CA Unpub Decisions

Michael A. ("Father") appeals an order of the juvenile court declaring that his son A. is adoptable and terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1). In a consolidated appeal, Father appeals the court's disposition order regarding his newborn son D. Court affirm the orders regarding each child.

Gregory Raymond Romero appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and waived jury trial on seven prior conviction enhancements. The trial court found that appellant had suffered three prior strike convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law ( 667, subds. (d)(e); 1170.12, subds. (b)-(c)), three serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a), and a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Robert Arguelles appeals from the judgment entered following a court trial at which he was determined to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen. Code, 2960 et seq.) Appellant asserts that the evidence does not support the finding that the commitment offenses, vandalism and carrying a concealed weapon, involved the use of force or violence or an express or implied threat thereof within the meaning of section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P) or (e)(2)(Q). Court affirm.

Direct Capital Securities, Inc. (Direct Capital), appeals from an order denying its motion to stay the lawsuit brought against it by Scott Wright, and sending the matter to arbitration. Direct Capital initially moved to compel arbitration early in the proceedings, but the court denied the motion without prejudice, due to Direct Capitals failure to demonstrate Wright had signed the arbitration agreement Direct Capital was seeking to enforce. The court suggested Direct Capital take Wrights deposition to generate the missing evidence, and it did so but not until more than seven months later. In the meantime, Direct Capital also conducted other discovery relating to the merits of Wrights claims.

The law firm of Philipson and Simon (Philipson) appeals from the denial of its special motion to strike Lori Gulsvigs second amended cross-complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation or SLAPP suit. Philipson argues Gulsvigs second amended complaint, which alleges that Philipson breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty to her its former client when it encouraged a third party to challenge her entitlement to the proceeds of the very case in which Philipson had been representing her (allegedly for the purpose of gaining an advantage in its own fee dispute with Gulsvig), necessarily arises out of petitioning activity as defined by the anti-SLAPP law. Court disagree, and thus need not address Philipsons contention that Gulsvig also failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on her claim.
A clients claim against her attorney for breach of loyalty does not necessarily arise out of petitioning activity for purposes of the anti-SLAPP law, just because the breach results in the initiation of additional litigation. The claim arises out of the disloyalty itself, which is wrongful without regard to whether it results in further litigation. And such litigation, if it occurs, is merely a consequence rather than the gravamen of that breach.
The order is affirmed.

light of this conclusion, there are several contentions we need not and do not reach, including the People's challenge to the sentence reduction, Carranco's challenge to the victim restitution order, and incorporated arguments by Townley that the prosecutor committed seven kinds of misconduct and that the trial court erred in commenting on Flores's credibility and in excluding Carranco from hearings about Flores's declaration. However, Court do consider Carranco's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and for the guidance of further proceedings Court will consider the admissibility of Carranco's pretrial statements and a claim of instructional error.

A jury convicted the defendant, Anthony Raymon Gonzales, of various crimes arising out of a robbery-murder he committed, along with simultaneous robberies and attempted robberies in which he participated. On appeal, he raises two claims: that all but one of his nine convictions are invalid because the conspiracy theory of criminal liability is invalid, and that the trial court should have granted his motion for gang enhancement allegations to be tried separately from the substantive criminal charges.
In line with California Supreme Court precedent on the first question, we find no error in the trial courts giving of instructions on the conspiracy theory of criminal liability. And Court find no abuse of discretion in the trial courts denial of defendants motion to try the substantive charges separately from the gang enhancement allegations. Accordingly, Court will affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Dattaprasanna G. Nadkarni sued defendant India Community Center for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff appeals from the order and contends that he stated a cause of action. Court treat the notice of appeal as filed immediately after the judgment. Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Counsel for defendant, Donald Eugene Radonich, has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant, as he is entitled to do, filed his own letter brief. Court have, as required by Wende and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124, set forth herein the facts, the procedural background (including a description of the crimes of which defendant was convicted), and the disposition of defendants case; reviewed the entire relevant record; and considered defendants arguments. After so doing, Court have determined that, for reasons Court will explain, defendants arguments are without merit and Court must affirm the judgment.

Real party in interest Kai Joaquin Lozano was charged with murder. After a preliminary hearing, the magistrate reduced his murder charge to manslaughter. The People, however, refiled the murder charge. Lozano filed a motion to dismiss the murder charge, which the trial court granted. The court found that the magistrate made factual findings that preclude the murder charge. The People then filed this petition for writ of mandate arguing that the court erred in dismissing the murder charge. Court find that the magistrate made, under Jones v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 660 (Jones),factual findings fatal to the murder charge. We therefore deny the petition for writ of mandate.

John Madison appeals from an order of restitution following his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a).) He was ordered to pay victim restitution in the amount of $525 to the Los Angeles Police Department and contends the restitution order must be reversed as the terms of the order amount to an abuse of discretion and rest upon a demonstrable error in law. For reasons stated in the opinion Court affirm the order.

Jung Jonathan Ahn appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of eight counts of first degree robbery of a transit operator for hire, counts 1-5, 8, 9, 11 (Pen. Code, 211) and one count of second degree robbery, count 13 (Pen. Code, 211) with the true finding that during the commission of these crimes, he personally used a firearm, a handgun, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to prison for 51 years.

David Michael Moore appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(4)) and his admission that he served eight prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to prison for three years consisting of the middle term of two years, plus one year for one of the prior prison terms. The remaining prior prison term enhancements were dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.