CA Unpub Decisions

This matter stems from a domestic dispute between appellant Joaquin Diaz and E.D., who lived together with E.D.'s three daughters. Diaz is the father of E.D.'s youngest daughter, J.D. On March 3, 2009, Diaz, suspecting that E.D. was cheating on him with another man, slapped and hit her with his fist. Diaz also hit E.D. on the arm with the flat of a kitchen knife and â€

Kevin Hawkins appeals from the dismissal of his action for medical malpractice against David L. Matlock, M.D. (Matlock). The trial court dismissed Hawkins's complaint as a terminating sanction for failure to respond to Dr. Matlock's discovery requests, and Hawkins moved for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. Court affirm.

Jose Ramirez appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of one count of unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle without consent of the owner. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Court affirm.

Petitioner, Jonathan A., biological father of minor D. A., born November
2007, contends that Referee Marilyn Mordetzky erred in not disqualifying herself, sua sponte; and the juvenile court erred in denying his request for a contested hearing before setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.

Plaintiff Darrell E. Evenson initiated this unsuccessful action to quiet title to certain real property located in Happy Camp or, in the alternative, to partition the property and divide the sales proceeds with defendant Charles Hensley Brown, co-owner of the property.

Plaintiff Gary Ioppolo entered into an agreement with defendant Charley Smith to purchase 30 acres of unimproved land for $300,000. The transaction hit a snag when Ioppolo learned Smith's 30-acre parcel had not been legally separated from Smith's larger 56.5-acre parcel. Smith agreed to transfer the entire parcel to Ioppolo, with the understanding that Smith had two years to obtain a lot split from Placer County that would legally divide the 30 acres from the larger 56.5 acre parcel. Once Smith obtained the lot split, Ioppolo would reconvey the 26.5-acre parcel to Smith.
Five years and some litigation later, Smith failed to obtain the lot split legally dividing the parcel. Ioppolo filed suit to confirm he owned the entire 56.5-acre parcel. Following a court trial, the trial court transferred the entire parcel to Ioppolo. Smith appeals, arguing the trial court's action amounts to forfeiture and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Court shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant William Deatsch rented commercial property to plaintiff Jerry Anolik, who operated an automobile body repair business. Deatsch filed an unlawful detainer action against Anolik. Anolik answered with a general denial and asserted retaliatory eviction as an affirmative defense. Prior to trial the parties entered into a stipulation and order. Subsequently, Anolik filed an action for damage to property and business losses against Deatsch, but did not include a claim for retaliatory eviction. The court denied Anolik's later request to amend his complaint.
Anolik then filed a cross-complaint for retaliatory eviction in the formerly settled unlawful detainer action; the trial court granted Deatsch's motion to strike the cross-complaint. Anolik filed a separate action for retaliatory or wrongful eviction, and the trial court sustained Deatsch's demurrer without leave to amend. Anolik appeals, contending this last complaint is not barred by any prior judgment or the statute of limitations. Court shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Lorna June Seymore entered a negotiated plea of no contest to creating and approving fraudulent driver's licenses by manipulating the Department of Motor Vehicles' computer database. (Pen. Code, § 502, subd. (c).) The trial court suspended imposition of her sentence and placed her on five years' probation on various terms and conditions.
Defendant contends, and the People concede, that a condition of her probation is unconstitutionally overbroad. We accept the concession and shall direct the probation order to be amended.

A petition filed September 25, 2009, alleged that the 17-year-old minor, J.R., who had previously committed misdemeanor second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and been declared a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, violated probation in that he had failed: to attend school, to obey the directions of a probation officer, to avoid being excluded from school due to misconduct, and to participate in the Kids Alcohol and Drug Alternative Program (KADAP).

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
Defendant Satnam Sadu Kostendenous pleaded no contest to possession of concentrated cannabis, and the trial court granted him Proposition 36 probation, and reinstated him on probation in a trailing misdemeanor case. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a).) He was given no time credits on this case, because the time was credited to his misdemeanor case, in an amount that was to be determined later.

Brenda L. Foley pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with force likely to cause great bodily harm (count 3) and child abuse (count 4). In exchange, charges of attempted murder, corporal injury to a spouse, and another count of child abuse were dismissed. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced her to the four-year middle term for count 4 and a two-year concurrent term for count 3 and ordered her to pay a total of $2,253.75 in restitution and fees. It reserved jurisdiction as to possible further restitution. Foley appeals. Court affirm.

The trial court consolidated approximately 165 separate suits filed by plaintiff James M. Kinder (Kinder) alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1997 (TCPA). (47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.)[1] The court segregated the cases into three groupings. Seventy-five defendants in the grouping known as â€

A juvenile wardship petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) (602 petition), alleging that defendant and appellant R.C. (minor) committed the crime of battery on a school employee. (Pen. Code, § 243.6.) The juvenile court sustained the 602 petition, declared minor a ward, and placed him on probation in the custody of his parents.
Minor filed a notice of appeal regarding the juvenile court's order sustaining the 602 petition. Court affirm.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent court's order issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her infant daughter, N. Court will deny the petition.