with his investment in the company. Other successful business ventures involving Jarallah and Kandeel followed.
In 2004, Mohammad asked Jarallah to manage the family investment portfolio which, at that time, was worth from $800 million to $1 billion.

Jarallah was a member of a wealthy Saudi Arabian family. In 1999, he was an undergraduate engineering and economics student at the University of Southern California. He met Kandeel, an economics Ph.D. student and teaching assistant, in an economics department computer lab and they became friends.
While at USC, Jarallah started a company called Native Names which “had the technology for typing website addresses in different languages.” Mohammad financed the company. Jarallah hired Kandeel as Native Names’ director of business development. Jarallah was satisfied with Kandeel’s performance and Mohammad was very satisfied with his investment in the company. Other successful business ventures involving Jarallah and Kandeel followed.
In 2004, Mohammad asked Jarallah to manage the family investment portfolio which, at that time, was worth from $800 million to $1 billion.

On October 8, 2021, the Marin County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed section 300 petitions alleging Minors, then six years old and one year old, were at substantial risk of suffering harm because of Mother’s inability “to supervise or protect [them] adequately due to mental health concerns.”
In a report filed in advance of the detention hearing, the Department reported that Mother went to the emergency room on October 6 with physical complaints, and was placed on a section 5150 psychiatric hold due to “histrionic behaviors” and “paranoid statements,” including statements that people were videotaping her and breaking into her home while she slept. After being placed in the psychiatric unit, Mother stated a camera had been installed in her vehicle’s license plate and she had been followed to the hospital, whoever had been following her had a key to her hospital room, and she had heard multiple attempts to open her room with a key.

The California Gambling Control Commission denied the application of Sutter’s Place, Inc. (Sutter) to increase the number of gaming tables it could have in a cardroom it operates in the city of San José. The Commission denied Sutter’s application because it believed the requested increase exceeded the number of tables permitted by the Gambling Control Act. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19800 et seq. ) Sutter petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the Commission to set aside its decision. The trial court denied the petition.
There are no disputed facts. The sole issue is one of law, specifically the interplay of state statutes and municipal ordinances. The parties correctly agree that in these circumstances our review is de novo. (Weatherford v. City of San Rafael (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1241 1246-1247; Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 717, 724.)

G.P. pled no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and attempted second degree robbery (§§ 211, 664). The juvenile court adjudged him a ward of the court, placed him on probation, and imposed numerous probation conditions. Those conditions include a curfew and requirements to attend school regularly; maintain passing grades; report to the probation officer as directed; stay in his parent’s home; obey all reasonable directives of his parents and the probation officer; and avoid all contact and communication with I.S.--G.P.’s accomplice in the robbery.
A few months later, G.P.’s mother reported to the Napa Police Department that G.P. ran away from home and failed to report to his probation officer. Around that time, G.P. asked for a place to stay by posting on the social media app Snapchat.
A detective from the Napa Police Department located G.P. at his place of work and attempted to place him under arrest.

Appellant and codefendant Joseph Evert Coley were charged with first degree murder (§ 187) and attempted murder (§§ 187, 664), with allegations that both crimes were gang-related and committed with the use of a firearm (§§ 186.22, subds. (b)(1) & (f), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d), & (e)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)). (People v. Peters (Jan. 4, 2013, A131097) [nonpub. opn.].) The surviving victim told police Coley was driving a car that passed by when the shots were fired, but testified at trial he did not see a car or driver at the time of the shooting. (Ibid.) Two witnesses testified pursuant to plea agreements that they were in Coley’s car with Coley and appellant when the group saw the victims, one of whom was believed to be a rival gang member, and that appellant leaned out the passenger window and fired shots when they drove by them. (Ibid.)

In March 2015, Turley, a former nonexempt employee of Chipotle, filed a class action complaint against Chipotle in San Francisco County Superior Court on behalf of a putative class of all nonexempt California employees (the Turley action). As amended in July 2015, the complaint in this action alleged seven causes of action: (1) failure to make timely payment of wages (§§ 201–203); (2) failure to provide compliant wage statements (§ 226, subd. (a)); (3) failure to provide proper response to document request (§ 226, subds. (b), (c) & (f)); (4) failure to provide proper rest breaks (§ 226.7); (5) failure to provide proper meal breaks (§ 226.7); (6) disgorgement of profits and injunction under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.); and (7) a PAGA claim for civil penalties.

Ervin Lopez was walking from a market towards his home at about noon on July 31, 2020. Appellant came out of a house and asked Lopez for his cell phone and wallet. Lopez refused, and the two men struggled until appellant reached into Lopez's pocket and took his phone. Appellant fled to the same house from which he had emerged, dropping his wallet on the way. Lopez retrieved the wallet and attempted to catch up to appellant but was unable to do so.
Lopez stayed in the area for about five hours, unable to call anyone because his cell phone had been taken. Eventually, a passer-by allowed Lopez to use his phone to call the police. Lopez went to a nearby community center where he met San Mateo Police Officer Ramirez, who took a description of the robbery suspect and inspected the wallet that the suspect had dropped.