CA Unpub Decisions

V. H. appeals the juvenile court's order sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging appellant committed second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code[1] section 211 and assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245. Specifically appellant argues that in announcing her period of confinement, the juvenile court failed to determine whether the assault allegation was a misdemeanor or felony pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 702, and that the court's failure to make that determination mandates reversal. Appellant further complains that the minute order of the dispositional hearing did not accurately reflect the period of confinement pronounced by the court. We agree and conclude that the matter must be remanded to the juvenile court to allow the court to exercise its discretion to determine whether the assault alleged and found to be true was a misdemeanor or felony.

Plaintiff, cross-defendant, and appellant Hastings Village Investment Company, L.P., appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant, cross-complainant, and respondent Old Navy, LLC, in this action arising out of a shopping center lease agreement. Hastings contends: 1) cotenancy requirements of the agreement applied only during the first five years of the lease term, or 2) if the provisions are ambiguous, the extrinsic evidence supports Hastings' interpretation of the agreement. We agree with the trial court that the agreement is unambiguous and the cotenancy requirements apply to the entire term of the lease, including extensions of the lease. Therefore, we affirm.

A jury convicted Joshua Allen Kane of carjacking, second degree robbery, possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of resisting arrest and found true special allegations supporting firearm-use and criminal-street-gang enhancements. Kane was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 30 years to life. On Kane's first appeal we concluded the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's findings that each of the offenses had been committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang and remanded the matter for resentencing. (People v. Kane (Nov. 17, 2009, B208799) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand the trial court sentenced Kane to an aggregate state prison term of 21 years. Kane again appeals, arguing the court abused its discretion by imposing the upper term sentence (nine years) for carjacking. We affirm.

Appellant Carmen Shannon, a 27-year employee of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), brought suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Govt. Code, § 12900, et seq.) against her former employer based on her 2008 termination.[1] Appellant contended that in 2005, she sought accommodation for a disability -- sarcoidosis -- that required her to stay home one to three days per month, but that when she took the approved leave, her supervisors criticized her, accused her of abusing her leave time and called her at home demanding she come in to work. In 2005 and 2006, she complained, in writing and orally, about her supervisors' actions. After she complained, a number of punitive actions were allegedly taken, including a transfer from downtown to the Valley, which lengthened her commute and exacerbated a preexisting back condition. In addition, between 2005 and 2007, she was written up for various alleged violations of policies and procedures, given negative performance evaluations, and threatened with termination.

Plaintiffs, Melissa Ponce (Ms. Ponce) and her minor children, appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend defendants' demurrer to their second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges the negligent failure of the owners to make repairs and rid the rented premises of vermin, insects, and rodents resulted in physical injuries to plaintiffs. The trial court ruled the negligence claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata arising from a previous unlawful detainer action. We reverse the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Ahmed Aboutaleb appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Saleto T. Eury in this breach of contract action.[1] Ahmed contends: 1) the judgment against him is void for lack of valid service of process; and 2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ahmed's requests for continuances and imposing sanctions. We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Ahmed was properly served with the summons and complaint. Ahmed has failed to provide an adequate record on appeal to permit review of the trial court's discretionary rulings on his requests for continuances and sanctions. Therefore, we affirm.

Raymond Alvarez appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on four counts of identity theft. (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a).) Appellant contends that the trial court violated Penal Code section 654 by imposing consecutive sentences for each count because all four counts were part of an indivisible course of conduct. We disagree with appellant and therefore affirm.

This appeal arises out of a series of disputes concerning the operation and sale of a business, Le Prive Dinner Club, located in the Los Angeles neighborhood known as Koreatown. We summarize the nature of the parties and the underlying transactions in order to place the appellate claims in context.

A modification decision.

Plaintiff Barbara Humphrey (Humphrey) challenges the orders of the trial court, issued under Code of Civil Procedure section 391, declaring her to be a vexatious litigant, requiring her to post a $10,000 bond, ordering her to obtain leave of court before filing any new litigation, and dismissing her lawsuit against defendant Gingerbread Court, L.P. upon her failure to post the bond. Because we determine that Humphrey does not fit within any of the statutory definitions of a vexatious litigant under section 391, we reverse the judgment and orders.

Edwards Lifesciences Research Medical, Inc. (â€

Defendant Edgar A. Castillo was convicted of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a); count 1) and robbery (§ 211; count 2). The jury also found true the gang and firearm allegations for both counts (§§ 186.22, subd. (b), 12022.53, subd. (b), 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant's only contention on appeal is that insufficient evidence supports the true finding on the gang enhancement. Because we conclude the enhancement is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

Defendants and appellants, Tony Scally and William Gates, appeal the judgments entered following their convictions for robbery and burglary (Gates only), with gang, firearm, and prior prison term (Gates only) findings (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 459, 186.22, subdivision (b), 12022.53, 667.5).[1] Scally was sentenced to state prison for a term of 23 years, and Gates was sentenced to state prison for a term of 21 years, 8 months.
The judgment is affirmed as to Gates. As to Scally, the judgment is affirmed as modified and remanded for resentencing.

Joshua Brown (appellant) appeals his conviction by jury trial of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and misdemeanor resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)).[1] He was sentenced to four years in state prison. He contends the court erroneously admitted evidence and failed to instruct the jury on the limited use of that evidence. Court affirm.