CA Unpub Decisions

Michelle Hughes appeals a family court order denying her motion brought under Family Code section 2121 et seq. to set aside the judgment of dissolution. She contends: the family court erred by failing to grant a continuance despite the fact she and her attorney were effectively unavailable due to medical reasons and failing to award attorney fees and costs early enough in litigation to put the parties on an equal playing field. She further contends certain of the court's rulings are not supported by the evidence. We affirm the order, concluding Michelle's arguments are waived because they fail to address the merits of Judge Parker's ruling on the motion to set aside.

Darryl Mason (defendant) appeals his convictions for possessing two kilograms of cocaine and more than $68,000 in drug proceeds. He does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, but instead challenges the trial court’s refusal to grant his motion to acquire law enforcement personnel records under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess), his motions to dismiss due to the prosecution’s deportation of a material witness and the failure to maintain the cash seized from his house for fingerprinting, his motion to unseal the sealed portion of the affidavit to the search warrant that led to the discovery of the drugs and cash in his house, and his motion to suppress his post-arrest confession.

Plaintiff Raghunandan Matam (Matam), a former employee of Defendant Oracle Corporation (Oracle), brought this putative class action against Oracle alleging that Oracle committed various violations of California’s wage and hour laws, including by failing to pay class members for overtime and by failing to provide class members with required meal and rest periods. Matam sought certification of the proposed class, relying principally on his expert’s analysis of various Oracle databases to conclude that class members worked overtime for which they were not paid and had meal breaks that were short, late, or missed altogether. Oracle opposed Matam’s motion and submitted the declaration of its own expert, who opined that Matam’s expert had made numerous errors in his method and his calculations, rendering his conclusions unreliable. The trial court agreed, and denied Matam’s motion finding he had failed to demonstrate that common questions predominated and that his claims were ca

We appointed counsel to represent Victor V. on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. Counsel advised Victor of his right to ask the court to relieve present counsel and his right to file a supplemental brief in this court within 30 days of the filing of this brief to bring to the court’s attention any issues requiring review. Counsel offered to send Victor the entire record for the purpose of preparing a supplemental opening brief and informed Victor that she would be available to prepare a response if the court requests further briefing. That time has passed, and Victor has not filed any written argument.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) appeals from an order denying its special motion to strike the malicious prosecution action filed against it and its attorneys by O&M, LLC (O&M) and Nexus Development Corporation, Central Division (Nexus), the property management corporation for O&M (collectively O&M). Wells Fargo contends O&M failed to carry its burden of showing no reasonable attorney would have found the underlying action tenable or that it was brought with malice. We disagree and affirm the order.

Aldridge Pite LLP, successor by merger to Pite Duncan, LLP and Diane Elizabeth Bond (collectively Pite) appeal from an order denying their special motion to strike the malicious prosecution complaint filed against them and their client, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) by O&M, LLC (O&M) and its property manager, Nexus Development Corporation, Central Division (Nexus) (collectively O&M). Pite contends O&M failed to carry its burden of showing no reasonable attorney would have found the underlying action tenable or that it was brought with malice. Pite further argues the trial court erred in overruling three evidentiary objections. We disagree and affirm the order.

Plaintiff and appellant Juan Esparza purchased a used vehicle from defendant and respondent Joe MacPherson Ford. The vehicle had mechanical problems. Plaintiff sued defendant for failure to provide a Spanish translation of the sales contract under Civil Code section 1632 (section 1632) and for breach of express and implied warranties. A jury rendered a general verdict in favor of defendant, and the court denied plaintiff’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial.
Plaintiff contends the court erred by denying his JNOV and new trial motions because judgment in his favor was required as a matter of law. He also contends there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and the court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury on his breach of warranty claims.
We conclude plaintiff’s motion for JNOV should have been granted on the section 1632 cause of action because the transaction was negotiated primarily in Spanish. Therefore, w

Randy B. (father) seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying him reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to his 12-year-old daughter Diana, nine-year-old son Preston, and three-year-old son Randy, Jr. (Randy). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Father contends the evidence in his case does not support a denial of services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), which applies when there is clear and convincing evidence that “the parent … of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs … and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition[.]” We deny the petition.

Defendant Harold Howard pled no contest to one count of possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for two years in accordance with his plea agreement. Defendant subsequently filed a notice of appeal specifying that his appeal is from “the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.”
Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit a brief, but he did not do so. Mindful of the scope of the appeal, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant Sai Choi Lau appeals from a judgment of conviction. On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, stating that no arguable issue exists and requesting that this court independently review the record. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We affirm the judgment.
Defendant was charged with criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)), assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), and false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, § 236). With respect to all counts, it was further alleged that defendant used a firearm. Defendant pled not guilty.
Defendant was convicted of criminal threats and false imprisonment by violence. As to both counts, jurors found that he personally used a firearm. Defendant also was convicted of simple assault, a lesser included offense of assault with a firearm.
Defendant was sentenced to a total prison term of four years four months.

On July 13, 2007, following a jury trial, Oswald Portillo was found guilty of first degree murder with gun use and gang enhancements (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 12022.53, subd. (d), 186.22, subd. (b)), and on May 2, 2008, he was sentenced to prison for a term of 50 years to life. As part of his sentence, Portillo was ordered to pay a $2,500 restitution fine. Portillo’s conviction was affirmed by this court in 2009.
On February 25, 2016, Portillo filed a “Petition for Modification of Sentence” in the superior court, complaining that the trial court (Ryan, J.) had unfairly imposed the $2,500 restitution fine without a hearing, and that defense counsel had been ineffective for not objecting to the fine or requesting a restitution hearing. The superior court (Sandoval, J.) denied this petition on March 14, 2016, finding that a restitution hearing must be requested but that Portillo had failed either to request such a hearing at sentencing or raise the issue on appeal.

Appellant Wiring Connection, Inc., appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent Grace H. Amate. The trial court found respondent had breached the lease she had entered into with appellant, but appellant had failed to prove damages. We affirm.
In August 2013, appellant, an electrical contracting company, entered into a lease for a property in Gardena owned by respondent. The lease was for five years five months at a base rent of $6,252 per month.
Respondent never delivered possession of the premises to appellant. Instead, she leased the property to another business and denied appellant further access. Appellant then leased a different property for a three-year period at a monthly rent of $7,500.

Defendant Anthony J. Bullington pleaded no contest to assault with force likely to create bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and violation of a restraining order with a prior conviction (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)(4)). He also admitted that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436 (Wende) on behalf of defendant. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but he has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant Carlos Foronda appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18. He contends that his felony conviction for second degree burglary was eligible for resentencing as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. We agree and reverse the order.
On November 30, 2013, defendant went to the Santa Fe Store and cashed a check from Granite Rock Corporation for $421.39. On December 3, 2013, defendant returned to the store and cashed a second check from Granite Rock Corporation for $421.39. The bank subsequently returned the checks as fraudulent, which resulted in a loss of $842.78 to the store.