CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Mitchell A. Caravayo is a pro se litigant in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Caravayo filed a negligence action against Dr. Glen James and other defendants. The trial court sustained Dr. James's demurrer to Caravayo's first amended complaint and Caravayo was given leave to amend. Caravayo failed to amend, the trial court dismissed his case, and Caravayo appealed.
On appeal, Caravayo raises several arguments attacking the dismissal of his case and the trial court's ruling on the demurrer. We ultimately conclude the trial court properly dismissed Caravayo's case against Dr. James, the only demurring defendant. We also conclude, however, that the trial court should not have dismissed Caravayo's case as to the remaining defendants. We affirm the dismissal as to Dr. James and remand for further proceedings.

Salvador Mediano, Jr. appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to a three-year prison term.
On November 1, 2006, after receiving advice of and waiving his constitutional rights, Mediano pleaded nolo contendere to three felony counts of resisting a police officer, and one misdemeanor count of being under the influence of a controlled substance. (Pen. Code, § 69; Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a).)
The crimes arose from a disturbance Mediano caused in a restaurant and while being arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance.

Elizabeth M. (Mother) appeals orders of the juvenile court denying her modification petition, declaring that her children C.M. and E.P. are adoptable, and terminating her parental rights. (§§ 388, 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)[1] We affirm.

A jury found appellant, Jesus Armando Piceno (Piceno), guilty of committing a forcible lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1))[1] (count 1), committing a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)) (count 4), and, on three separate occasions, committing oral copulation and/or sexual penetration with a child under the age of 10 years (§ 288.7, subd. (b)) (counts 7, 8 and 10). The trial court sentenced Piceno to full, separate, consecutive terms of 15 years to life for each count alleging oral copulation and/or sexual penetration and consecutive terms of two years in prison for each count alleging the commission of a lewd act upon a child. Piceno appealed and, in an opinion for which the remittitur issued on July 1, 2011, this court affirmed the judgment of conviction but vacated Piceno's sentence and remanded the matter to permit the trial court to resentence him in accordance with the filed opinion (People v. Piceno (Feb. 28, 2011, B214346) [nonpub. opn.]).
At proceedings held on August 26, 2011, the trial court resentenced Piceno to consecutive terms of six years in prison for his convictions of committing a lewd act upon a child (counts 1 and 4), consecutive terms of 15 years to life for his convictions of the oral copulation and/or sexual penetration of a child (counts 7 and 8) and a concurrent term of 15 years to life for his third conviction of the oral copulation and/or sexual penetration of a child (count 10). In total, the trial court sentenced Piceno to 12 plus 30 years to life in prison. On October 4, 2011, Piceno filed a timely notice of appeal from the resentencing. We affirm.

Glenn Allen Gearhart, Jr. appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to possession of morphine for the purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and his admission that he previously had suffered a conviction for manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192) within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced Gearhart to four years in state prison. We affirm.

Dawn C. Thomas and Curie Storage Enterprises, LLC appeal from the trial court's order denying their motion to strike respondents' cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,[1] the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. The trial court denied the motion because it concluded that the cross-complaint does not allege causes of action arising out of protected speech or petitioning activity within the meaning of section 425.16. We affirm.

H.M. (mother) and K.N. (father) appeal the jurisdictional and dispositional orders as to K.N., Jr. (minor). They contend that the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to adequately inquire as to whether the minor is an Indian child for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This argument has merit. But reversal is not required. Rather, we affirm the appealed orders with instructions to the juvenile court to direct the Department to make the further inquiries required by California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(4).

A lender, plaintiff and respondent California Bank & Trust (California Bank or Bank), sued a borrower, defendant ABM Construction and Investment, Inc. (ABM), and a guarantor, defendant and appellant Zephyr Tate-Mann, for the balance due on written loan and guaranty agreements. California Bank obtained summary judgment against both defendants, but only Tate-Mann appealed from the judgment. Finding no triable issues of material fact, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted.

Edward Gallo, Jr., appeals the trial court's order granting the petition to confirm an arbitration award in favor of respondents Per and Inge Christiansen. Appellant contends (1) allowing the arbitrator to decide whether respondents' claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations amounts to a violation of his due process rights; (2) respondents' claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (3) the court lacks jurisdiction over him because he never entered a general appearance in the matter; and (4) the award of punitive damages was improper. We affirm.

Erica P. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300, subdivision (b) and 361, subdivision (c)(1).[1] She raises three arguments on appeal: (1) Mother claims that the juvenile court erred when it did not provide her advisements of her rights when she submitted at the adjudication hearing; she contends that she would have pursued her right to a contested hearing had she understood her rights and that there is a reasonable probability that a more favorable outcome would have resulted. (2) She contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings that the children, Daniel P., Jr. (Daniel, born Feb. 2000), Jordan P. (Jordan, born Apr. 2003), Jaiden P. (Jaiden, born Jan. 2008), Tristan P. (Tristan, born June 2006), and Alex P. (Alex, born Sept. 2008), were at substantial risk of serious harm as a result of the alleged domestic violence between mother and Daniel P., Sr. (father). (3) Mother asserts that the evidence was insufficient to justify removal of the children from her care.
We conclude that mother's arguments are unavailing. Accordingly, we affirm.

Patrick and Rodora Hodge (appellants) agreed to sell real property to Paulette Lambert (respondent), Patrick's sister. After respondent made a $100,000 payment and performed other terms of their agreement, appellants refused to transfer title to her or return her money. Following a nonjury trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of respondent on causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and money had and received, ordering appellants to pay respondent $206,701.78. Appellants, who represented themselves at trial and on appeal, contend the judgment violates Rodora's "constitutional and civil rights" because she was not personally involved in the transaction, that there is no substantial evidence they negligently misrepresented any facts, that the contract is illegal and that respondent waited two years before she complained about the failure to transfer title to her. We affirm.

John Paul Luna and Anastacio Lopez appeal judgments following their convictions of attempted murder of Isidro Polanco and Rene Polanco (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 189) (counts 1 and 2), with jury findings that the crimes were committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation; assault with a semiautomatic firearm on Isidro Polanco and Rene Polanco (§ 245, subd. (b)) (counts 3 and 4); and attempted second degree robbery of Isidro Polanco (§§ 664, 211) (count 5), with findings that the offenses in counts 1 to 5 were committed for the benefit, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).[1]
For Lopez, the jury found that for the offenses in counts 1, 2 and 5, a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (c).)[2]

Defendant, Americo Gomez Figueroa, was convicted by a jury of battery with injury on a peace officer in violation of Penal Code,[1] section 243, subdivision (c)(2). He admitted he had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to three years in state prison. We reverse the order requiring defendant to pay $8,714 in attorney fees.

Boeh Dan Sulden has previously been adjudicated a mentally disordered offender (MDO) within the meaning of Penal Code, section 2960.[1] He appeals from an order authorizing Patton State Mental Hospital to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medications to him. Appellant contends there is no substantial evidence that he is incompetent to refuse treatment, that he is a danger to others within the meaning of Welfare & Institutions Code section 5300, or that the order for involuntary medication is in his best medical interests. We affirm.