CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Gateway Bank, FSB (Gateway) appeals from judgments of the Alameda County Superior Court, following the courts grant of summary judgments in favor of defendants Ticor Title Company of California (Ticor) and Chicago Title Insurance Company (Chicago Title).

Defendant Jedidiah A. Shoemaker appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (a).) He contends on appeal that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct and that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Jerome J. Ghigliotti, Jr. appeals from an order of the trial court denying his special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16.)[1] He contends plaintiffs and respondents, Hua Cao Xu and Xue Ying Zhong, failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating a probability of prevailing on the merits of their malicious prosecution action against him, because they failed to make a prima facie showing both that the underlying unlawful detainer actions were either initiated or continued without probable cause and that he acted with malice. Court disagree and shall affirm the order.

J.G. appeals from a disposition committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). He argues that conditions imposed by the court that were to take effect during his confinement are invalid and must be reversed. Court agree and order the appropriate modification.

Plaintiff and appellant Marlon Estacio Pagtakhan filed a complaint naming various individuals, including respondent Victor Ceron. Ceron brought a motion to quash service, which the trial court granted. Pagtakhan appeals. Court affirm.

Counsel appointed for defendant R.A. has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We have conducted our review and conclude there are no arguable issues. Court thus affirm.

Maurice Thomas appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, 12316, subd. (b)(1)). His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
Gina Holguin worked as a surveillance agent at Casino San Pablo in San Pablo. On January 25, 2009, near 7:00 a.m., Holguin was directed to watch the bar area on her surveillance screen because a fight had been reported there. Holguin turned her attention to the bar. She saw appellant and two women. Holguin watched appellant and the women as they left the bar and went into the parking lot. When appellant and the women reached their car, appellant lifted his shirt, withdrew a gun that had been tucked into his waistband, and placed it in the trunk. Holguin told a supervisor what she had seen and recommended that she call the police.

On October 28, 2008, a juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602[1]was filed and, subsequently, defendant admitted that she had unlawfully driven or taken a vehicle without the consent of the owner (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)). The victims vehicle was damaged and not repairable. The parties agreed that defendant would pay victim restitution of $1,875, which represented the difference between the amount of insurance money received by the victim and the value of the car. The victim mentioned additional costs and the court stated that he could claim and prove additional restitution at a contested hearing. The lower court declared defendant a ward of the court, placed her on probation, and ordered victim restitution of $1,875, subject to further restitution as claimed and proved.

Plaintiff Paulo Naranjo, appearing in propria persona, purports to appeal from a June 2, 2009, judgment filed in favor of respondents California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Employment Development Department, and Patrick Henning as Director of Employment Development Department, after the court denied Naranjos petition for a writ of mandate. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the appeal is untimely. Naranjo opposes the motion. We conclude that because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, we lack jurisdiction to entertain Naranjos appeal. Accordingly, Court grant respondents motion and dismiss the appeal.

Salvador Rodriguez appeals from the judgment entered after his conviction by a jury on one count of murder and three counts of attempted murder with true findings by the jury on related gang and weapon enhancement allegations. Rodriguez contends he was prejudiced by the erroneous admission of a videotaped interview of a witness who testified against him at trial and by the trial courts refusal to allow him to reopen testimony. He also challenges the calculation of his sentence. Court modify the judgment to correct his sentence and, as modified, affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Urban Eco Housing, LLC appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Tu My Tong pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. Court affirm.

Mid Canada Millwork, Ltd. (MCM) appeals from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration. MCM argues that the court erred by failing to deem all of the facts in its petition admitted where Alta Lab Casework, Ltd. (Alta) filed an untimely response, and by concluding that the contracts between MCM and Alta lack mandatory arbitration provisions. Court affirm.

Appellants Takui Aivazian (Aivazian) and Atna Enterprises, Inc. (Atna) sued respondents Robert Thompson and Sharon Thompson (collectively the Thompsons) for conduct allegedly designed to drive Aivazian and Atna out of their restaurant and banquet hall business. Because the trial court granted the Thompsons anti SLAPP motion, Aivazian and Atna now appeal. Court find no error and affirm.

The prevailing defendant on a motion to set aside a default and default judgment filed the present appeal (in pro. per.) to challenge a perceived deficiency in the scope of the trial courts order granting relief. Court affirm the order.