CA Unpub Decisions

Slightly less than six years after the foreclosure sale of his real property, plaintiff Thomas L. Kirkpatrick filed this lawsuit against defendant Fred Restrepo, the notary who completed the certificates of acknowledgment verifying the identity of the individuals who signed the deed of trust and its assignment in connection with the foreclosure. Plaintiff claimed that Restrepo did not follow Government Code requirements in completing the acknowledgments. Plaintiff’s claims against the two other defendants— the foreclosing bank, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase Bank), and its subsidiary California Reconveyance Company, the notary’s employer—are barred for the same reason to the extent based on the notary’s conduct, and by other statutes of limitations to the extent based on other conduct. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing this action.

After their venture to subdivide and develop a parcel of residential real estate fell apart, one venturer sued the other and lost. The other then turned around and sued for malicious prosecution of the prior lawsuit, and a jury awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The party facing that verdict now appeals. Both parties’ briefs on appeal misrepresent the facts and the law. Our careful review of approximately 5,000 pages of record spawned by the parties’ near-decade of nonstop litigation nevertheless leads us to conclude that there is no basis to disturb the trial court’s and jury’s rulings on liability or the jury’s award of punitive damages. However, the trial court prejudicially erred in allowing the malicious prosecution plaintiff to seek over $400,000 in attorney’s fees while redacting, on the basis of attorney-client privilege, almost every line of content from the underlying fee bills.

A jury rendered a verdict in favor of appellant Damien Massey on his claims of race discrimination and harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq., “FEHA”). The trial court then granted respondent City of Long Beach’s motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial. We reverse and reinstate the jury’s verdict.

A property owner obtained a permit to build a three-story house on a hillside overlooking Pacific Coast Highway. A neighbor whose view would be partially blocked challenged the issuance of the permit, contending that it violated the City of Los Angeles’s zoning ordinances regarding a structure’s maximum height and minimum setback from the street. After the administrative agency with the last word invalidated the permit, the property owner petitioned for a writ of mandate to reinstate the permit on both grounds. The trial court granted the petition in part and denied it in part, ruling that the permit complied with the rules governing maximum height but did not comply with the rules governing minimum setback. Both the property owner and neighbor appeal. We conclude there was no error, and affirm.

Santiago Ayala and Jizette Nahapetian appeal the judgments entered following a jury trial in which they were convicted of the first degree murder of Breanne Hanna (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and possession of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a); count 2). In addition, the jury found true the gang enhancement allegations as to both appellants and both offenses. Regarding appellants’ murder convictions, the jury found true two special circumstance allegations under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(15) and (22) for lying in wait and gang participation, as well as three firearm enhancement allegations (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)–(e)). The trial court sentenced both appellants to prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), plus 30 years to life. We affirm the judgments of conviction as to both appellants. We remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of the imposition of the gun enhancement in light of Senate Bill No. 620.

Ralph Eugene Todd appeals from a final judgment after he pleaded no contest to six counts of committing lewd or lascivious acts upon a child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) Having reviewed the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we find no arguable appellate issue and affirm.

D.F. (Father) and J.D. (Mother) appeal from an order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, which terminated their parental rights and selected adoption as the permanent plan for L.F. (minor). Mother contends the court erred in terminating her parental rights because she had a beneficial relationship with the minor. Father joins in Mother’s argument and asserts that, if the termination of Mother’s parental rights is reversed, the termination of his parental rights should be reversed too.
We will affirm the order.

Appellant Marcus T. Bryant appeals from a judgment following a contested probation revocation hearing. Appellant’s counsel originally raised no issue on appeal and asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there were any arguable issues. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant’s counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We directed the parties to file supplemental briefing regarding custody credits, previously waived by appellant, that were credited to appellant at his final sentencing. After consideration of that briefing, we affirm.

Appellant Richard Lee Bolton, Jr. (appellant) appeals following his no contest plea to one count of maintaining a location for the unlawful sale of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11366). He contends the search warrant that yielded the evidence underlying the charge was not supported by probable cause and the trial court erred in other respects related to the search warrant. We affirm.

Darrell Hunter was convicted of making criminal threats. On his direct appeal, he contends the trial court erred in failing to give a jury instruction on unanimity and in denying his motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He also raises the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we hereby order consolidated with the appeal. For the reasons explained herein, we conclude the relief sought in the petition must be granted. Accordingly, we will vacate the judgment and dismiss the appeal as moot.

Defendant Neil Aunko sexually abused his young stepdaughter, A., for over two years. After he also engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with A.’s friend, M., the girls reported his actions to A.’s mother. A jury convicted him of forty counts of various sexual offenses against children, and the trial court sentenced him to 195 years to life in prison.
On appeal, Aunko claims that his convictions must be reversed because of errors involving expert testimony about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), a model that describes typical responses of child victims of sexual abuse. He also argues that, even if we do not reverse his convictions, remand is required because the court failed to conduct an in camera review of A.’s psychological records to search for evidence that might have supported his motion for a new trial. We reject these contentions and affirm.

Elena Thibault purports to appeal an order denying her request for modification of child visitation. We shall dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Darrell Hunter appeals from a conviction of making a criminal threat. He contends that, due to his incompetence during the trial, the court erred in failing to suspend proceedings and conduct a competency examination, in denying a motion for new trial and in failing to hold a hearing to determine whether appellant’s absence from trial was voluntary. He further contends his right to a fair trial was violated by juror misconduct during voir dire. In a related petition for writ of habeas corpus, he contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s failure to investigate and present a defense based on his mental state at the time of the charged offense. We will affirm the conviction and deny the petition.

D.C. (the minor) was placed in protective custody in April 2016 following his birth. A.L. (Mother) tested positive for amphetamines and methadone at the time she delivered the minor. The minor suffered from respiratory distress and withdrawal symptoms, and he was not released from the hospital until 24 days after his birth.
The Santa Cruz County Human Services Department, real party in interest (Department), filed a petition alleging the failure of Mother and Father to protect and provide support for their children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). It was alleged in the petition that Mother and Father had longstanding untreated substance abuse problems, and that Father had untreated mental health issues. In June 2016, the minor was placed with his paternal grandmother, R.C., petitioner herein (Petitioner).