CA Unpub Decisions

Creatier Interactive, LLC ("Creatier") sued multiple defendants for the misappropriation of Creatier's interactive video technology known as "ClickVision." The trial court entered a settlement on the record, which Creatier subsequently sought to be enforced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure[1]section 664.6. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Creatier against individual defendants Daniel Bates, Jorge Geaga, Ann Kaesman, and Mort Salkind, as well as corporate defendants Inframe Inc. ("Inframe") and Avant Interactive, Inc. ("Avant") on March 5, 2007.
The trial court also entered summary judgment in favor of defendant Carole Salkind, based on its conclusion that the undisputed facts preclude her liability as a co conspirator or as the alter ego of the corporate defendant Avant. Creatier appeals that judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in that conclusion. Court agree, and so reverse the summary judgment in favor of Mrs. Salkind.

A modification decision.

Aaron Stitess lawsuit against Promus Hotel Corporation and other businesses (collectively, Promus) was dismissed when he failed to appear for trial during jury selection. Stites appeals the dismissal order, the courts subsequent denial of his motion to vacate the dismissal, and the courts order awarding costs against him. Court affirm.

Appellant Cynthia Beck had a dispute with her neighbors. Her title insurer, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, hired the law firm of Marcus, Watanabe, Snyder & Dave ("MWSD") to represent her in the ensuing litigation. Disputes between Beck and her neighbors continued after the litigation was dismissed. Beck again sought coverage from Old Republic, which denied coverage. Beck sued Old Republic for breach of contract, bad faith, and declaratory relief and sued MWSD for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Judgment was entered in Old Republic's favor after its motion for summary judgment was granted. Judgment was entered for MWSD as a sanction for discovery abuse. Court affirm both judgments.

G.C., the biological father of child J.G. (minor), appeals from the order of the juvenile court denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition (section 388 petition). The petition requested that an order finding father J.G. (father) to be the presumed father of minor be vacated and replaced with a new order finding G.C. to be minors presumed father. Court affirm the order denying the section 388 petition.

Appellant, mother of the minors J. V. (six years old) and L. V. (eight years old), appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support the courts finding that the minors were adoptable. Court affirm.

Defendant Glen Dale Lemons, Jr., was a passenger in the front seat of a vehicle driven by his friend, Trent G., whose 10-year-old daughter, T.G., was sitting in the back seat by her six-year-old sister. Defendant held his cell phone over his shoulder and showed to T.G. pictures of defendants penis and a text message stating he wanted to masturbate. When T.G. later walked by defendant in the living room of her fathers home, defendant was looking at a picture of a mans penis on a laptop computer. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error in favor of defendant. The appeal is dismissed.

At around 12:30 a.m., 63-year-old Dennis Seefeldt heard a knock on the door of his Carmichael apartment. Seeing nothing through the peephole, he opened the door a few inches and found two guns pointed at him. Two men, one armed with a shotgun and the other armed with a .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun, pushed their way into the apartment, forced Seefeldt to the floor, and bound his hands behind his back. The robbers demanded money, drugs, and guns as they ransacked the apartment and searched through Seefeldts pockets. They took two handguns, Seefeldts coin collection, and three cell phones. Seefeldt identified defendant as the robber wielding the shotgun. The judgment is affirmed.

Reynaldo C., Jr. and Karen B., parents of the eight minors, appeal from orders of the juvenile court denying Reynaldo C.s petition for modification and terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 388, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to this code].) Appellants contend substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding of adoptability as to Al. C. and Ar. C. and that the exception to termination of parental rights found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(iii), i.e., the minor is in a residential treatment facility and is not adoptable, should have applied to Al. C. Reynaldo C. also argues the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for modification. Court affirm.

David Disney reported to the Shasta County Sheriffs Department that he witnessed a tenant he was evicting, defendant Mark Cassiero, load Disneys refrigerator into a pickup and drive away. Disney said that the refrigerator was valued at $400 and later produced a receipt he claimed established his ownership of it. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant Robert Edward Bevens was convicted in July 2004 of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) He was granted probation on the condition, among others, that he serve 180 days in county jail, and was required to register as a sex offender. The judgment is affirmed.

Harry Haubert appeals from an order of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of San Diego County (appellate division). In its order, the appellate division affirmed the trial court's denial of Haubert's claim of exemption for certain bank trust accounts, and imposed sanctions against Haubert for filing a frivolous appeal to that body. Ellen Evans and Christina Turpela (Respondents) filed a motion to dismiss Haubert's appeal in this court for lack of jurisdiction, and also moved for sanctions against Haubert for pursuing another frivolous appeal. Court grant Respondents' motion, and dismiss Haubert's appeal. Court also award sanctions in a total amount of $15,460 to compensate Respondents and this court for having to respond to and process Haubert's frivolous appeal.

The record in this case contains testimony from a medical examiner who believed appellant Salvador Mendoza Gonzalez strangled his girlfriend Maria Veloz for one or two minutes and that although the strangling itself would have killed Veloz, when appellant was finished strangling Veloz, appellant threw Veloz against a wall with such force that he inflicted what would have been a second fatal injury. The record also contains testimony from appellant in which he admitted he killed Veloz. The jury found him guilty of first degree murder. On appeal appellant argues the prosecution failed to show the killing was premeditated and deliberate. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Marc Lair appeals from a supplemental postjudgment order in execution of a judgment for property (Code Civ. Proc., 714.020, subds. (b), (c))[1] determining the value of certain personal property (a navigation/communication system or GPS) to be $9,000 and awarding that amount to defendant Ronald Vinci. Lair contends (1) the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting oral testimony from Vinci's witnesses at a hearing on that matter and (2) the navigation system, which had been installed in an aircraft awarded to Vinci in a judgment for possession, was not included within that judgment and cannot be subject to the supplemental order under section 714.020. Court reject these contentions and affirm the order.