CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Adrian Singh appeals from a judgment of dismissal with prejudice, following an order sustaining a demurrer by defendant Brinker Restaurant Corporation (erroneously named and served as “Chili’s Inc.”) Singh maintains the trial court erred in ruling his second amended complaint failed to state a valid cause of action. We affirm.

As a result of amendments to California’s workers’ compensation law that took effect in 2013, an injured worker may challenge a decision denying medical treatment by requesting a determination of medical necessity from an independent medical review (IMR) organization. (Lab. Code, §§ 139.5, 4610.5. ) The IMR organization, which is regulated by the Division of Workers’ Compensation of the Department of Industrial Relations (Division) and operates under contract with the administrative director of the Division, designates one or more medical professionals to review pertinent medical records, determine whether the disputed treatment is medically necessary, and prepare a written report including statutorily-required findings to support the reviewer’s determination. (§ 139.5, subd. (a)(1), § 4610.6, subds. (a) through (e); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.10.1 et seq.)

Defendant John Mark Guluarte pleaded no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), and he admitted that he had a prior serious felony conviction that also qualified as a strike (§ 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i)). The trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts, but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant.

Plaintiff Kailash Chandra Chaudhary appeals after the trial court granted defendant Girdhari S. Gupta’s special motion to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) the three numbered causes of action in Chaudhary’s complaint, sustained without leave to amend Gupta’s demurrer to the remaining “unnumbered cause of action,” denied Chaudhary’s motions for reconsideration, and entered a judgment of dismissal. The only ruling properly before us in this appeal is the court’s ruling on the demurrer to the unnumbered cause of action. As to that ruling, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that this cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, and we affirm the judgment of dismissal.

Avery Products Corporation (APC) and CCL Industries appeal from the trial court’s order denying their motion to compel arbitration of Celeste Sanchez’s employment wrongful termination lawsuit. They maintain the court erred in concluding the arbitration agreement was unenforceable. We conclude the contention lacks merit, and we affirm the order.

Defendant Albert Arias Santana and Joel Aguilar were charged together with a deliberate and premeditated attempted murder (Pen Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a); count one), conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a); count two), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count three). The information alleged counts one and two were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Additionally and particularly pertinent to this appeal, it was alleged that defendant, a gang member and principal in the offenses charged in counts one and two, vicariously discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (GBI). (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1).) The jury found defendant guilty of conspiring to commit murder, and active participation in a criminal street gang.

A jury convicted Khanh Hoang Tran of attempting to kidnap a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, §§ 207, subd. (a), 208, subd. (b), 664, subd. (a).)
The court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial (§ 1181, subd. (6) (section 1181(6)), and sentenced defendant to a 10-year prison term.
Defendant argues the court abused its discretion by applying the wrong standard of review to deny his new trial motion. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Ana O. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights over her child, Elena O., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She argues the juvenile court erred when it found the beneficial parent-child relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply. We reject mother’s claim and affirm.

Juvenile dependent A.Z. appeals from the juvenile court’s order at the six-month review hearing (Welf. and Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)(1)) providing his parents, mother, K.G., and father, R.Z., with continued reunification services. A.Z. contends the finding is not supported by substantial evidence and the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering reunification services be continued. We affirm.

Dependency jurisdiction was taken over the six children of Ricardo C. (father) and E.G. (mother), after mother and their youngest child tested positive for methamphetamine at the baby’s birth. While mother was given reunification services, father was denied them. Mother’s services, however, were terminated at the six-month review hearing and a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing was set. The hearing was continued because the Fresno County Department of Social Services (Department) filed its report the day before the hearing. Mother and father were late to the continued hearing, appearing while the juvenile court was in the middle of issuing its findings and orders, which included a finding that the children were adoptable and an order terminating parental rights.

E.G. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her six children, now six-year-old Ju. C., five-year-old Jo. C., four-year-old twins A.C. and R.C., three-year-old I.C., and one-year-old G.G. The children’s father is Ricardo C. (father). Mother contends the juvenile court prejudicially erred when it denied her attorney’s request for a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing, which deprived her of her due process right to a contested hearing on the issues of adoptability and the beneficial parent-child and sibling relationship exceptions to adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i) & (v).) We agree that mother’s due process rights were violated. Therefore, we reverse the juvenile court’s adoptability findings and the termination of parental rights, and remand for the juvenile court to set a new section 366.26 hearing.

Petitioner William Jones is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). On April 21, 2015, petitioner received a rules violation report for use of a controlled substance, log No. FB-15-04-048. On May 17, 2015, petitioner was found guilty of use of a controlled substance based on a positive urinalysis test. Petitioner challenged the rules violation, denying that he provided a urine sample for testing. Petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies, and exhausted his remedy of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Kern County Superior Court. Thereafter, on June 10, 2016, petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following consideration of an informal response, this court issued an order to show cause and appointed counsel to represent petitioner.

Bradley Jaurique (plaintiff) filed a complaint against his former employers, Pelco, Inc. (Pelco) and Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (Schneider Electric) (collectively defendants) alleging wrongful termination and disability-related claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) and the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA) (§ 12945.1 et seq.). Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment.

Appellants Solomon Navarrette (Solomon) and Roman Navarrette (Roman), and codefendant David Escobedo, were charged with multiple offenses arising from the carjacking of Corina Celedon and theft of her car. After a joint jury trial, Solomon and Roman were convicted of count I, carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)); Solomon was separately convicted of count II, unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851); and Roman was separately convicted of count III, car theft with a prior vehicle theft conviction (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)).
Escobedo, the only defendant who testified, was charged with count I, carjacking and count II, unlawfully taking the car. In the same joint trial, Escobedo was found not guilty of all charges. Solomon was sentenced to an aggregate second strike term of 17 years. Roman was sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 years.