CA Unpub Decisions

This is plaintiff Allen Shay’s second appeal in this case. (See Shay v. Schauble (Mar. 28, 2012, B227335) [nonpub. opn.].) On December 16, 2008, plaintiff sued defendants Kevin L. Evans, Helen Jackson, and Katrina Schauble for falsely telling others he was homosexual. His original verified complaint stated causes of action for slander per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against each defendant. The trial court sustained Schauble’s and Jackson’s demurrers to the slander claim, finding it was untimely, and the sham pleading doctrine barred further amendment. Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint, omitting Schauble and Jackson from the slander cause of action, and the remaining claims were tried to the jury. Evans never answered and did not participate in the proceedings.
The trial court granted defendant Jackson’s motion for a directed verdict, and the jury reached a unanimous defense verdict for defendant Schauble. We affirmed the judgment and orders in our unpublished opinion in Shay v. Schauble, supra, B227335, finding the demurrers to the slander claim were correctly sustained without leave to amend, and the directed verdict was properly granted because defendant Jackson owed no duty of care to plaintiff, and her comments about defendant’s sexual orientation were not extreme and outrageous. (Ibid.)

Jonathan Mano is serving a term of 52-years-to-life for first degree murder. His conviction rests principally on the testimony of an informant whose convictions for armed robberies in the state of Washington were excluded from evidence at Mano’s trial. Mano claims this ruling and other evidentiary errors require us to reverse his conviction. We don’t agree.

Defendants and appellants Hamid and Sherri Mehrvak and their attorney Jay R. Saltsman (collectively the Mehrvaks) appeal from an order denying their anti-SLAPP motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Respondent Arman Momjian (Momjian) was the plaintiff below. We conclude the trial court correctly denied the motion and affirm.

Plaintiff XTC Investments, LLC (XTC) made a series of loans to Fortuna Investment, Inc. (Fortuna), which Sanford Gaum (Gaum) personally guaranteed. The loans were not repaid, and XTC obtained a default judgment in federal district court against Gaum and Fortuna for $612,207. XTC then initiated an action in state court (the prior action) in September 2007 against Gaum and Bluenose, asserting that Gaum created and used Bluenose to conceal his assets from creditors. After a three-day bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for XTC and against defendants for $318,551 in general damages and $318,551 in punitive damages, for a total of $637,102 plus statutory interest. (XTC Investments, LLC v. Bluenose Trading, Inc., et al. (June 21, 2011, B226104 [at pp. 2, 5, 7] [nonpub. opn.].) Gaum and Bluenose appealed, and we affirmed the judgment in its entirety. (Id. [at p. 15].)
At the time of trial of the prior action, Bluenose’s shareholders were Michael J. (Mike) Irwin, Fred Jacobson, and Nova Gold, a corporation owned entirely by Gaum. (XTC Investments, LLC, supra, B226104 [at p. 3].) Bluenose’s officers were Gaum (chief financial officer and property manager), Jacobson (president), and Irwin (secretary). (Id. [at p. 4].)

Hui Lin Su was convicted by a jury of misappropriation of public funds (Pen. Code, § 424, subd. (a); count 1) and grand theft by embezzlement (§ 487, subd. (a); count 2) for failing to remit to the City of Lancaster the transient occupancy tax she was required to collect from her hotel guests. She was sentenced to 270 days in county jail and three years probation. We affirm.

Appellant Jesse Flores was found guilty by a jury of an assault with a deadly weapon on Christopher Ortiz (count I), of an assault by means likely to inflict great bodily injury (count II), also on Christopher,[1] and of battery on Bethany Ortiz (count III). The jury found true the allegations as to the assault counts that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury on Christopher and, as to all three counts, that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The appeal is from the judgment.

Henry Earl Duncan appeals from the trial court’s judgment sentencing him to state prison for life without the possibility of parole for special-circumstance murder following a retrial limited to the special circumstance allegation. We affirm.

Father Mario M. (father) appeals March 16, 2012, orders of the San Francisco Juvenile Court authorizing adoption for his daughter M.M. and terminating his parental rights.
On June 20, 2012, father’s appointed appellate counsel filed a “no issues” statement (see In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 (Sadie C.)), stating he had thoroughly reviewed the entire record, but found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Counsel delivered this bad news to father, but invited father to file a supplemental letter with this court if father wished to raise trial court errors counsel had neglected. On June 20, 2012, we too notified father of counsel’s decision to file a “no issues” statement. And, as has been the custom in this district (but not all others) we offered father “the opportunity to file,” within 30 days, “a letter stating issues you feel should be reviewed on appeal.” (See In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 839, 844 [noting split amongst districts and holding no Court of Appeal must afford parents this opportunity because of the desire for prompt resolution of juvenile dependency cases and the “negligible” chance for injustice once appointed counsel has found no issues to raise]; In re R.H. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 678, 684 [fifth district invites letters].)

Defendant appeals from an order authorizing his involuntary medication for purposes of restoring him to competency to stand trial. He contends that insufficient evidence supports the order and that the order is fatally nonspecific insofar as it fails to identify the specific medications he may be given, as well as the dosage and duration of any treatment. We shall affirm.

Defendants Michael Liu, Nancy Ko, John Liu, and Min Hui Liu (jointly referred to as appellants) executed a 10-year lease with a predecessor in interest of plaintiff WRI Golden State, LLC (WRI). After five years, appellants were allowed to assign the lease to another tenant, but under the terms of the assignment appellants continued to be liable under the lease. The assignee sold the business several months later, and the purchasers eventually stopped paying rent. WRI brought an action against appellants and the other tenants and was awarded over $100,000 in rent. Appellants contend WRI was barred from collecting back rent from them because it failed to enter into a formal agreement with the purchasers of the business. We affirm.

A jury convicted defendant Aurelio Estrada Diaz of first degree murder in the stabbing death of his employer and landlord, J. Justo Ramirez Ibarra (Justo Ramirez) and subsequently found him sane at the time of the killing. Defendant was arrested and Mirandized,[1] in Spanish, shortly after the stabbing. He admitted to police that he was angry with Mr. Ramirez because he was being mistreated by Ramirez. His defense at trial was that he stabbed Ramirez in response to the voices he heard coming from the television and in his head. On appeal, defendant argues that his statement to police should have been suppressed because the interrogating police officer mistranslated one of the Miranda warnings. He also argues that, given the expert testimony presented, no rational jury could have found that he was sane at the time of the crime. Finally, he contends that the record does not contain substantial evidence of his ability to pay attorney fees or booking fees.

Defendant Trinity Paul Watson **** edited and deleted.

In marital dissolution proceedings, Leesa L. Juergens appeals from three judgments and related orders. The first two appeals (Nos. G043884 and G044523) are taken from nonappealable interlocutory judgments and must be dismissed. However, we construe all of the issues Leesa[1] has briefed as being challenges to the third and final judgment of January 13, 2011 and related intermediate rulings (appeal No. G044735), and thus consider each point she raises.
Leesa has addressed a plethora of issues. She says that each of Judge Daniel T. Brice and Judge James L. Waltz made a series of errors. She has failed to meet her burden to show error. We affirm the January 13, 2011 judgment and related intermediate rulings (No. G044735).

Defendant Maurice Burton Murray appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the allegations that defendant committed the offense on more than one victim within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(7). The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 30 years to life in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior acts of molestation and in excluding evidence that the district attorney failed to prosecute defendant in connection with these prior acts. We find no error and affirm the judgment.