CA Unpub Decisions

Sixteen-year-old S.S., mother of infant J.S., appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court that ordered him removed from mothers custody, and ordered reunification services for mother. Mother contends the orders were not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, mother argues that her history of substance abuse and her positive test for methamphetamine when she gave birth to J.S. are outweighed by the three months of sobriety that occurred before the hearing and by the treatment and parenting classes she was attending. Court affirm the juvenile courts orders, concluding that mothers three-year history of substance abuse provided ample evidence to support the orders. Three months of sobriety, while commendable, did not establish that there was not a substantial risk to J.S.s health, safety, or emotional well-being.

This appeal is the latest installment in the Grabowski family dispute that has been in litigation since 1996. For convenience, we will refer to the individual litigants by their first names. They include: Patrick Grabowski (Patrick), his wife Janis Grabowski (Janis), their four now adult children, and Patricks younger brother, Laurence L. Grabowski (Larry). Larry is the respondent in this appeal. Corporate litigants include Pine Tree Industrial Corporation (Pine Tree), a corporation owned by Patrick, Janis, and Larry, and La Paz Petroleum, Inc. (La Paz), a corporation owned by Patrick and Janiss four children. Pine Tree and La Paz are the appellants. Larry sued Patrick, Patricks family, Pine Tree, and La Paz seeking dissolution and accounting of his and Patricks 40‑year business relationship. Patrick, Janis, and La Paz filed cross‑complaints against Larry. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgments as to Pine Tree and La Paz. As to Patrick and his family, the court entered an interim judgment for an accounting by Patrick, which has yet to be completed. Pine Tree and La Paz appeal from the judgments concerning them, contending the court erred by denying a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce a global settlement of the dispute reached during trial. Court conclude the court erred by refusing to hear and rule on the motion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Shane M. Fitzgerald sued defendant IP Mobilenet, Inc. (the company), his former employer, seeking damages on several causes of action, including retaliation for allegedly refusing to participate in illegal conduct, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and breach of an employment contract containing a specified term. The superior court entered judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs claims after granting defendants motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals, contending the trial court erred in concluding no triable issue of material fact existed on the three causes of action mentioned above. Finding no error, Court affirm.

Emad Abdelshafi appeals from an order granting Fakhrey Habashi a temporary restraining order prohibiting harassment. (Code Civ. Proc., 527.6.) He contends the evidence is insufficient to support the order, and the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a tape recording of voicemail messages left by him. Court find his contentions without merit and affirm the order.

Defendant John Nguyen was convicted after jury trial of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664, subd. (a), 187).[1] The jury found true allegations that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury to a person not an accomplice ( 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.7, subd. (a)) during the commission of the offense, but not true the allegation that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated ( 189).[2] The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for the indeterminate term of 25 years to life consecutive to the determinate term of five years.

Paull C. Walker and Margery F. Walker (collectively defendants) appeal after the trial court granted Alvin H. Luckenbach and Maria E. Luckenbachs (collectively plaintiffs)[1]motion for summary judgment. On appeal, defendants challenge the trial courts (1) denial of their motions for leave to amend and supplement their answer and cross-complaint, and (2)grant of plaintiffs motions for summary adjudication of issues and summary judgment. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted appellant Marquez B. Briggs of oral copulation by force in concert (Pen. Code, 288a, subd. (d))[1] (count 1), sodomy by force in concert ( 286, subd. (d)) (count 2), and carjacking ( 215, subd. (a)) (count 3), and found true all enhancement allegations. Briggs contends the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him by erroneously excluding impeachment evidence regarding the victim. Briggs further argues the trial court violated his right of confrontation and right to present a defense by improperly limiting cross-examination of an expert witness for the prosecution. Court reject these arguments and affirm.

At the age of 17, appellant participated in a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of one of the men at whom the shots were fired. Appellant later admitted to the police that he fired several shots at the group, but averred that he did not intend to kill the man who died. The markings on the fatal bullet were consistent with its having been fired from the gun appellant admitted using. The jury convicted appellant of second degree murder. On appeal, appellant argues that his statements to the police should not have been admitted into evidence because the police did not honor his request to call his mother or a lawyer. We reject this contention on the ground that substantial evidence supports the trial courts implied factual finding that appellant made no such request. Appellant also contends that the trial court should have instructed the jury sua sponte on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. Court reject this contention as well, because there was no substantial evidence to support such an instruction. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Claimants Fred and Hanna Carter installed a new roof of fire-resistant tiles in 1995. Eleven years later, they discovered a water spot on their ceiling caused by a leak in the roof. Defendant Golden Eagle Insurance Company (Golden Eagle), now in conservatorship, had issued a property damage policy covering the tiles used in claimants roof, but the policy period covered only damage occurring in 19951996, the first year of the roofs installation. Claimants filed a claim under the Golden Eagle insurance policy supported by an expert declaration explaining how the roof tiles could have caused property damage during their first year of installation, despite the failure of visible damage to appear until 11 years later. The claims administrator for Golden Eagle denied the claim, and the trial court affirmed that denial. Court affirm the trial court.

A jury convicted Christopher Raynard Griffin of second degree robbery and found that he personally used a firearm. On appeal, defendant contends it was error for the trial court to admit evidence that third parties threatened the victim to prevent him from testifying. Court conclude the evidence was properly admitted for its bearing on the victims credibility, and therefore affirm the conviction.

After the lower court denied his motion to suppress, appellant Kalolo Tausing pleaded no contest to second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 212.5, subd. (c).) On appeal, he contends the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress because the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him. Court disagree, and Court affirm.

S.B. appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders continuing his wardship. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602.) In particular, he contends the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence under Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1. Court will affirm the orders.

After asserting its jurisdiction over T.B. as a dependent child, the juvenile court granted sole custody to the father and then terminated the dependency. T.B.s mother appeals, contending that the court: (1) erred by not making a finding necessary to justify removing T.B. from her custody; (2) erred in not ordering any reunification services; (3) the court abused its discretion in giving custody to the father; and (4) should not have terminated the dependency. Court conclude that no reversible error is established, and Court affirm.

We consolidated these two appeals by plaintiff Marlon Estacio Pagtakhan, who has appealed from separate orders in favor of defendants Black Pants, Inc. and Chuck Witt dismissing his complaint for damages against them. The dismissals were entered on ex parte applications after plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the period granted by the trial court when it sustained demurrers to the complaint.
Plaintiff has at all times acted in propria persona while being lodged at Napa State Hospital. On December 9, 2008, he filed a complaint with 18 causes of action against seven defendants, including Black Pants and Witt. The specific causes of action and the alleged details supporting them are not germane to the issues before us, and thus need not be summarized at length. Suffice to say it appears that the claims stem from plaintiffs attendance at a wrestling camp conducted in a gym in Hayward, and what ensued thereafter, culminating in plaintiffs arrest by Witt, a police officer for the City of Burlingame. It further appears that Black Pants was also involved, although whether its role was supervisory or merely participatory cannot be established with certainty.