CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant M. Lou Marsh (Appellant) is a board certified anesthesiologist licensed to practice medicine in California. She filed this action for damages and other relief against her former practice group, defendant and respondent Anesthesia Service Medical Group, Inc. (ASMG), a professional medical corporation that provides physician services to hospitals and other medical centers in San Diego County. She also sued one of the facilities served by ASMG, Scripps Memorial Hospital of La Jolla (Scripps), after she experienced interpersonal and professional difficulties in carrying on her medical practice at a Scripps facility, the Scripps XiMED Surgery Center (Ximed).
In several successive pleadings that were challenged by a series of demurrers by ASMG and Scripps (together, Respondents), Appellant pled several types of unlawful or unfair business practices and related tort theories, which allegedly caused her unfair exclusion from practice. She contends Respondents' acts were in violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code,[1] § 16700 et seq.), and/or the Unfair Competition Law (the UCL, § 17200 et seq.). She also alleged that Respondents injured her by intentionally and/or negligently interfering with her prospective business advantage, and intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress (IIED) on her.

Defendant Shane Wesley Shannon was arrested after he led police on a high speed chase and then fled on foot in an attempt to avoid being caught with items he recently stole from the victim's home. Less than a month later, defendant was arrested again after he attempted to burglarize another home.
Defendant was charged in case No. 10F7720 with second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459--count 1), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)-–count 2), and resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)–-count 3). It was also alleged that defendant committed the alleged offenses while released on bail or his own recognizance in two other cases (Pen. Code, § 12022.1), and that he served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Defendant was also charged in case No. 10F8216 with second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459--count 1). It was also alleged that defendant committed the offense while released on bail or his own recognizance in four other cases, one of them being case No. 10F7720 (Pen. Code, § 12022.1), and that he served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

The defendant, James Tyler Roots, Jr., shot and killed
Obed Pigg. Convicted by jury of murder and other crimes, he appeals. He contends: (1) his trial was unfair because of
an unsupported motive theory presented by the prosecution,
(2) several errors resulted from the joinder of a gang participation count, (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct, (4) the asserted errors were prejudicial cumulatively, even if not so individually, and (5) the sentencing order was flawed. Other than two errors in the sentencing order, we find no prejudicial error. Therefore, we modify and affirm.

Gene Gonzales appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to failing to register as a sex offender after changing his address in violation of Penal Code section 290, subdivision (b),[1] his plea of no contest to failing to notify the authorities of a change of address in violation of section 290.013, subdivision (b), and his plea of no contest to failing to annually update his registration in violation of section 290.012, subdivision (a). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted Gonzales three years formal probation. We affirm the judgment.

J.G. (mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court placing her child, K.C., in the custody of A.C. (father), and requiring that mother's visits with K.C. be monitored. Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to specify the frequency and duration of her visits with K.C., and ordering that mother's visits with K.C. be monitored. Father and K.C. disagree.[1] We affirm.

Appellants Beverly R. and Peter H. are Rickey T.'s former foster parents.[1] He resided with them for two years before he was removed from their foster home. They appeal the order of the juvenile court in summarily denying their modification petition in which they requested that Rickey be returned to their care. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388.)[2] We affirm.

On September 29, 2009, defendant and a companion, codefendant David Vincent, entered a Best Buy store in the City of Industry and attempted to purchase a computer and accessories using a false identification and a fraudulent Best Buy credit card.
Defendant and Vincent selected a laptop, and Vincent selected a computer carrying case. Jonathan Loh, the sales associate, had become suspicious of defendant and Vincent when they first walked into the store, and Loh notified loss prevention. Loh would become suspicious in a situation where a person comes in with a friend and the friend just wanders around. In this case, Vincent had picked out one of the most expensive computers, which was one that cost about $1,699, which also made Loh suspicious. Loh took defendant and Vincent to a register at the customer service booth with a good camera angle.

Defendant, Aerol Corporation, Inc., appeals from a judgment which was entered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Rodolfo Meza, on an age and disability discrimination complaint. Defendant challenges awards of $100,000 for future economic losses and $300,000 for past non-economic damages. We affirm the judgment in all respects.

Following a jury trial, appellant Christopher Kevin Santana was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a)) committed during a burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) The jury found appellant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun causing the victim's death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) Appellant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus a consecutive 25 years to life.
Appellant contends the trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury it had to unanimously agree whether appellant committed premeditated murder or felony murder. Appellant also argues it was error to admit evidence a non-testifying co-perpetrator, Christopher Stratis, said appellant shot the victim. We find no prejudicial error and, therefore, affirm the judgment.

Appellant Javier Santamaria appeals from a judgment of conviction for attempted second degree robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, with gang and deadly weapon allegations. We find no error and affirm.

Plaintiff Rima Galoustian fell while shopping at a Thrifty Payless, Inc., dba Rite Aid store (Rite Aid or defendant). She brought claims for premises liability and negligence. Reasoning plaintiff had no evidence of the dangerous condition causing her fall, and no evidence Rite Aid had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged condition, defendant moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, finding plaintiff's evidence of the cause of her fall was speculative and plaintiff did not demonstrate defendant knew of a dangerous condition. On appeal, plaintiff contends defendant's motion did not establish that she will be unable to prove her case, there are triable issues of fact as to causation and defendant's knowledge of the condition, and the trial court erroneously sustained defendant's objections to her expert's declaration. We reverse the judgment, finding plaintiff's evidence of the cause of her fall was not speculative, and there are triable issues of fact regarding Rite Aid's constructive knowledge of the condition.

Appellant Javier Estrada Ramirez appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on four counts related to a carjacking incident. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a robbery count because he did not use force or fear to take personal property from the person named in the information. Appellant's second contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to stay the sentence on the robbery count pursuant to Penal Code section 654.[1] We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the robbery conviction, and so reverse the conviction on that count. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Y. Gina Lisitsa appeals from a judgment following the trial court's orders granting the motion of respondents OneWest Bank, FSB and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (collectively, the Bank) for summary adjudication of issues as to the third, fourth and fifth causes of action of the Bank's second amended complaint and sustaining the Bank's demurrer to appellant's first amended cross-complaint without leave to amend. The judgment provides that a 2007 foreclosure sale and trustee's deed pursuant to which appellant ostensibly acquired title to a high-rise condominium in Marina del Rey for the price of $11,687 be set aside and cancelled, and for the judicial foreclosure of the Bank's first priority purchase money deed of trust on the condominium. Appellant contends (1) the trial court should not have granted the Bank's motion for summary adjudication and (2) the trial court should not have sustained the Bank's demurrer to appellant's first amended cross-complaint without leave to amend.
We conclude a subsequent judicial foreclosure and sale of the subject property pursuant to the judgment has rendered the appeal as to the grant of summary adjudication moot, and we otherwise affirm.

A jury convicted appellant Michael W. Wright of second degree murder and found that he used a firearm in the commission of the murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 12022.53, subd. (d).)[1] The trial court sentenced appellant to 15 years to life for the murder and 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, for a total of 40 years to life in state prison.
Appellant appeals on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue the hearing on his new trial motion.