CA Unpub Decisions

Court reverse the judgment for two reasons. Court conclude that Sidemans objections to Fullerton Medicals expert declaration went more properly to its weight than its admissibility. Moreover, Sidemans showing in support of its summary adjudication motion was not sufficient to shift the burden of producing evidence to Fullerton Medical to show antitrust injury in the relevant product and geographic markets. After liberally construing the declaration in favor of Fullerton Medical as we must for the party opposing summary adjudication, Court conclude that Fullerton Medicals showing was sufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact with regard to the validity of the antitrust claim. Thus, summary judgment was improper and the judgment is reversed.

This is an appeal from the judgment following the conviction of appellant Gene Arnold Peplinksi for assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) and driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, 23152 subd. (a)). Court affirm.

A jury found defendant guilty of first degree residential burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459 The jury also found true six prior felony convictions, five of which were serious felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)(1)) and strikes ( 667, subd. (e)(2), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)), and one prior prison term commitment ( 667.5, subd. (b)). On appeal, defendant objects to the lower courts refusal to grant his motion to continue the trial to give him time to investigate the jury recruitment process. He also challenges the admission into evidence of a necklace found by the court clerk and the court clerks testimony about finding the necklace. He raises an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim and asserts that the lower court erred in failing to provide sua sponte a unanimity instruction. Court are not persuaded by defendants arguments and affirm the judgment.

A jury awarded plaintiff John Martin (plaintiff) $200,000 in damages for personal injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by Douglas Ratkovic (Ratkovic), an employee of defendant Gillis & Lane, Inc. (Gillis). Ratkovic was dismissed as a defendant prior to trial; the damages were awarded against Gillis. (We refer to Gillis and Ratkovic collectively as defendants.) Prior to dismissing Ratkovic, plaintiff served an offer to compromise with Gillis and Ratkovic for $199,999.99 under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The offer lapsed unaccepted. Because the jurys $200,000 award exceeded the amount of the section 998 offer, the trial court subsequently awarded plaintiff expert fees and costs under section 998 and prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3291. Gillis appeals the award of expert fees and costs and prejudgment interest, contending the section 998 offer was invalid because it was made to Gillis and Ratkovic jointly and did not apportion the requested amount between them. Court affirm.

The City of Los Angeles and Chris Hare (collectively the city) appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent Brenda Lee (Lee) entered following a jury trial on Lees claims against the city for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failure to investigate and take remedial action.
Lee, who is an African-American lesbian, was an employee of the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD). Lees claims against the city were based on Lees allegations that the city and several of its employees discriminated against Lee on the basis of her race, gender, and sexual orientation. In her complaint, Lee listed eight adverse actions to which she was subjected as a result of the discrimination against her, including [r]efusing to permit [Lee] to return to work under the pretext that she was psychologically unfit to be a firefighter.

Court agree with appellant that the court violated its sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony principles as to prosecution witness Andrew Ayungua. Court conclude, however, that the error was harmless. Court also agree that the record affirmatively reflects the court's misunderstanding regarding its discretion to impose a concurrent indeterminate sentence on count 5. Court shall therefore order the matter remanded for resentencing on that count. In all other respects,Court affirm.

Defendant and respondent City of Los Angeles appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Chris Burton and John Tohill in this discrimination action. The City contends: 1) the trial court erred by denying the Citys motion for summary judgment, because Burton and Tohill could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of race; 2) the trial court abused its discretion in finding a witness qualified to testify as an expert; 3) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of pranks; 4) the trial court erroneously refused special instructions requested by the City; and 5) the amount of damages awarded against the City is so excessive as to shock the conscience. We conclude the City was not prejudiced by any error in the denial of its motion for summary judgment, because the race discrimination causes of action were fully litigated in the jury trial on the merits. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining expert qualifications, the City failed to identify the testimony that it claims was admitted in error, the City withdrew the instructions complained of on appeal, and the award of damages is not so excessive as to shock the conscience. Therefore, Court affirm.

A jury convicted Damone Leshon Hicks (defendant) of one count of murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) (count 1), three counts of premeditated attempted murder ( 187, subd. (a), 664) (counts 2, 3, & 4), and being a felon in possession of a firearm ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 5). With respect to all counts, the jury found that defendant committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court found that defendant had suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony ( 667, subd. (a), subds. (b)(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)(d)). With respect to counts 1 through 4, the jury found that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death ( 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)).

A jury found Mario Steve Barrios guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)/189). The jury also found that he personally used a firearm ( 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)) and committed the crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). Court affirm.

Ivett Ester Ayestas appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in her conviction of four counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459), one count of attempted first degree burglary ( 664, 459) and possession of burglars tools ( 466), and her admissions that she was on bail or her own recognizance when she committed the crimes ( 12022.1) and had previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony, carjacking ( 215, subd. (a)), within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a) and the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced Ayestas to 21 years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

Delta Marketing, Inc. and Jack Abi Fadel sued respondents Takis Stathoulis and Joanne Stathoulis. Respondents cross-complained. Judgment was entered for respondents on both the complaint and cross-complaint. On Delta's complaint, we affirm the judgment in favor of respondents. On respondents' cross-complaint, we affirm the judgment against Delta, but reverse the judgment against Abi Fadel.

A jury returned a verdict against plaintiff and appellant David Martin (plaintiff) and in favor of his former employer, AAA Flag & Banner Manufacturing Company, Inc. (defendant), on plaintiffs claim that he was illegally discharged because of his high blood pressure. On appeal, plaintiff argues that (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial because a juror failed to disclose that he was a law school classmate of one of defendants attorneys; (2) defendants counsel engaged in prejudicial misconduct during trial; and (3) the trial judge was biased against him.
Court conclude that (1) the trial court properly denied plaintiffs motion for a new trial because substantial evidence supported the trial courts implied finding that no jury misconduct occurred; (2) plaintiff has failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged acts of attorney misconduct; and (3) there is no support in the record for plaintiffs claim of judicial bias. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

On the night of July 20, 2006, Vanessa Madrid and Sarina Soler were working at a Blockbuster Video store on Centinela Avenue in Los Angeles. Madrid first noticed defendant Brooks when he came into the store about 11:30 p.m. At midnight, Madrid locked the stores front door to prevent any more customers from entering. Madrid was at the front register with a customer, Nanci Alvarez, when Soler came scurrying over. Brooks then walked up and asked Alvarez to come over to him. When she refused, he pulled a gun from his sweatshirt and announced he was going to rob them.

A jury convicted Maurice Leon Simmons and Lamont Lee Hall of second degree robbery, assault with a firearm and other related crimes and found specially alleged firearm enhancements to be true. On appeal Simmons contends the trial court erred in denying his request to present surrebuttal evidence he was not a gang member, improperly admitted prejudicial hearsay evidence over his counsels objection and abused its discretion in denying his request for probation. Hall contends his counsels failure to object to testimony highlighting Halls status as a documented gang member deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.