CA Unpub Decisions

Maria S., mother of twins Irene G. and Alicia G. (hereinafter Mother and the twins), appeals from the order of the juvenile court denying reunification services. We affirm.

On November 17, 2008, a confidential informant equipped with a hidden video camera bought $50 worth of rock cocaine from appellant Ike Curry as part of a joint FBI-LAPD drug sting operation. In order to avoid compromising the investigation, Curry’s arrest was delayed until November 2010, after bigger fish involved in the drug operation were also arrested.
Curry was charged with one count of selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), along with two Three Strikes allegations. Despite the trial court’s admonishments concerning the risks of self-representation, Curry waived his right to counsel and chose to act as his own lawyer, claiming that he “beat 18 felonies here in the criminal courts building.” However, standby counsel was appointed and attended the trial.

Vicente V., the father of three boys, Kevin, Brandon and David, appeals from the judgment entered after the juvenile court declared his children dependents of the court and made dispositional orders.[1] Although father does not contest jurisdiction, he contends that substantial evidence does not support the sustained allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a), relating to his physical abuse of Kevin and to domestic violence between him and mother. Father requests that we strike these sustained allegations and remand the matter for a new dispositional hearing. We affirm the judgment.

Mother Da.G. and her four children, two who share one father and two who share another father, appeal from the judgment entered after the juvenile court declared the children dependents of the court, placed them with their respective fathers and then terminated jurisdiction pursuant to family law orders. Mother and the children contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s finding that the children came within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). [1] Because substantial evidence supports the court’s finding under section 300, subdivision (g), we affirm the judgment.[2]

Alfredo Garcia, who alleges that he is a paraplegic, brought this action against William F. Brown, as trustee of the Brown Family Trust, (Brown), the owner and lessor of a building containing a restaurant leased and operated by the Doe defendants. Garcia alleges the restaurant’s restroom facilities are not accessible to the disabled in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) and, in his amended cross-complaint, adds that he had “difficulty” in using the facility within the meaning of the Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act (Civ. Code § 55.56, subd. (c).) Garcia seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees under California Civil Code section 52, commonly referred to as the Unruh Act.[1] (A violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (f).))
The trial court granted Brown’s motion to strike as a sham pleading Garcia’s allegation that he had “difficulty” in using the facility and then granted Brown’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because the amended complaint no longer alleged damages and thereafter dismissed Garcia’s action. We reverse as to Garcia’s cause of action for damages and affirm as to the prayer for injunctive relief.

Silva Hovnanian filed an action against Sarkis Minassian involving an alleged oral contract for the re-purchase of real property. Hovnanian appeals a judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained a demurrer to Hovnanian’s first amended complaint (FAC), without leave to amend. We affirm.

A law firm, plaintiff Brown White & Newhouse LLP (BWN), sued a former client, defendant Gary Craig Wykidal (Wykidal), for breach of written contract, account stated, and breach of oral contract. Wykidal, an attorney, filed a cross-complaint against BWN for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of oral contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
BWN demurred to the first amended cross-complaint and moved for summary adjudication of the complaint’s causes of action for breach of written contract and account stated. After the trial court sustained the demurer without leave to amend and granted the motion for summary adjudication, BWN dismissed its remaining claim for breach of oral contract. BWN recovered a judgment for $93,231.31 in damages plus interest and costs.
In this appeal from the judgment, Wykidal challenges the orders sustaining the demurrer and granting summary adjudication. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.

Tania Batache appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Boardwalk Realty, Steve Aguilar & Associates, Inc. and Lindsey Brooks (collectively, the brokers) in this action against them based on their representation of Batache in a real estate transaction. Batache contends the judgment should be reversed because the trial court erroneously determined that her causes of action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty are time barred and, in any case, she failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in response to the brokers’ showing that she cannot establish the elements of either cause of action. Because we conclude that Batache’s lawsuit is time barred, we affirm the judgment.

Petitioner Nicola Christopher Bucci was convicted of two counts of second degree murder, with an enhancement found true, and was sentenced to 23 years to life in state prison. We affirmed the judgment of conviction on appeal in People v. Bucci (June 23, 2010, A124228 [nonpub. opn.]). Petitioner now collaterally attacks his conviction by way of habeas corpus petition.
Petitioner initially sought habeas corpus relief in respondent superior court. By an order filed March 6, 2012, respondent superior court, through the Honorable Harry S. Kinnicutt, denied the requested relief.
The parties to this proceeding agree that Judge Kinnicutt was disqualified from ruling on petitioner’s postconviction habeas corpus petition, since on December 20, 2006, during the underlying criminal case (People v. Bucci (Super. Ct. Solano County No. FCR238111)), Judge Kinnicutt accepted petitioner’s peremptory challenge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6; Yokley v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 622.)

Highland Construction, Inc. and its surety, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (hereafter referred to jointly as Highland), appeal an order denying their motion to compel arbitration of a claim for breach of contract by American Water Jetting, Inc. (hereafter referred to sometimes as AWJ).

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of Gary Speiginer and Rennae Speiginer, plaintiffs and appellants (plaintiffs), following a jury trial on their complaint for damages against defendant and respondent, Ben Bennett, Inc. (defendant), alleging among other things elder abuse and the wrongful death of their 91-year-old father, Julius Speiginer. The jury found defendant, the operator of the nursing home where Julius Speiginer had been a resident a month before his death, was negligent but that defendant’s negligence was not a cause of Mr. Speiginer’s death. The jury found that Julius Speiginer and defendant were equally liable for Mr. Speiginer’s injuries, which included stage IV decubitus ulcers and metastatic prostate cancer. The jury determined $25,000 to be adequate compensation for Mr. Speiginer’s noneconomic damages.
Plaintiffs raise various claims of purported error that occurred at trial, including the erroneous exclusion of evidence and failure to properly instruct the jury. We recount the details of plaintiffs’ claims, below, in our discussion of the pertinent issues. We conclude either the trial court did not err in the ways about which plaintiffs complain, or if error occurred, that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate it was prejudicial. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.

Pedro Z. and Cristal A. appeal the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, including the denials of their section 388 petitions. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, they ask this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order obtained by the state, adversely affecting his [or her] custody of a child or his [or her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny Pedro's and Cristal's requests to review the record for error and to address their Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
Citing In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, Pedro's and Cristal's counsel also ask this court to exercise its discretion to provide them the opportunity to file supplemental briefs in propria persona. The requests are denied.

James M. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.

Elizabeth R., Phil R. and Alec C. appeal findings and orders entered at a permanency plan and selection hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 388 and 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, they ask this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.