CA Unpub Decisions

Chris Gilbreth appeals following our remand for resentencing. He argues that the trial court violated the law of the case established by this courts previous opinion because it denied him probation on grounds of eligibility rather than suitability. We conclude any error was harmless. Gilbreth also contends the court erroneously imposed the middle term of imprisonment for his use of a firearm. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Good Nite Inn Management, Inc. and Good Nite Inn, Redwood Inc. (collectively, the Good Nite Inns) employed Kazi Ahmed for about 12 years; Ahmed worked as the business manager at Good Nite Inn in Redwood City (the Redwood hotel). After the Good Nite Inns terminated Ahmeds employment, he sued them for compensation for overtime and missed meal periods. Ahmed alleged that he was not an exempt employee and that he was entitled to the unpaid wages; he also asserted that the Good Nite Inns violated the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the court ruled that Ahmed was not an exempt employee and therefore the Good Nite Inns owed him for overtime and missed meal periods. It also found that the failure to pay overtime wages violated the UCL. The court awarded Ahmed $293,999.55. It also ordered the Good Nite Inns to pay Ahmed attorney fees in the amount of $236,760. The Good Nite Inns appeal from the judgment and make various challenges to the lower courts finding that Ahmed was not an exempt employee. They also claim that Ahmed was not entitled to restitution under the UCL. Additionally, the Good Nite Inns contest the courts award of attorney fees. Court are not persuaded by their arguments and affirm the judgment.

Timothy J. Anderson appeals from the sentence imposed on him on April 11, 2008, following the remand for resentencing ordered by this court on November 19, 2007. His court appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Defendant Richard Leon Couey was convicted by a jury of one count of forcible rape, one count of residential burglary and one count of forcible oral copulation. The jury found true allegations that defendant had inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the rape and oral copulation, and that those crimes were committed in the course of the burglary. The trial court found true three prior convictions. Defendant was sentenced to 50 years to life for the rape, plus a consecutive term of 25 years for the enhancements. Defendants attorney has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting our independent review of the record. Court find no arguable issue and shall affirm.

D.S. challenges a finding that he violated the conditions of his probation by possessing weapons and a disposition order that removed him from his home. Court affirm.

After a mistrial was declared due to the excusal of a juror and alternate juror, a second jury convicted Jason Johnson (defendant) of second degree murder and found true the allegation that he had personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). The trial court found true the allegations that defendant had suffered three prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Marcel Anthony Neal was convicted of two counts of second degree robbery, with enhancements for personal use of a firearm. (Pen. Code, 211, 12022.53, subd. (b).)[1] The evidence showed that appellant and an accomplice both held guns while they robbed two men who were sitting inside a parked truck in Signal Hill. On count 1, appellant was sentenced to the upper term of five years in prison, plus 10 years for the enhancement. On count 2, he received a consecutive sentence of one year in prison, with the enhancement stayed. Court reject appellants contentions and affirm.

Plaintiff Norcal Mutual Insurance Company (Norcal) sued the law firm of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold (Sedgwick) for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court sustained Sedgwicks demurrer without leave to amend, and entered a judgment of dismissal, on the ground that Code of Civil Procedure[1]section 340.6, the statute of limitation for claims arising from an attorneys wrongful act or omission, bars Norcals claims. Norcal appeals, contending that the trial court erred because: (1) Norcal did not sustain actual injury, and therefore the statute of limitation did not begin to run, until less than a year before its complaint was deemed filed; (2) the statute was tolled because Sedgwick continued to represent Norcal; and (3) section 340.6 does not apply to Norcals claim for breach of fiduciary duty, which has a four year statute of limitation. Norcal also contends the trial court erred by denying it leave to amend its complaint. Court affirm the judgment of dismissal.

Plaintiffs Adnan Reguieg and Ahmed Koudeimati ("plaintiffs") appeal the judgment entered following the trial court's grant of the motion for summary judgment of individual defendants Hal M. Sears and Michel Roy (hereafter "defendants") and corporate defendants Northridge Auto Body Partners, LLC and Northridge Collision Center, Inc. Because Court determine that the proper resolution of this case involves disputed issues of fact, Court reverse the judgment.

Joseph Bonilla (defendant) was convicted of the first degree murder of
Alfredo Briano (Briano). (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a).) The jury made findings of the discharge of a firearm proximately causing death ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d) & (e)(1)) and of a gang enhancement ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
He appeals from the judgment and contends that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted lay opinion testimony from a police officer concerning defendants identity as the assailant as defendant appeared in a videosurveillance tape of the shooting; and (2) the abstract of judgment must be corrected as it failed to conform to the oral proceedings of judgment. Court affirm the judgment and direct the correction of the abstract.

David Acosta appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of robbery and four counts of attempted robbery, with further findings that he used a firearm and committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang. In a bifurcated bench trial, defendant was found to have sustained a prior juvenile adjudication within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. Defendant contends that use of the juvenile adjudication as a strike violated his rights under the state and federal Constitutions. Court affirm.

Appellant Jesus Mejia suspected that his wife was having an affair with Juan C., his adult nephew. Appellant walked into the unlocked bathroom and stabbed Juan C. while he was using the toilet. Appellant was charged with one count of assault with a deadly weapon, a knife (count 1) and one count of attempted premeditated murder (count 2). The jury found him guilty as charged on count 1, but guilty of a lesser included offense, attempted voluntary manslaughter, on count 2. It also found that he inflicted great bodily injury on counts 1 and 2 and used a deadly weapon on count 2. Appellant was sentenced to prison for a total of nine years six months. That sentence includes the upper term on count 2. He had no previous criminal record. He contends that the case must be remanded for resentencing because some of the reasons the trial court gave for imposing the upper term are improper. Court reject the contention because, even though some of the reasons involved improper dual use of facts, the upper term was justified by the facts that Juan C. was an unusually vulnerable victim and the attack was unprovoked.

Metropolitan Property Holding, LLC (Metropolitan) appeals from a judgment entered following a court trial in an interpleader action filed by Chicago Title Company (Chicago Title). Chicago Title filed the action after it received competing demands for the balance of sale proceeds from a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of real property located at 2666-2668 Magnolia Avenue in Los Angeles (the property). After it was awarded its costs and fees, Chicago Title was discharged from the proceedings. Three other parties were also discharged, leaving only the competing claims of Metropolitan and the Franchise Tax Board (Board). Following trial, the court awarded the funds to the Board. Court reverse.

The defendants in this case, attorney Michael Brown and the California Lawyers Group, LLP have appealed from an order denying their special motion to strike the plaintiffs first amended complaint (complaint). The motion was brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute ( 425.16, SLAPPstrategic lawsuit against public participation).
The trial court denied the motion because it determined that the activities of Brown on which the special motion to strike the complaint is based were not acts taken by Brown as a valid exercise of his rights of petition or free speech ( 425.16, subd. (b)(1), but rather constituted extortion and were therefore illegal. Court find the courts analysis is correct and Court affirm the courts order.