CA Unpub Decisions

The City of Cypress (the City) entered into a contract with CivilSource, Inc. (CivilSource) to draft the plans for a street widening project. The City awarded the construction contract for the project to general contractor Bannaoun Engineers Constructors Corporation (Bannaoun). After a subcontractor sued Bannaoun and others on the ground it was not paid for its work on modifying a traffic signal for the project, Bannaoun cross-complained against, inter alia, CivilSource, alleging that flaws in CivilSource’s plans resulted in project delays that caused Bannaoun to suffer damages. Bannaoun’s claim against CivilSource was based on both tort and contract theories of liability. The trial court sustained CivilSource’s demurrers to the claim against it in Bannaoun’s third and fourth amended cross-complaints, without leave to amend, thereby respectively dismissing the tort and contract aspects of its claim against CivilSource.

At the conclusion of the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated Allen K.’s (father) reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing (.26 hearing). Father petitions for writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452), contending: (1) insufficient evidence supports the court’s detriment finding (§ 366.22, subd. (a)); and (2) the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C., § 1900 et seq).
We deny the petition.

Following defendant Brandon Ray Bartell’s admission to a violation of his probation, the trial court denied probation and sentenced him to four years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that his sentence must be vacated because the trial court lacked authority to sentence him to prison for an alleged probation violation that occurred after the court-imposed probationary period expired. The People concede the point. We reverse the judgment, vacate defendant’s sentence, and remand the matter with directions to the trial court to discharge defendant from probation.

Appellant Sean Reynolds appeals from a final judgment following a jury verdict convicting him of two felony counts of driving a vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a) & (b).) Both offenses occurred within 10 years of three prior convictions of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and were therefore charged as felonies. (§ 23550.)
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record, we shall conclude that no arguable issue is presented that requires briefing.

A jury found Warren Clewell is a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexual Violent Predator Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq., (SVPA).) Clewell argues the judgment must be reversed because the court violated his constitutional right to equal protection under the law by compelling him to testify during the People’s case-in-chief, and because the court erred by permitting the People to introduce a “vast amount” of inadmissible hearsay evidence. We agree his compelled testimony violated equal protection, based primarily on cases which were decided after the trial in this case concluded. Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand the matter for a new trial.

Appellant Frank Yusuf challenges the trial court’s denial of his special motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 (§ 425.16).) Respondent Raman K. Talwar filed suit against Yusuf, alleging that Yusuf had made false statements regarding Talwar’s treatment of a patient. We reverse.

This appeal arises from plaintiff Ralph Vasquez’s claims for wrongful foreclosure. Defendants successfully demurred to most of the first amended complaint (FAC) and prevailed on a summary judgment motion on the cause of action for violations of 15 United States Code section 1641(g).
We hold Vasquez cannot state a claim for wrongful foreclosure because no foreclosure was completed. He also lacks standing to attack the assignment of the deed of trust because the assignment was voidable, not void. (Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 808, 815 (Saterbak); Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 802, 810-820 (Mendoza).) His cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (a)(6), unsuccessfully relies on the same theory that the assignment of the deed of trust was void. More importantly, section 2924, subdivision (a)(6), grants no private right of action. The cause of action for violation of the Unfair Competition Law

Scot Richardson, M.D., appeals from an order of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court (the Santa Barbara court) confirming an arbitration award and denying his motion to vacate the award. The arbitrator awarded Richardson nothing for his legal malpractice claims against Thomas J. Hutchinson and Norman Dowler, LLP (collectively Norman Dowler). She awarded $80,917.74 against him on Norman Dowler’s cross-claim for unpaid legal fees.

Matthew James Zamora appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial. On appeal, Zamora raises various challenges to his conviction and sentence. While we affirm Zamora’s conviction, we modify the judgment to stay execution of the sentence on one of Zamora’s convictions.

INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted defendant Mei Jun Wang of one count of pimping (§ 266h) and one count of pandering (§ 266i). The court sentenced defendant to two concurrent prison terms of three years.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court should have obtained a waiver of her constitutional right to testify and should have stayed the sentence for pandering. We reject both arguments and affirm the judgment.

As part of a plea agreement, defendant Eriberto Jose Villegasruiz pled no contest to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior narcotics conviction (§ 11370.2). He was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years, with two years to be served in custody and four years on mandatory supervision with various orders and conditions.
Defendant challenges nine of his mandatory supervision conditions. The People agree that modifications are warranted. We will modify seven of the nine challenged conditions. In addition, we have identified a typographical error in one of the conditions that was not challenged, but which we modify on our own motion. In all other respects, we affirm.

Defendant Niles Van Boxtel (defendant) appeals his conviction of making criminal threats against his then-wife, Janet Van Boxtel (Janet). On appeal, defendant asserts there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that his statement to Janet was a criminal threat under Penal Code section 422, subdivision (a). Specifically, he argues that under the circumstances, the threat was not so unequivocal and unconditional that it conveyed to Janet an immediate prospect of execution. We disagree, and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Correen Ferrentino, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Tolbert attacked a woman, who had stopped working for him as a prostitute, and took her cell phone. He was charged in an amended information with one count each of pimping (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (a)), second degree robbery (id., § 211) and human trafficking (id., § 236.1, subd. (a)).
After the trial court granted Tolbert’s motion to dismiss the human trafficking count, Tolbert pleaded no contest to the remaining counts of pimping and robbery. As part of the negotiated plea, the prosecutor agreed not to file weapons charges arising from an incident that had occurred while Tolbert had been released on bail.