CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Eliseo Morales appeals from his conviction for attempted robbery, arguing instructional errors related to a rejected pinpoint instruction and two form CALCRIM instructions. Court find the jury was properly instructed and therefore affirm.

S.W. appeals from an order after the juvenile court ordered he serve eight years in the Department of Juvenile Justice for violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). S.W. argues the juvenile court violated his federal constitutional rights by denying him local placement, the court erroneously denied him a continuance to obtain an updated social report, and the sex-offender registration requirement violates his federal constitutional rights. None of his contentions have merit, and Court affirm the order.

The dispute in this case concerns responsibility for claimed damages from a watercourse that runs through the plaintiffs' properties. The plaintiffs contend that the watercourse is part of the storm drain system of the City of Morgan Hill and that the City therefore is liable. The trial court disagreed. Following a bench trial, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claims against the City for inverse condemnation, trespass, and nuisance. The court also rejected the City's cross-claims for indemnity against a landscaper who had altered the watercourse.
The plaintiffs and the City both appeal. For reasons explained below, Courtshall affirm the judgments on both the complaint and the cross-complaint.

Following a bench trial, the court rejected the plaintiffs' complaint against the City of Morgan Hill, as well as the City's cross-complaint against Torben Rasmussen. At issue here are two of the court's post-trial orders: (1) the denial of Rasmussen's motion for costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, and (2) the partial denial of the City's motion to tax Rasmussen's costs.
For reasons explained below, Court shall affirm the challenged orders.

J. Lucena was one of many victims of an investment fraud scheme perpetrated by one Michael Joseph Schneider. This scheme, which Schneider maintained for over a decade and which resulted in over $43 million in total losses to his many victims, eventually collapsed and Schneider was criminally prosecuted.[1] Lucena subsequently brought a civil action against Bank of the West (Bank), alleging that it was liable for at least some of his losses because it accepted a number of checks made out to â€

Appellants Virginia Robles (Virginia), Rose Robles Senko (Rose), John Robles, Jr. (John Jr.) and Lorraine Robles Delarosa (Lorraine) are four of the adult children of decedent John Robles, Sr. (John Sr.). In their wrongful death action, appellants assert that John Sr. died as the result of burns that he sustained when his wheelchair caught on fire due to defects in its manufacture and service by respondents GSMS, Inc. (GSMS) and Pride Mobility Products Corporation (Pride Mobility). Appellants also claim that John Sr.'s death was caused by the inadequate smoke detectors provided by respondents Louis A. Nunes and Michael D. Cling, partners in 1118 Parkside (collectively, Parkside), the owners of the apartment building where John Sr. died.
On the day that jury selection was to begin in the trial of this matter, January 8, 2007, the parties reached a confidential settlement of all claims after engaging in settlement negotiations presided over by the trial judge, the Honorable Kay T. Kingsley. Appellants subsequently refused to execute the settlement agreement and respondents brought a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6[1] to enforce the settlement. Judge Kingsley granted the motion and a judgment of dismissal was entered on April 4, 2008. Appellants then obtained new counsel and brought a motion to vacate the judgment on the grounds that Judge Kingsley had coerced appellants into agreeing to the settlement by threatening to sanction Rose and Lorraine due to their failure to appear at trial on January 8, 2007. The Honorable Timothy S. Buckley[2] denied the motion, finding that appellants' assent to the settlement was voluntary and independent of the potential sanctions for failure to appear.

A jury found defendant Francis Xavier Guilfoyle II guilty of stalking Chizuru Mori (Pen. Code, § 646.9(a))[1] (count one), violating a protective order protecting Mark Mistal (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)) (count two), and stalking Mark Mistal (Pen. Code, § 646.9(a)) (count three). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of two years and eight months.
On appeal, defendant alleges multiple trial errors, including the erroneous admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and instructional error. He also asserts that these errors resulted in cumulative prejudice that renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Finally, defendant argues that the amendment of section 4019 applies retroactively to increase his presentence conduct credit. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

John O'Reilly filed suit in April 2007 alleging, inter alia, a claim of misappropriation of trade secrets against Elon Musk. The alleged misconduct occurred in 1995, but O'Reilly claimed that he did not learn of it until 2005. The court, concluding that any claim that might be asserted belonged to O'Reilly's former employer, Remote Telecom, Inc. (RTI), a suspended corporation, granted Musk's motion for summary judgment.
O'Reilly contends on appeal that the court erred in granting summary judgment. Court will affirm the judgment.

S.E., mother of the child at issue here, appeals from a juvenile court order following a six-month review hearing continuing the child in out-of-home care with family reunification services. Mother contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that respondent Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (the Department) offered and provided her with reasonable services, and that the court erred in finding that the Department complied with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)(25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). As we disagree with mother's contentions, Court will affirm the juvenile court's order.

A modification decision.

Defendant Jose Juan Benavidas-Gonzalez appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea. His counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record to identify any issues that could result in reversal or modification of the judgment if resolved in defendant's favor. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel declares he notified defendant that he could file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to the court's attention. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm.

Defendant appeals from an order revoking his outpatient status pursuant to Penal Code section 1608 (§ 1608). His counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Court affirm.

Defendant B.G. participated in a group assault of an Oakland chef, in which the assailants stole $200 and a backpack containing the victim's chef knives. The juvenile court found that defendant had committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).[1] The court committed defendant to the custody of the probation department, and approved his placement in Camp Sweeney.
Defendant's counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We find no arguable issues and affirm.