CA Unpub Decisions

Anne Pegula through her guardian ad litem, her son Ronald Pegula, sued La Mirada Healthcare, LLC dba Imperial Healthcare Center for elder abuse, negligence and violation of the Patient’s Bill of Rights. La Mirada petitioned to compel arbitration of the dispute based on an agreement to arbitrate claims involving medical malpractice Ronald had signed shortly after Anne was admitted to the skilled nursing facility owned by La Mirada’s predecessor-in-interest, Life Care Centers of America. The trial court denied the petition, finding La Mirada had not established that Ronald had authority as Anne’s agent or ostensible agent to bind her to arbitrate her claims against the facility and its owner. We affirm.

A woman slipped and fell on the step just outside of a restaurant’s front entrance. She and her husband sued the restaurant and the parking valet company for her injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment to the valet company, finding no evidence that the valet had any control over the steps on the restaurant’s property or that it otherwise agreed to guide restaurant patrons safely from their cars into the restaurant and back out again. The woman and her husband appeal. We conclude the trial court’s ruling is correct, and affirm.

Maureen Kindred, in propria persona, appeals from a judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Alan M. Kindred following a contested trial. She challenges numerous factual findings made by the trial court in characterizing and apportioning assets. The trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence. We therefore affirm.

At the joint trial by separate juries of defendants and appellants Victor Gibson and Nicholas Gibson for various sexual offenses, the trial court excluded evidence that the victim, Ashley, had made a prior false complaint of sexual abuse and that she had herself perpetrated a sex crime. On appeal, defendants contend that the court erred in excluding that evidence. The parties agree that the amount of penalty assessments imposed must be modified. We therefore modify the penalty assessments imposed but otherwise affirm the judgments as modified.

Fidelina Garcia appeals from the trial court’s denial of her Penal Code section 1016.5 (§ 1016.5) motion to vacate the judgment and to withdraw her no contest plea to one count of transportation of a controlled substance. Garcia contends she was not properly advised of the immigration consequences of her plea. We conclude the advisement substantially complied with the statutory requirements. We affirm.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s award of $158,616.90 in attorney fees to prevailing party EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. (EDF), following the court’s grant of summary judgment for EDF. DIII Properties, Inc. (DIII) appeals, contending “there is no legal basis for an award of attorneys’ fees to EDF.”
We conclude the parties’ amended easement agreement—which contains a prevailing party attorney fee clause—authorizes an award of attorney fees to EDF. Accordingly, we affirm.

Appellant James Bowen appeals his convictions for battery and inflicting corporal injury on his girlfriend, Jane Doe. He argues the court failed to instruct the jury about the application of instructions on self-defense and defense of property to the lesser included offense of battery. He further argues the court should have instructed the jury on his right to eject a trespasser from his real property (here, a vehicle). We conclude Bowen has forfeited the argument about the jury instructions application to the lesser included offense, and in any event, the claim fails on the merits. We also conclude that the court properly refused to provide an instruction on defense of real property against a trespasser. We affirm.

Plaintiffs Kevin and Ingrid Lawson (the Lawsons) appeal from a postjudgment order awarding attorneys’ fees in the amount of $137,150.00 to defendants PNC Bank, N.A. (PNC Bank) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) (collectively, the banks) in a nonjudicial foreclosure case. We affirm the order.

In this appeal, Mishcon De Reya New York, LLP (Mishcon), a New York law firm, seeks reversal of an order denying its motion to vacate dismissal of a lawsuit between Grail Semiconductor, Inc. (Grail) and respondent Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA (Mitsubishi). The superior court determined that Mishcon had not preserved its right to recover attorney fees from Grail, because it had failed to perfect its lien on Grail’s recovery from Mitsubishi. We agree and therefore must affirm the order.

The present appeal arises out of a dispute over the sale of real property. The trial court ruled that plaintiff Javier Flores could not recover equitable claims of specific performance and quiet title against defendants Amalia Gonzalez, Amalia Avila, and Jorge Oseguera Andrade. However, the trial court ruled that Flores could recover damages against Andrade for breach of contract and against Gonzalez and Avila for intentional interference with economic advantage. Gonzalez and Avila appeal from the judgment. They raise contentions relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, unjust enrichment, attorney’s fees, and damages. We find no error and affirm.

Defendant Ismael Martinez Cabrera challenges two conditions of mandatory supervision imposed during his sentencing on convictions for transporting heroin and methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11352, subd. (a), 11379, subd. (a)). The challenged conditions subject electronic devices in defendant’s possession to warrantless search and require him to provide passwords for those devices whenever requested by law enforcement. Defendant argues the conditions are unreasonable and overbroad. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgment.

L.H. (father) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. He also contends the court erred by not placing the children with him and reducing his visitation, and Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) did not provide him with adequate housing assistance.
P.R. (mother) did not appeal, and father acknowledges minors will remain dependent children of the juvenile court regardless of the disposition of his appeal. (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397.) We review the court’s orders and findings because they could have other negative consequences for father. (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.) However, we find none of father’s arguments persuasive and affirm the judgment.

Nicholas Lawrence Todd appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of hit and run causing death and misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol. Todd argues the following: (1) the prosecution failed to satisfy the corpus delicti rule;
(2) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to sever; (3) Vehicle Code section 20001 violated his Fifth Amendment rights; and (4) the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 3425 and a pinpoint instruction. None of his contentions have merit, and we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Ramon Vallejo (defendant) of five counts of forcible lewd acts with a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (b)(1); three counts of forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object of a child (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(C)); one count of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)); one count of assault with intent to commit a lewd act on a child perpetrated during a first degree burglary (§ 220, subd. (b)); and one count of nonforcible lewd acts on a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)).
The jury found true allegations defendant committed these sex offenses against multiple victims pursuant to the “One Strike” law. (§ 667.61.) Consequently, the court sentenced defendant to a total of 250 years to life, consisting of 10 consecutive, indeterminate terms of 25 years to life, plus a consecutive term of seven years to life.