CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs Alan Kapilow and Alan W. Kapilow, as Trustee of the AWK Separate Property Trust Dated December 15, 2003, (collectively Kapilow) appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial. Kapilow contends evidentiary error resulted in the jury's failure to award him any damages. Court affirm.

Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Jamshid Ashrafi, Ash Medical Billing, Inc., and The JA Family Trust Dated 9/10/2004 appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants and cross-complainants Sorour Khalili and EMBM Corp. Court affirm.

Appellant Oscar Perla appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of count 1, forcible lewd act upon a child, M.V. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)),[1] count 2, lewd act upon a child, M.V. (§ 288, subd. (a)); count 3, lewd act upon a child, M.V. (§ 288, subd. (a)); count 4, lewd act upon a child, A.C. (§ 288, subd. (a)); and count 5, lewd act upon a child, A.C. (§ 288, subd. (a)). The jury found true the allegation that as to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, appellant committed the offenses against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivision (b).
The trial court sentenced appellant to state prison as follows: consecutive 15-years-to-life terms on counts 1, 2, 4, and 5. It also imposed but stayed a 15-years-to-life term on count 3 pursuant to section 654. Court affirm.

Appellant Kjell Nummedal (Nummedal) appeals from an order entered after a hearing on an order to show cause filed by his former wife, respondent Gloria M. Goytia (Goytia). On appeal, Nummedal does not challenge those portions of the order directing him to pay child support arrearages and his portion of his children's uninsured healthcare expenses. He challenges only that portion of the order pertaining to his children's custodial accounts. Specifically, Nummedal contends that (1) the order is invalid because it was based upon a judgment's directive that was made in excess of jurisdiction, and (2) the trial court erred prejudicially in ruling on Goytia's order to show cause without giving him the opportunity to present evidence. Court affirm.

Defendant Saul Baltazar was convicted by a jury on two counts of second degree robbery. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years of formal probation. On appeal, defendant contends the evidence identifying him as the robber is insufficient to support his convictions. Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Plaintiffs and appellants Alon Gamliel, Caryn Gamliel, Tamir Dayan, and Stella Pakler appeal from an order sustaining defendant and respondent Scott N. Litman's (Litman) demurrer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint (SAC) without leave to amend. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We agree with plaintiffs that they properly pled a cause of action for negligence relative to policy procurement and servicing against Litman even though he was a fully disclosed agent of the insurer. The SAC adequately alleges that Litman made misrepresentations regarding the insurance coverage. Accordingly, the trial court's order sustaining Litman's demurrer to the tenth cause of action is reversed.
In all other respects, Court affirm the trial court's order.

In this appeal from a dispositional order, David W. (Father) challenges the juvenile court's decision to remove his son, David W. (David), from his custody, as well as the court's failure to apply Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2,[1] which requires the court to place a dependent child with a noncustodial parent who seeks custody unless it would be detrimental to do so. Court modify the dispositional order and affirm it as modified.

Thomas M. (Father) appeals from an order declaring his minor child, L.J., to be a dependent child of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a),[1] and removing her from his custody pursuant to section 361, subdivision (b). He contends the juvenile court erred in finding jurisdiction and in removing his daughter from his custody. He also claims incomplete notice was given under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Court affirm the order but remand with directions to comply with ICWA.

Richard David Auston and codefendant David Taylor carjacked Ray Huerta, a truck driver, as he was making a delivery to a pharmacy on the morning of May 21, 2009. As Huerta was unloading his truck, Auston and Taylor approached. Auston demanded the keys to the truck at gunpoint, and Huerta surrendered the keys to Taylor. At some point, Huerta grabbed the gun from Auston and fled. The gun discharged while Huerta was carrying it, and he dropped the gun on the ground. Huerta then ran into the pharmacy, and police were called. Police recovered a .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun and an expended shell casing outside the pharmacy.

Robert Padden and Kerry Brown are divorced parents with joint legal custody of their nine-year-old daughter, Kathleen. Kathleen was born with fibular hemimelia, a condition that resulted in one of her legs being shorter than the other. There are two feasible and mainstream surgical treatments. One treatment involves a "Symes amputation" of the foot of Kathleen's shorter leg and use of a prosthetic device. The other does not involve amputation but requires multiple surgeries to lengthen the shorter leg and reduce growth of the other leg. Based on medical advice, mother prefers the foot amputation. Based on medical advice from different doctors, father prefers the treatment which does not require amputation.
After an extended and bitter dispute, mother and father have been unable to agree on the proper treatment. As a result, the trial court modified the original custody agreement to give mother sole authority to make the medical treatment decision for Kathleen. Father appeals that order, contending that the court erroneously failed to apply the "changed circumstances" test in making its ruling or, alternatively, that the court abused its discretion in applying that test. Father also claims a violation of his constitutional rights as a parent. Court affirm.

Francois C., the father of nine-year-old L.T. and two-year-old Gia T.,[1] appeals from the order terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[2] Francois contends he was prevented from establishing the â€

In August 2006 Ed H. Park, a licensed real estate broker, loaned Kyong Hwa Pak $330,000. Pak executed a deed of trust in favor of Park as well as a personal guarantee. Pak's wife, Suk Myong Kim, also executed a personal guarantee. Pak and Kim subsequently transferred the property subject to the deed of trust and two adjacent lots to Kenmore Villas, LLC, which developed the property into condominiums. After Pak and Kim stopped paying interest and failed to repay the loan, Park filed this action against Pak, Kim, Kenmore Villas, five people who had purchased condominiums,[1] and Tower Escrow, Inc. for claims including judicial foreclosure and negligence. Park appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court sustained the condominium purchasers' demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. Court affirm.

Aida A. (mother) has filed a petition for extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) challenging an order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services with her daughters, Melody A. and Emily D., and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Court deny the petition.