CA Unpub Decisions

Parkside raises three issues on appeal. First, Parkside asserts the trial court erred by finding Parkside failed to prove damages with reasonable certainty. Second, Parkside contends the trial court erred in ruling that the due on sale clause provided a basis for the foreclosure. Third, Parkside contends the trial court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees. We affirm the judgment.

In this probate case, which was decided by way of a reference under Code of Civil Procedure section 638, the referee ordered that a trust be reformed. Although an amendment to the trust written by the settlors, a husband and wife, arguably named two of the husband's children as trustees only, the referee determined that extrinsic evidence offered by the children established that, by way of the amendment, the settlors intended that the children take the husband's portion of the trust's assets.
The prior beneficiary under the trust, a niece of the wife, opposed the children's interpretation of the amendment and on appeal challenges the referee's order reforming the trust on a number of grounds. As we explain more fully below, we reject the niece's contentions and affirm the judgment reforming the trust.

Appellant Brian Tresp appeals from an order dividing the proceeds of a sale of real property previously owned by Tresp and his former wife, Julie Griech. On appeal, Tresp claims that the trial court erred in determining that Griech did not transmute her interest in the real property to Tresp.
The record on appeal does not contain Griech's "Request for Order" pursuant to which the court found that Griech did not transmute her interest in the property. The record on appeal also does not contain the declarations that Griech offered in support of her request, nor several of the exhibits that she lodged with the declarations. The record also does not contain a full reporter's transcript of the hearings pursuant to which the court found that Griech did not transmute her interest in the property. The law is clear that where an appellant does not provide an adequate record to permit review of the merits of his claim, a reviewing court must affirm the order at issue.

Defendant Chic Gordon appeals from her conviction of failing to maintain control of a dangerous animal causing serious bodily injury, a felony. (Pen. Code, § 399, subd. (b).) Initially, the trial court suspended sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for 36 months. The court also awarded victim restitution to the Butte County Animal Control (Animal Control) in the amount of $1,710 to reimburse the agency its costs of impounding defendant’s dogs after they injured the victim. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Less than three months later, the district attorney filed a petition to revoke probation. He later withdrew the petition when defendant declined to be on probation any longer and requested to be sentenced. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the middle term of two years. It also reaffirmed its earlier victim restitution order.

The juvenile court sustained allegations that W.P. (Father), the presumed father of two-year-old Kira P., suffered from an untreated mental illness that placed the child at risk of physical harm, and that Maria S. (Mother), Kira’s mother, was unable to protect the child from Father. The court declared Kira a dependent child, released her to Mother’s custody, and terminated its jurisdiction with an exit order granting Mother sole legal and physical custody and Father monitored visitation with Kira. Father challenges the court’s jurisdictional findings and contends the court acted in excess of its authority when it terminated jurisdiction at the conclusion of the disposition hearing. 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).) We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Diaz’s motion to withdraw his plea, and affirm. (§ 1018; People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 894 [statement of rule regarding plea withdrawal].)

This family—mother C.M., father J.A., and their four children, Jo. M., Ju. M., S.M. and K.M.—has a long and disheartening history with the juvenile justice system. The three eldest children, born in 2005, 2006, and 2007, were initially brought into the dependency system in 2007 as a result of the parents’ domestic violence, neglect, mother’s drug abuse and father’s alcohol abuse. The youngest child, K.M., was born in 2008, during pendency of the initial juvenile court proceedings, and he was declared a dependent as well. At the time, J.A. was deemed the presumed father of the two eldest children, Jo. M. and Ju. M., but not as to S.M. or K.M. Jurisdiction was terminated in December 2009 with family law “exit orders” granting mother full legal and physical custody of the children.

The trial court determined defendant Henry Nolkemper, although eligible to have her three strikes prison sentence reduced under Penal Code section 1170.126, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36), posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and denied the petition to reduce her sentence. Defendant argues the trial court applied the wrong standard to determine she posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and abused its discretion by admitting and considering her prison disciplinary record and faulting her for not participating in rehabilitative programs designed to facilitate an eventual transition out of the prison system. The trial court applied the correct legal standard to determine defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Defendant forfeited the challenge to the trial court’s admission of, and reliance on, evidence of her prison disciplinary record.

Michael Novak and Novak Business Solutions Corporation (collectively “appellant”) appeals from a final judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (respondent) on appellant’s claims against respondent for fraudulent inducement; negligent misrepresentation; disparate treatment -- age discrimination; and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. We find no error, therefore we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff and appellant Andrew Keegan Heying (plaintiff) appeals from the trial court’s order granting a special motion to strike, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, all of the causes of action asserted against defendants and respondents Newsmax Media, Inc. (Newsmax) and Morgan Chilson (collectively, defendants), in this action for defamation and other claims. We affirm the trial court’s order.

A jury found Arturo Castro guilty of murder, attempted murder, and shooting at an occupied vehicle. The jury also found true the allegations that he used a firearm and committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Castro was sentenced to a total of 82 years to life. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in (1) allowing detectives to testify about videos depicting the crime, (2) declining to investigate allegations of juror misconduct, and (3) finding he had served prison terms for prior felony convictions. We find no reversible error and affirm, but also direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment.

After the companies terminated the second agreement, Howland and Howland, Inc. sued, alleging age discrimination, wrongful termination, and failure to pay all wages due. Plaintiffs also asserted related tort and contract claims arising from the companies’ purported breach of the agreements and plaintiffs’ termination. Plaintiffs also alleged the same claims against a sixth defendant, Farmers Group, Inc. (FGI), who was not a party to either agreement but whom plaintiffs claimed was an undisclosed principal and alter ego of the other defendants.
Following a series of demurrers and amended complaints, the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to portions of plaintiffs’ third amended complaint without leave to amend. In particular, the court found that plaintiffs could not plead employment claims because of the contractual language classifying them as independent contractors rather than employees.

After foreclosure proceedings were initiated against property owners who fell behind on loan payments, the owners assigned their rights to any claims and causes of action relating to the property to plaintiff and appellant Satish Shetty (plaintiff). Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal district court against approximately a dozen parties, including defendants and respondents Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (MERSCORP), U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Series 2006-6 (U.S. Bank), and Aurora Bank FSB (Aurora) (collectively, defendants).

This appeal arises in connection with three lawsuits filed concerning landslides that occurred in the Malibu area in 2010 and 2011. The suits were consolidated, and the majority of the claims were resolved via a settlement agreement and a series of stipulated judgments. Cross-complainant and appellant Cho Yiu Kwan declined to participate in the settlement and continued to pursue his claims against the other parties, including cross-defendant and respondent Megan Hofferth. The trial court ultimately presided over an uncontested bench trial at which Kwan presented evidence in an effort to establish Hofferth and her co-defendant husband, A. Dean Isaacson, were liable for certain damages. The trial court determined Isaacson was liable but found Hofferth was not.