CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Albert Leon Bonds, Jr., pleaded no contest to one count of failing to disclose the origin of recording or audio visual work. (Pen. Code, § 653w, subd. (a).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on formal probation for five years, and ordered him to serve 364 days in county jail as a condition of probation. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay a $25 urinalysis fee.
On appeal, defendant contends the urinalysis fee is an unauthorized sentence because he was not convicted of “ ‘any offense involving the unlawful possession, use, sale, or other furnishing of any controlled substance.’ (Pen. Code, § 1203.1ab.)” The People concede the issue.

On August 6, 2015, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a petition to declare defendant and appellant C.P. (minor) a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §602, subd. (a).) The petition charged minor with one count of residential burglary under Penal Code section 459. On August 21, 2015, the petition was amended to add a misdemeanor count of unauthorized entry onto a property in violation of section 602.5 (count 2). On the same day, minor waived formal arraignment on the amended petition and entered an admission to count 2. Thereafter, the People moved to dismiss count 1 of the petition and the court ordered the dismissal of count 1. Minor was released to the custody of his mother and placed on informal probation. Subsequently, on February 26, 2016, at the request of the probation officer, because minor was receiving failing grades in school, minor’s summary probation was terminated and minor was placed on formal probation.

Plaintiffs and appellants Rexford/Pico, LLC (Rexford/Pico), and Alex Ghassemieh (Ghassemieh) were members of a limited liability company, Ocean Park Hotels-MMHI, LLC (MMHI), with defendant and respondent James Morgan Flagg (Flagg) and C.E.F. Equities, LLC (CEF Equities). Following the breakdown of the business relationship between Flagg and Ghassemieh, including the loss in foreclosure of the hotel that MMHI owned, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Flagg. Part of their theory of damages rested upon the contention that Flagg misused MMHI funds, namely by commingling them with other funds from other hotel entities that Flagg managed. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Flagg. Plaintiffs challenge that judgment, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding certain evidence that Flagg wrongfully commingled funds, namely alleged testimony from (1) Barbara Simonich (Simonich), a certified public accountant with a specialty in financial forensics;

U.P. was adjudged a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, based on findings he committed two counts of second degree robbery. (Penal Code §§ 211, and 212.5.) He argues the judgment must be reversed because there was no evidence he relied on force or fear in the taking of any goods; instead, he resorted to force only after he had already exited a Kohl’s department store wearing stolen clothing, but was then forced to back up into the store by the store’s loss prevention officers.

A petition filed on February 24, 2015, alleged that the 12-year-old minor, T.V., came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he committed five counts of lewd and lascivious conduct upon eight-year-old J.H. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court sustained counts one, two, and three but did not sustain counts four and five. At the dispositional hearing, the court adjudged the minor a ward of the court and committed him to the care and custody of his father.
The minor appeals. He contends that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that the minor knew the wrongfulness of his conduct or acted with the specific intent to arouse his sexual desires. We conclude sufficient evidence supports the court’s findings and will affirm the jurisdictional order.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) appeals from a juvenile court order retaining jurisdiction over Pauline V. (Pauline, born June 1996), a married nonminor dependent. DCFS argues that the juvenile court erred in denying its request to terminate dependency jurisdiction over Pauline, who is now a married nonminor and whose husband is in the military and providing her with support, housing, and benefits through the military.
We affirm.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacosta and Aaron H. Katz, Judges. Affirmed.

N.H. appeals after a jury found true allegations that she caused over $400 in property damage (Pen. Code , § 594, subd. (a)(b)(1), count 1) and possessed not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health and Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b), count 2). N.H. was made a ward and placed on probation with various terms and conditions. Her court-appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issue and affirm.

The San Diego District Attorney filed a delinquency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, charging J.R. with one count of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) against J.V. The juvenile court sustained the petition, declared J.R. a ward of the court, and placed him on probation subject to numerous conditions.
J.R. appeals contending there is insufficient evidence to support the true finding and that two of the probation conditions are unconstitutionally vague. We find the evidence insufficient to support the true finding. In light of that conclusion, it is not necessary to address the remaining contention.

Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found that minor D.S. vandalized property in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (a)(2). The court reduced the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor and declared the minor a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The court ordered the minor to serve 20 days in the juvenile detention center with credit for two days served and the remaining days of detention suspended pending a successful school review. The minor was released to his parents and ordered to comply with various probation conditions upon completion of his commitment to the juvenile detention center.
On appeal, the minor contends there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s finding that he committed misdemeanor vandalism. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

Defendants and appellants Ray B. Bowen, Jr. and the Law Offices of Ray B. Bowen, Jr. (collectively, defendants) were sued for legal malpractice. Their anti-SLAPP motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 ) was denied. We affirm.

FACTS In this insurance coverage case, an individual dentist -- Dr. William A. Gilbert, D.D.S. -- claims coverage for lost dental practice income due to a sewage backup in an office building. The building is owned by a partnership (WGS Dental Complex) of which Gilbert is a partner. The partnership had insurance on the building, issued by The Dentist Insurance Company (TDIC). The partnership has no interest in Gilbert’s dental practice, yet Gilbert contends the partnership’s insurance policy on the building provides coverage for his separate individual dental practice. Gilbert, as cross-complainant, appeals from judgment entered in favor of cross-defendant TDIC after the trial court granted TDIC’s motion in limine to exclude any evidence that the policy insures Gilbert as an individual. Gilbert contends the motion was a disguised summary adjudication motion lacking procedural safeguards and deprived Gilbert of his due process right to a fair trial. Gilbert also contends the

Blockage in a city sewer main resulted in raw sewage backing up into a dental office building owned by three dentists doing business as WGS Dental Complex (WGS). An inverse condemnation action (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19) against City of Oroville was filed by Timothy G. Wall, D.D.S., Sims W. Lowry, D.M.D., and William A. Gilbert, D.D.S., individually and doing business as WGS (real parties in interest), and by intervener The Dentist Insurance Company (TDIC). On the bifurcated issue of liability (Code Civ. Proc., § 1260.040, hereafter § 1260.040), the trial court found City liable despite its claim that the sole reason the sewage entered the building was WGS’s failure to install on its property a backwater valve mandated by city ordinance adopting the Uniform Plumbing Code.
City petitions this court for a peremptory writ of mandate. Over opposition by real parties in interest, we issued an alternative writ and stayed trial court proceedings on damages.

Appellants, investors in a real estate securities offering, appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc. (Cushman), and Cushman employee Craig Tilson. Tilson prepared an appraisal of the property underlying the securities for the mortgage lender. Appellants allege that they relied on the valuation from that appraisal, excerpted in the offering documents for the securities, when they decided to invest. They further claim that the valuation significantly overrepresented the true value of the property, and that they lost money as a result. We hold that appellants have failed to present evidence raising a triable issue of material fact that they justifiably relied on the valuation, or that respondents aided and abetted breaches of duty by the seller of the securities, Griffin Capital Corporation (Griffin). We therefore affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff homeowner’s legal strategy, initially to stave off foreclosure and then to unwind it and quiet title in her name, failed when the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend. Plaintiff appeals from the ensuing judgment. We affirm.