CA Unpub Decisions

Empire Today, LLC (Empire), a national carpet and flooring business, appeals from the superior court's refusal to compel contractual arbitration of claims by carpet installers that Empire violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code. The court found the arbitration provision was unconscionable under California law. We affirm. We hold the provision is unconscionable and unenforceable under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 (Armendariz); that our consideration of the issues is governed by California law; and that the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) ___ U.S. ___ [131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] (Concepcion) does not change our analysis. We also hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to sever the unconscionable contract provisions in order to otherwise enforce the arbitration clause or when it rejected Empire's late-filed reply declarations.

Allan R. Frumkin appeals from an order imposing sanctions against him in the amount of $258,344. He contends the order was entered without sufficient notice, without a statement of reasons, without a showing of bad faith, and in an unreasonable amount. We will reverse on another basis: there is no statutory authority for the order.

This is an appeal from an order staying proceedings on a cross-complaint by a domestic insurer against a foreign insurer. The basis for the order was the trial court's conclusion that the domestic insurer was subject to a forum selection provision in the foreign insurer's policy that mandated jurisdiction in an English court. We hold that the trial court's decision was not an abuse of its discretion, and therefore affirm.

Catherine Powell appeals from a judgment on the ground that its provision for monetary sanctions, award of attorney fees, and award of attorney fees in the form of an allocation of property, were erroneous. All three awards had been imposed by separate orders issued approximately seven months before she filed her notice of appeal. We conclude she has waived her right to appeal from those issues and we have no jurisdiction to consider them; no other issues being raised as to the judgment, we will dismiss the appeal.

In a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602),[1] it was alleged that appellant, Ramiro E., a minor, committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted the allegation, and the court set a hearing for determination of whether appellant would be granted deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) under section 790 et seq. Following that hearing, the court found appellant unsuitable for DEJ; adjudged him a ward of the court, declared the instant offense to be a felony, placed appellant on probation, ordered that he reside with his mother, and released him on the electronic monitoring program.
On appeal, appellant contends the court abused its discretion in finding him unsuitable for DEJ. We will remand for further proceedings.

Appellant/defendant Cindi Lerae Finley pleaded no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 459/460, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to two years in prison. On appeal, her appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will affirm.

In case No. SF015949A, a jury convicted appellant, James Howard Matthews, of second degree burglary (count 1/Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (b))[1] and tampering with a vehicle, a misdemeanor (count 4/Veh. Code, § 10852). In a separate proceeding, Matthews admitted five prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In case Nos. SF015962A and SF016012A, Matthews pled no contest in each case to one count of second degree burglary, and in case Nos. SF016115A and SF016116A, he pled no contest in each case to one count of petty theft with a prior (§ 666). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441, we affirm.

On April 24, 2009, appellant, Roy Bert Hoskison, pled no contest in case No. VCF219272 to failure to update his sex offender registration (Pen. Code, § 290.012, subd. (a)).[1] Appellant also admitted two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On May 18, 2009, appellant was placed on probation for three years and ordered to pay a $250 restitution fine and a $250 probation revocation fine, should his probation be revoked.
On July 22, 2010, in exchange for the dismissal of several other allegations, appellant pled no contest in case No. VCF234250 to failure to file a change of address (§ 290.013, subd. (a)). Appellant also pled no contest to an allegation that he violated his probation in case No. VCF219272.[2] Appellant admitted two prior prison term enhancements and two prior serious felony convictions pursuant to the three strikes law. Under the plea agreement, appellant would not receive more than a four-year prison term for all cases. At the sentencing hearing, the court granted the prosecutor's motion to dismiss the remaining allegations.
On August 25, 2010, the trial court denied appellant's request to strike both serious felony allegations. The trial court sentenced appellant to prison for the midterm of two years, doubled to four years pursuant to the three strikes law. The court ordered that appellant serve a concurrent sentence of two years in case No. VCF219272.

Defendant and appellant James Peace, Jr., appeals after he was convicted of two counts of inflicting corporal injury on his children. (Pen. Code, § 273d, subd. (a).) He raises a single contention of instructional error. We affirm.

Defendant Reginald Edward Christopher approached Jane Doe in an area in San Bernardino County known for prostitution called the â€

A jury convicted defendant, Christopher Hillman, of seven counts of attempting to influence a juror (Pen. Code, § 95).[1] Before he could be sentenced, the trial court granted his motion for a new trial and the People appeal, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial. We agree and reverse that order.

This appeal arises from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration following the City of Colton's termination of Kris Guerrero's employment as a police officer. The motion was denied on purely procedural grounds and was not decided on its merits. Consequently, although the parties address the merits of the motion, the merits are not before us. We determine that the motion was improperly denied, and we will remand the matter for further proceedings in the trial court.

When Jane Doe was three years old, defendant Michael Diokno Nuestro had her rub lotion on his penis to make him â€

A jury found defendant Christopher Shane Rivera guilty of the first degree felony murder of Adam Atencio in count 1, attempted robbery as a lesser included offense of robbery in count 2, and burglary in count 3. In each count, the jury found that a principal was armed with a firearm, but found not true additional allegations, in each count, that defendant personally discharged a firearm. Defendant was sentenced to eight years plus 25 years to life, and appeals.