CA Unpub Decisions

This appeal arises in the larger context of an inter- and intra-family dispute among Ferrari and Odell family members over two apartment complexes and the limited partnerships that own and manage them.[1] In January 2009, a majority of the limited partners in each partnership voted to remove appellants Bernardo and Dominic Ferrari (appellants) as general partners and to elect Mary Jane Ferrari and respondent Tim Odell in their stead. Maria Ferrari Mapps retained her status as the third general partner of each limited partnership. The new general partners then terminated appellants' services as offsite property managers of the two apartment complexes. Appellants refused to accept their removal as general partners or their termination as offsite property managers and continued to maintain what respondents and others describe as a â€

Defendant Si Dung Le pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c))[1] and misdemeanor petty theft (§§ 484, 488). He also admitted allegations that he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) in the commission of the robbery and had suffered a prior serious felony conviction that also qualified as a strike (§§ 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i), 1170.12). After refusing to dismiss the prior strike conviction finding pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), the trial court imposed a nine-year prison term.
On appeal, defendant claims the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion on the Romero motion and abused that discretion when it refused to strike the prior strike conviction finding. Court affirm.

Appellants Luis Rios, Salvador Garcia, and Jesus Salazar were convicted of various crimes in connection with the deaths of Vladimir Hernandez, Javier Escalante, and Luis Reyes Escobar.[1] Following a contested victim restitution hearing, on June 5, 2009, the court awarded $270,062.97 in direct victim restitution (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (f)), with joint and several liability as to all three appellants. For reasons that follow, Court remand for a new restitution hearing.
Each appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the appellants challenge the restitution order on various different grounds, which we shall outline post. First, however, Court outline the procedural background of this case.

Defendant appeals from the 19-year state prison sentence imposed following his guilty pleas and admissions. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal â€

David Ramirez Becerra appeals from the San Mateo County Superior Court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code[1] section 1538.5.[2] Following the denial, Becerra entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to one count of felony vehicle burglary, for which he was sentenced to jail time and probation. Becerra contends that his conviction rests on evidence obtained from an unreasonable detention. He asks this court to reverse the denial of his motion to suppress and vacate the judgment below. Alternatively, Becerra challenges various terms of his probation and alleges several errors in the minutes of his sentencing hearing. He requests that we strike the challenged probation conditions and correct errors in the minutes. After ordering certain corrections to the record below, Court shall affirm judgment.

Appellant Anastasia Shamina (Shamina) brought this civil action against her former husband, respondent Yevgeniy Urdenko (Urdenko), for rape, assault, and battery. A jury found against her and in favor of Urdenko. Shamina appeals from the judgment, asserting evidentiary errors, misconduct on the part of Urdenko's counsel, and insufficient evidence. Court affirm.

Jose and Natalie Melchor (collectively, plaintiffs), by and through their guardians ad litem, sued various defendants, including Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland (CHO or the hospital) for professional negligence. The operative first amended complaint alleged the negligent examination, diagnosis, and treatment provided by CHO and its nonemployee physicians, including Dr. Heidi Flori, caused plaintiffs to contract herpes type II meningoencephalitis and to develop cerebral palsy.[1]
In March 2009, CHO filed two motions for summary judgment -- one against Jose and another against Natalie -- contending plaintiffs could not establish the hospital breached the standard of care with respect to the treatment and care plaintiffs received. CHO supported its motion for summary judgment against Jose with a declaration from Dr. Scott J. Soifer, who opined the treatment and care provided by CHO and Dr. Flori met the standard of care. CHO supported its motion for summary judgment against Natalie with a similar declaration from another doctor. The court granted both motions and entered judgment for CHO.

Appellants Lincoln and Latonya Finley (the Finleys), who are self represented, sued respondent First American Title Insurance Company (First American), in connection with a title insurance policy. The trial court sustained First American's demurrer to the Finleys' fourth amended complaint without leave to amend. Court affirm.

Appellant Maureen Bryan-Furgurson (Bryan-Furgurson), attorney for respondent Joan Booth in this child custody proceeding, appeals from a sanctions order arising out of a discovery dispute. Bryan-Furgurson contends the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions, the sanctions amount is arbitrary and excessive, and there was insufficient notice and opportunity to be heard. Court affirm.

Pauline W., mother of the child T.W., appeals from the order of the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court terminating her parental rights following a hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.)[1] She contends that â€

Appellant Latonya Finley contends that she was fraudulently induced to take out an unconscionable mortgage loan on her real property, secured by a deed of trust; that a notice of default on the property was wrongfully filed; and that the property was improperly sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The trial court sustained a demurrer to Finley's first amended complaint, without leave to amend. Court affirm.

Defendants and appellants Omar Beckett (Beckett) and Jason Hodge (Hodge) (also â€

Appellant Freddie Oliver Cooper was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale. He was given an enhanced prison sentence due to the jury's finding that the crime was gang related. In this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the gang enhancement. Because we agree that the enhancement was not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse the jury's finding and strike the enhancement.

Defendant and appellant Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Juan Isaac Valera (Valera), and from the orders denying Costco's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and its motion for a new trial and remittitur after a jury returned a special verdict in favor of Valera on his claim for retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.) (FEHA) and awarded him $422,359 in damages. Costco also appeals from the trial court's award of $471,240 in attorney fees and $39,578 in costs to Valera. Court affirm the judgment and the orders denying the motion for JNOV and the motion for a new trial. Court also affirm the award of costs and attorney fees.