CA Unpub Decisions

Prince S., Sr., the father of four-year-old E.S. and three-year-old P.S., appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition orders under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 involving the conduct of Tamara M., the mother of E.S. and P.S. The juvenile court sustained allegations that Tamara “inappropriately physically disciplined” E.S. by hitting her with a shoe and a wooden spoon, abused marijuana, and left the children with a caretaker who in turn left the children with a teenager who was smoking marijuana. Although the petition did not name Prince—he lived in Nevada and had little contact with the children—the court nevertheless ordered him to attend parenting classes and submit to random drug testing. Because substantial evidence supported the court’s jurisdiction findings, and the disposition orders were not an abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Rogelio Rodriguez appeals from the judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of first degree residential burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. Rodriguez admitted to a prior “strike” conviction, which was also alleged as a serious felony prior conviction under section 667, subdivision (a), and four prior convictions under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced him to 14 years in prison. The sentence consisted of the base term of 4 years, doubled to 8 years for the prior strike conviction under section 1170.12, subdivision (b); plus 5 years for a prior serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (a)(1); plus 1 year for a prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Defendant and appellant Gary L. Hudson appeals from a judgment following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction on three felony counts. A five-count information filed on April 6, 2016, charged him with: (1) assault on a peace officer with a semiautomatic firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (d)(2) (counts 1 through 3); (2) possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) (count 4); and (3) possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a prior conviction in violation of section 30305, subdivision (a)(1) (count 5). The jury found Hudson guilty on counts 4 and 5. On count 1, the jury found Hudson not guilty of the charged offense of assault on a peace officer but guilty of the lesser included offense of assault with a firearm in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(2). The jury also found true the special allegation that Hudson used a firearm in committing the offense.

Plaintiff and appellant Aaron Horsley (plaintiff) appeals from a postjudgment order awarding defendant and respondent Tourmaline Real Estate Partners, LLC (defendant) attorney’s fees as a prevailing party under Civil Code section 55. We affirm.

Richard Tunstill (defendant) was convicted by a jury of one count of sale or transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and one count of possession for sale of cocaine base (§ 11351.5). Defendant admitted he had suffered a prior conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance (§ 11370.2) and a prior violent strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of four years for the section 11352 conviction, doubled to eight years pursuant to the Three Strikes law. The court also imposed a three-year enhancement term pursuant to section 11370.2 for defendant’s prior narcotics conviction, for a total of 11 years in prison. The court stayed sentence on the current section 11351.2 conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 654.

An argument between Early Kent Whaley and his live-in girlfriend, Robin Smith, turned violent and ended with Whaley biting off a portion of Smith’s lower lip. Whaley was convicted of mayhem as a lesser included offense of the charged crime of aggravated mayhem. On appeal Whaley contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to instruct the jury that he was not guilty of mayhem if he had acted in self-defense. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Penske Motor Group, LLC, D. Longo, Inc., and Longo Lexus (collectively, Appellants) appeal an order of the Los Angeles Superior Court denying their motion to compel Robert Langley (Langley) to arbitrate the employment claims contained in his complaint for damages and restitution filed in that court. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court found Appellants had failed to prove Langley had electronically signed and consented to be bound by Appellants’ arbitration agreement. As substantial evidence supports the trial court’s order, we affirm.

This is the second appeal involving a decision of the City Council (City Council) of the City of Pomona (City) that: (1) rejects the recommendation in an arbitrator’s Advisory Opinion and Award to reduce the termination of Glenn Sabey (Sabey) from City’s police department to a suspension without pay and benefits, and (2) independently determines that Sabey should be terminated.

Attorney Taxman and his law firm appeal an order under Civil Code section 1714.10 allowing Joseph and Veronique Hourany and Urvashi Sura to amend their complaint against Taxman’s clients, Rahul and Yogesh Paliwal and their related entities, to add allegations that Taxman conspired with the Paliwals to fraudulently induce the Houranys and Sura to invest over $1 million in the Paliwals’ ailing real estate venture. Taxman argues the proposed amended complaint failed to satisfy the prima facie pleading requirement section 1714.10, subdivision (a), imposes on civil conspiracy claims against an attorney. Taxman also raises several other arguments, including that he cannot defend himself without violating the attorney-client privilege, that the claims by the Houranys and Sura are derivative, and that the statute of limitations, laches, the litigation privilege, and the agent-immunity rule all bar the conspiracy claim against him.

David L. Williams appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ronald Brown and Brown’s companies, Ram’s Manufacturing, Inc. and Hydra-Quip Corporation, in Williams’s action to recover for personal injuries he suffered when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a cow in the roadway. Because triable issues of material fact exist regarding ownership of the cow struck by Williams, we reverse.

First City Pacific, Inc. appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found it failed to prove its cause of action for unlawful detainer against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. First City contends the trial court erred in allowing the jury to interpret the parties’ lease agreement. First City also appeals the trial court’s order granting Home Depot’s post-trial motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Because First City does not identify an erroneous ruling or order, we affirm the judgment. We also affirm the order granting Home Depot’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

In April 2014, appellant Terry Louis and defendants below entered into a real estate transaction in which respondent W Partners, LLC bought Louis’s home in Gardena, which Louis then leased-back from respondent. The transaction also granted Louis a right of first refusal to repurchase the home from respondent at fair market value. Almost a year after the parties executed their purchase agreement, and three months after they executed a November 2014 settlement and release agreement, Louis sued the defendants for, among other things, fraud and to quiet title to the home. The first amended complaint revolves entirely on the April 2014 transaction.
After sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to Louis’s first amended complaint without leave to amend, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice.

SA Challenger, Inc. appeals from the judgment confirming an arbitration award of approximately $1.3 million in attorney fees and costs in favor of Gerson I. Fox entered after the arbitrator found Fox was not liable on a loan guaranty because his purported signature on the guaranty was not genuine. Challenger contends the superior court erred in declining to vacate the arbitration award based on the arbitrator’s refusal to hear evidence (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(5)) and denying a setoff for a judgment in favor of Challenger, as assignee, in another action and a sanctions award in favor of Challenger in this proceeding.
We affirm the order denying the petition to vacate the arbitration award, but reverse the judgment and remand for the superior court to enter a new judgment that recognizes a setoff for both the judgment in the other action and the sanctions award in this case.

Appellants, Stephanie F. (Mother) and Jason W. (Father), are the parents of J.W. (Minor), born November 15, 2014. Appellants contend the juvenile court erred in denying Mother’s Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 motion seeking reinstatement of reunification services with Minor and delay of termination of parental rights. We affirm.