CA Unpub Decisions

jury convicted Jay Bryan Waterman of making false or fraudulent statements to obtain workers' compensation benefits (Ins. Code, 1871.4, subd. (a)(1); counts 4 and 9) and presenting a false claim. (Pen. Code, 550, subd. (a) (1), count 8.) court sentenced him to 365 days local custody, but stayed the sentence pending his successful completion of five years of supervised probation.
Waterman contends insufficient evidence supports the verdict. Court affirm the judgment.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy B. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed.
laintiffs and Appellants Paul Blazevich and Emerita Cruz (Plaintiffs) appeal discovery orders, including monetary sanctions, issued in favor of Defendant and Respondent Darnell Bryant. They argue that their own appeal of an order granting a co-defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike their complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 served to place a stay on discovery requests served on them by defendant Bryant. Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend that the discovery requests were not properly brought because there was no prefiling order permitting discovery after the codefendant's anti-SLAPP motion was filed. ( 425.16, subd. (g)
Court have reviewed the record and decide that the discovery sanctions order was proper and not an abuse of discretion.

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Elournoy was properly advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences of pleading guilty and did he voluntarily waive his rights; and (2) whether Elournoy received the stipulated sentence to which he agreed.

Maria Miranda, Zulma Miranda and Juan Miranda, plaintiffs and appellants (hereafter plaintiffs), appeal from the judgment in favor of defendants and respondents, Southland Home Investment, Inc. (Southland), Kamiar Karimpour and Mary Shoup (hereafter referred to collectively as defendants or individually by name), following a jury trial in plaintiffs action for damages based on alleged violations of the notice provisions in the home equity sales contract law, Civil Code section 1695 et seq. The jury found that although Southland and Shoup violated that law, plaintiffs did not suffer any damages.
Plaintiffs contend in this appeal that the evidence supports an award of damages as a matter of law. Plaintiffs made this same claim in a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied after noting that although the jury found liability, they also found that plaintiffs failed to prove damages. Plaintiffs also contend the trial court erred in granting Karimpours motion for nonsuit on plaintiffs allegation that Southland is Karimpours alter ego. Court conclude the jurys damage award is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment and in doing so will not address plaintiffs claim regarding Karimpours personal liability.

Law Offices of Derryl W. Crossman, Derryl W. Crossman; Law Office of Schlueter& Schlueter and Jon R. Schlueter for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
uintilone & Associates, Richard E. Quintilone II; Goodman, Sheridan & Roff, Kevin J. Griffith and Dayna C. Carter for Defendants and Respondents.
laintiffs Michael Jordan and Mohammed Baghalzadeh (plaintiffs) appeal from a judgment dismissing their action against defendants Superstar Sandcars, Mark Martin, Ariel Verna, and Frank Yegge (defendants) for failure to bring the action to trial within five years. (Code Civ. Proc., 583.310, 583.360.)[1] Plaintiffs contend the five-year period was tolled during two 6-week periods, during which there was a moratorium on civil trials in the Riverside County Superior Court. Plaintiffs also argue the five-year period was tolled during a de facto moratorium on all but priority cases.
Court conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case based on plaintiffs failure to try the case within five years. The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

Michael Chapman (Chapman) and his wife Leslie Chapman (collectively referred to as plaintiffs) appeal from the judgment entered on the jurys verdict in favor of Allied Waste Industries (Allied) and Regional Disposal Company (Regional) (collectively referred to as defendants). Plaintiffs claim the trial court erred in denying their motion to strike a portion of an expert witnesss testimony, and in denying two of their motions in limine. They also appeal the courts denial of their motion for new trial. court affirm.

Anthony G. Bennett (Bennett) appeals from his conviction of making a criminal threat. He contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior similar incident, thereby depriving him of his due process rights. Court conclude there was no evidentiary error and affirm the judgment.

Defendant Isaiah L. appeals the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders, sustaining allegations that he committed a robbery (Pen. Code, 211) while using a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b), 12022, subd. (a)(1)). He contends the findings against him are not supported by substantial evidence. court disagree, and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff John Roeder appeals from the order granting in part defendant Alan Gardners motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16),[1] and awarding defendant attorney fees on the motion. Plaintiff challenges the granting of the motion as to the four causes of action stricken by the court, and the attorney fee award. We conclude that the motion was incorrectly granted as to the causes of action for extortion and defamation, and that the attorney fee award needs to be reexamined in light of that result. Court thus affirm the order in part and reverse it in part.

J. C. (Minor) appeals from an order sustaining a juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 made after the juvenile court found true an allegation that he had received stolen property. (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a).) Minor contends the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the petition at the close of the Peoples case. Court agree and reverse.

Defendants Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr., and Secretary of State Debra Bowen (collectively defendants) appeal from an order awarding plaintiffs Cliff Gardner, Drug Policy Alliance, and California Society of Addiction Medicine (collectively plaintiffs) $423,975 in attorney fees. We recently affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs in this action, which enjoined enforcement of legislationSenate Bill No. 1137 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) sections 1 through 12 (Stats. 2006, ch. 63, 1−12; hereafter Senate Bill 1137)that had sought to amend the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter Proposition 36). (Gardner v. Schwarzenegger (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1369 (Gardner I).) Defendants do not dispute plaintiffs entitlement to attorney fees under the private attorney general statute (Code Civ. Proc., 1021.5),[1] but contest the amount of the award against them. Defendants argue that the court erred in: accepting the hourly rates claimed by plaintiffs attorneys, awarding a multiplier, and failing to apportion some responsibility for the award to other defendants in the case. court find no abuse of discretion as to any of these determinations, and affirm the order.

Jimmy Lee Hunter appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him on two counts of first degree murder with personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code,[1] 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d), 12022.5, subd. (a)). The jury also found true allegations that one of the murders was committed for financial gain ( 190.2, subd. (a)(1)), that the other was committed during a robbery ( 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 211), and that appellant committed multiple murders ( 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole plus 25 years to life. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Appellant thereafter filed a supplemental brief in which he identifies six issues for appeal. We agree with counsel's conclusion that there are no arguable issues. Accordingly, court affirm.

Plaintiff's property was damaged and she suffered personal injury when her home was hit by a mudslide. The jury awarded her economic and noneconomic damages. On appeal, the defendant contends there is no substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that he caused plaintiff's damages. He also contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that noneconomic damages are limited to those arising from personal injury and are not available for property damage. court conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence. But we agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in instructing on noneconomic damages. We remand for new trial limited to noneconomic damages.

Appellant Manuel Louis Jaramillo appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a))[1] and four counts of attempted murder ( 664/187, subd. (a)), with findings that he personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and that he committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), & (d); 186.22. subd. (b)(1) & (4)). He was sentenced to 40 years to life. Court modify the judgment and affirm.