CA Unpub Decisions

The juvenile court found that defendant D.J. committed a lewd and lascivious act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)); misdemeanor indecent exposure (Pen. Code, 314, subd. (1)); and misdemeanor false imprisonment (Pen. Code, 236). The court placed defendant on probation. One of the probation conditions requires defendant to have no contact with any children under the age of 12. Defendant contends the condition is unconstitutional because it does not require him to know that a particular child is under 12. Court agree. Court modify the probation condition to include a knowledge requirement, and otherwise affirm.

After she was injured in an automobile accident, appellant Vanessa Gray sued respondents Claudia Mejia, Oscar Perez, and Perezs employer, MIF of San Francisco, Inc., dba Village Imports, alleging negligence.[1] Gray contends that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of payments for her injuries from a collateral source. Court conclude that Gray has failed to establish that the admission of such evidence requires reversal. Applying an incorrect standard of review, Gray also contends that the judgment should be reversed because the evidence sufficed to establish negligence on the part of Perez and Mejia. Court find that substantial evidence supports the verdicts. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Ira Lee Kurney appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his convictions for multiple counts of second degree robbery, attempted second degree robbery, and second degree commercial burglary. Kurney was sentenced to 34 years, 4 months in prison. He contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his confession without first conducting a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code section 402 to determine whether his statements were voluntary. Discerning no reversible error, Court affirm.

In this professional negligence case, appellants Lynette Howard and Terrence Howard (the Howards)[1]appeal from two judgments entered on an order granting summary judgment for two of the defendantsLingaiah Janumpally, M.D. (Janumpally) and David Lask, M.D. (Lask)the respondents here. The trial court granted Lasks motion for summary judgment on the ground that the case against him was time-barred and granted Janumpallys motion on the ground that plaintiffs improperly authenticated medical records failed to refute Janumpallys contention that he had no doctor-patient relationship with Howard.

Defendants and appellants Israel Rivera and Edwin Gutierrez appeal their convictions for kidnapping and false imprisonment, and Gutierrezs conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Rivera and Gutierrez were sentenced to prison terms of 19 and 22 years, respectively. Gutierrez contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for kidnapping. Both appellants urge that their convictions must be reversed because the trial court committed instructional errors, improperly admitted evidence, and erred by denying their mistrial motions based on the prosecutors discovery violation. Appellants also contend their presentence custody credits were incorrectly calculated. Court modify appellants custody credits as requested. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

Appellant In Kon Park, a member of the Korea Sports Council in U.S.A. (Council) sued the Council and two of its members, Jung H. Chang (also known as Chong Hyon Chang) and Michael K. Park (also known as Kyu Hyun Park), for a declaratory judgment that the Councils presidential election on July 15, 2006 was invalid because the defendants violated the rules governing the election. Following appellants presentation of evidence during a one-day bench trial, the defendants brought a motion for judgment, which the trial court granted. Appellant appeals from the judgment, which Court affirm.

M.B. appeals the judgment (order declaring M.B. a ward of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602) entered following the finding M.B. committed an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).)
M.B. contends an amendment of the delinquency petition violated his rights to notice and due process, and the evidence is insufficient to support the jurisdictional finding. Court find no violation of M.B.s rights to notice or due process and conclude the evidence is sufficient to support a felony conviction of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.

A.S. appeals from the juvenile court order declaring him a ward of the court, after finding that he committed attempted kidnapping and robbery. A.S. argues that the evidence was insufficient on two counts. Court affirm the order.

In 2002, a Washington corporation sued the law firm Perkins Coie and partner Nicholas Rockefeller in California for malpractice, after the dismissal of a lawsuit in which Perkins Coie and Rockefeller represented the corporation. In 2003, Rockefeller sued the president of the corporation, Seth Landau, in Washington, alleging intentional misrepresentation, invasion of privacy, and unfair business practices. In 2007, Rockefeller sued Perkins Coie in California for breach of contract and indemnity, in connection with Rockefellers defense of the malpractice action and his tort suit against Landau. Finally, in 2008, Landau filed a malicious prosecution action in California against Rockefeller and Rockefellers California lawyers in the Washington tort action, Gipson Hoffman & Pancione (GHP) and Kenneth I. Sidle. GHP and Sidle filed a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute), and the trial court granted the motion and dismissed them from the action. Rockefeller filed a motion to quash, which the trial court granted on the ground that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Rockefeller. Landau appeals from the orders of the trial court.

In this appeal, plaintiff Michael Banafsheha (plaintiff) appeals from awards of costs made against him and in favor of defendants Avremil Wagshul (Wagshul), Devorah Illulian (Illulian), and Farshad Nassir aka David Hullaster (Hullaster, and collectively with Wagshul and Illulian, respondents). Plaintiff contends the cost memoranda filed by respondents were not timely, and further contends respondents were not entitled to all of the costs awarded to them. Our examination of the record convinces us that the awards of costs should be affirmed.

James Wecker appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of mandate against the City of Los Angeles (city) and the citys Central Area Planning Commission (Planning Commission). He challenges the citys denial of his application for a parcel map to subdivide hillside property. Court conclude that he has shown no prejudicial abuse of discretion by the city and affirm the judgment.

Father Jaime E. appeals from the orders of the juvenile court declaring his child, 20-month‑old Jaime, a dependent of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300, subds. (a) & (b)).[1] Father challenges the due diligence search conducted by the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) to locate him and the notices it sent to him. Because the notice of the disposition hearing did not comply with the requirements of section 358, subdivision (a)(3), Court reverse the disposition order.

David J. Niera appeals from the judgment entered after he was convicted of first degree residential burglary. He claims that there was insufficient evidence he committed the crime, that the trial court abused its discretion by not dismissing several Three Strikes allegations, and that sentencing error occurred. Court disagree and affirm.

A jury found appellant guilty of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine base) and possession of marijuana for sale. The trial court sentenced appellant to a total prison term of six years under the Three Strikes law. He appeals from the judgment. Because he raises no arguable issues, Court affirm.