CA Unpub Decisions

Jan Charles Biro appealed from a civil harassment restraining order in favor of Geoffrey R. Keyes, M.D. We affirm the court’s order.

Plaintiff and appellant Arthur Andelson’s (plaintiff’s) father initially arranged to have his remains cremated and scattered at sea off the coast of Los Angeles County upon his death. After plaintiff’s father died, plaintiff’s brother, Robert Andelson (Robert), scattered the father’s ashes off the coast of Orange County. Plaintiff sued two mortuaries that were involved in handling his father’s remains, defendants and appellants Neptune Management Corp. d/b/a Neptune Society-Sherman Oaks (Neptune Sherman Oaks) and Leneda, Inc. d/b/a Neptune Society of Riverside (Neptune Riverside) (collectively, defendants). Plaintiff’s complaint asserted numerous theories of liability, most of which ultimately derived from plaintiff’s contention that defendants should never have given his father’s cremated remains to Robert. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted defendants’ motions. We now consider whether summary judgment was gr

Plaintiff Marion Liu (Liu) and her husband, Augustine Liu, sued defendant Janssen Research & Development, LLC (JRD, defendant) for the wrongful death of their son, Augustine Liu II (Augustine). At the time of his death, Augustine was participating in a drug trial for a new medication, Risperidone, and had received a one-milligram test dose.
Liu’s husband died before trial, but Liu was permitted to proceed on his behalf as his successor in interest. Before the matter was submitted to the jury, however, the trial court determined the claims by Liu’s husband for noneconomic damages did not survive his passing and entered judgment in defendant’s favor against Liu in her successor capacity. Liu timely appealed (B269318).

After the nonjudicial foreclosure of her home, plaintiff and appellant Zita Shing Chua sued defendants and respondents MortgageIT, Inc.; Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (Northwest); CitiMortgage, Inc.; Citicorp Mortgage Securities, Inc. (Citicorp); Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS); and U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) for, among other things, wrongful foreclosure and violations of the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (HBOR). The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers to Chua’s first amended complaint without leave to amend on the primary grounds that she lacked standing and failed to state facts sufficient to constitute her causes of action. We dismiss the appeal as to MortgageIT because it is untimely and affirm the judgment as to the remaining defendants.

Appellant Marlin Tanner appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) Following entry of that order, appellant pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance and to felony transportation of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351, 11352, subd. (a).) Appellant admitted several prior conviction allegations (Health & Saf. Code, §11370.2; Pen. Code, § §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e), 667.5, subd. (b)) and was sentenced to three years in state prison. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), requesting that we conduct an independent review of the entire record on appeal. Having done so, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Steven Braslaw appeals from a judgment entered after the court ordered summary adjudication of his liability for raping respondent Jane Doe and a jury determined her damages. He contends: the court erred in granting Doe’s summary adjudication motion because his criminal conviction for raping Doe did not preclude him from introducing evidence that he was not civilly liable; he demonstrated a triable issue of fact; summary adjudication cannot be obtained for liability only; and the order prejudiced his right to a fair trial. He further asserts that the court’s grant of Doe’s motions in limine prejudiced his ability to represent himself at the damages trial. We will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Edward Ghabbour suffered a judgment in Virginia. Plaintiff Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC) domesticated the judgment in California. Ghabbour moved to vacate it. The court denied the motion. In a prior opinion, we reversed in part and instructed the court to set a hearing to consider Ghabbour’s claim that the Virginia judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.
On remand, the court set a hearing for December 2015 to discuss the procedure for resolving that issue. The parties were each to submit a brief 10 days before the hearing. Ghabbour was properly served by mail at his address in Anaheim, but failed to file a brief or appear. The court set a hearing on the merits for February 29, 2016, and ordered ARC’s attorney to give notice and provide a briefing schedule.

Petitioner Guadalupe Z. is the mother of three sons, 17-year-old Jose, 10-year-old Osvaldo and three-year-old Jose, Jr., and three daughters, 15-year-old A.Z., eight-year-old J.Z., and five-year-old Arianna, the subjects of this writ petition. In September 2017, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services as to A.Z. and Jose, Jr., after 24 months of reunification services (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.25) and removed Jose, Osvaldo, J.Z. and Arianna from her custody pursuant to a supplemental petition (§ 387) and denied her reunification services. The court also set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan of legal guardianship for the children.
Guadalupe (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s orders. We deny the petition.

Defendant and appellant Juan Miguel Lopez stands convicted of three counts of second-degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. It also was found true as to all counts that defendant personally used a firearm, within the meaning of sections 12022.5, subdivision (a) and 12022.53, subdivision (b). Defendant admitted suffering two prior strikes within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and two serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). Defendant was sentenced to a total determinate term of 35 years and 8 months in prison. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on September 9, 2015. Appellate counsel initially filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirmed in an opinion filed November 2, 2017.
On November 6, 2017, defendant filed a petition for rehearing, which we granted on November 14, 2017, and directed briefing on the application of Senate Bill No. 620 to this case.

Appellant Martha Nichole Jensen pled no contest to four counts of willful harm or injury to a child in violation of Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a), in exchange for dismissal of other counts, including a first degree murder count, and a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years. The trial court denied probation and imposed a sentence of 10 years total imprisonment, in accordance with the plea agreement.
Jensen contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation, relied upon impermissible factors and failed to consider some mitigating factors in imposing sentence, and defense counsel was ineffective. We affirm.

Jaco Oil Company (Jaco Oil) appeals from the judgment entered for defendant, Sullivan Petroleum Company (Sullivan Petroleum), following a bench trial. The trial court found Jaco Oil had not proven its claims against Sullivan Petroleum for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, money had and received, and declaratory relief. Jaco Oil also contests the trial court’s subsequent award of attorney fees. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Defendant Jason Matthew Aguirre was convicted of three felonies and five misdemeanors in two different actions. Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his multiple motions to substitute counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). Defendant further asserts he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant J.N. (Grandmother) filed a request to change a court order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388.) The juvenile court summarily denied Grandmother’s request. Grandmother contends the juvenile court erred by summarily denying her request. We affirm the order.

Defendant Brandon Hunter appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18; undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He contends the trial court erred in denying the petition as to one of his convictions for receiving stolen property. We shall reverse and remand for additional proceedings on the petition.