CA Unpub Decisions

Aaron Shawnte Hullett appeals the revocation of his probation and sentence to 14 years in state prison. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation and sentencing him to prison. We affirm.

Plaintiff Charles Peters appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty following the trial court's entry of a judgment of nonsuit in favor of defendant Law Offices of James J. Regan and James J. Regan (hereafter together referred to as defendant). Finding no error, we affirm.

Defendants Jeff Katofsky, David M. Richman, Harriet Richman and Property Managers, LLC appeal the trial court's order denying their motion for an award of attorney fees. We reverse the order and remand the matter to the trial court for a hearing on defendants' motion.

Defendant and appellant City of Compton appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Irene Shandell and Beverly Warren. The City contends: 1) there is no substantial evidence to support the finding that a water leak on Shandell's property caused damage to Warren's property; and 2) the judgment should be reduced to correspond to the City's percentage of fault. We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Warren's home was damaged as a result of the water leak, and the City is liable for the total amount found to be just compensation for the loss.

Plaintiffs and appellants Alan and Deborah Nocita appeal from a judgment following an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Leslie Krenk in this action concerning a director's fiduciary duties.[1] The Nocitas contend that Krenk owed them a fiduciary duty as shareholders of Healthy Drugstore, Inc. (HDI), which he breached in numerous ways. Krenk has not filed a brief on appeal.[2] We conclude the Nocitas have not alleged the breach of a duty giving rise to an individual action, and therefore, we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant, David Lee Battle, of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code,[1] § 288.5, subd. (a)) (count 1) and lewd act on a child of 14 or 15 years where defendant was at least 10 years older (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)) (count 4). The trial court found defendant had incurred a prior continuous sexual abuse conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b) through (i), 667.51, subdivisions (a) and (b), 667.6, subdivisions (a) and (e)(6), 667.61, 667.71 and 1170.12. Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life plus a determinate term of 16 years. We modify the judgment with respect to presentence custody credit and remand with directions to strike two enhancements.

Maternal grandmother Angela L. appeals (1) from the dependency court's dispositional order placing minor Morgan A. with Morgan A.'s paternal uncle, and (2) from denial of appellant's petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 (section 388 petition) alleging new evidence justified changing Morgan A.'s placement.[1] We dismiss the appeal from the dispositional order, reverse the order denying the section 388 petition, and remand for the trial court to conduct a full hearing on the petition.

Plaintiffs Wilshire Ventures Corporation and CALMEX Development, LLC (collectively Wilshire) brought this action against the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Fernando (Agency) alleging that Agency breached the parties' contract to negotiate a development agreement by violating the contract's explicit and implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing. After a bench trial the court granted judgment to Agency and granted its motion for attorney fees. We affirm the judgment and reverse the attorney fees award and remand with directions.

William Lee Elijah, Sr. (Elijah) and Charlotte Garrett (Garrett) appeal from the judgments of conviction following their joint jury trial. The jury convicted Garrett of one count of selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a),[1] and convicted Elijah of three counts of selling cocaine base and one count of possession for sale of cocaine base (§§ 11352, subd. (a); 11351.5). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that Elijah had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and suffered a prior felony conviction of possession for sale of a controlled substance (§§ 11370.2, subd. (a); 11351.5). The court sentenced him to state prison for 11 years 8 months, and awarded him 649 days of presentence custody credits. It suspended the imposition of Garrett's sentence, and granted her probation for five years.

After a bench trial, the trial court found the defendant liable for the breach of a $5 million loan guaranty. The defendant appeals, claiming his oral guaranty was barred by the statute of frauds. We affirm.

Martin Antonio Velazquez was found guilty by a jury of assault with intent to commit rape during a burglary (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (b)),[1] burglary (§ 459), attempted kidnapping to commit rape (§§ 664, 209, subd. (b)(1)), and assault with intent to commit rape (§ 220). We affirm.

Wendy Bevan appeals an order denying her request for a move away order and change of custody.[1] She asserts she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing before her request was denied. She also asserts the trial court erred in decreasing husband's child and spousal support obligation because he did not file an order to show cause seeking
such relief. She contends, in addition, that the trial court was biased and should have recused itself. We reverse that portion of the order denying the move away and change of custody requests and remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue. In all other respects, we affirm the order.

Plaintiffs Stephen Claro and Southland Display Co., Inc. filed suit against defendants Target Corporation (Target), Sunbelt Stores, Inc. (Sunbelt), and the Betty R. Hollingsworth Trust (Trust) for damages resulting from a fire caused by the use of fireworks on defendants' property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and plaintiffs appealed. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

Plaintiff American Home Assurance Company (American Home)[1] and plaintiff-in-intervention Norwood Jones, III (Jones) (collectively plaintiffs) appeal from the judgment entered in favor of defendant, the State of California (State). (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1).) Plaintiffs also appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial, an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and an order denying their motion to vacate the judgment. Of these three orders, only the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is appealable (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(4); Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1300, fn. 1). The order denying the motion for new trial is not appealable, but its propriety may be challenged on appeal from the judgment (Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 18; Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. AMZ Ins. Services, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 401, 415; City of Los Angeles v. Glair (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 813, 819-820). Subject to an exception inapplicable here, the order denying a statutory motion to vacate a judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 663) is not separately appealable. (Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 890; 311 South Spring Street Co. v. Department of General Services (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1014; City of Los Angeles v. Glair, supra, at pp. 820-823; Payne v. Rader (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1576; contra, Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 663; Norager v. Nakamura (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1817, 1819, fn. 1; Howard v. Lufkin (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 297, 300-303; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 200, pp. 275-278.)