CA Unpub Decisions

Fabros contends insufficient evidence supported the convictions on counts 1 through 11, and the trial court erred by restricting the psychologist's testimony under the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Court affirm.

Fatema Qassimyar appeals from a judgment in favor of Nicholas Saenz, M.D., Henry Krous, M.D., Denise Malicki, M.D., Deborah Schiff, M.D., and William Roberts, M.D. on her lawsuit seeking damages assertedly sustained after she underwent surgery to remove an abdominal mass, resulting in the removal of four of her surrounding organs. The trial court had granted defendants' summary judgment motions, ruling in part that plaintiff did not present admissible evidence rebutting expert declarations stating that defendants' medical care and treatment complied with the applicable standard of care, or showing that her parents' surgical consents were not based on full disclosure. Plaintiff appeals, challenging the grant of summary judgment on grounds she raised conflicting evidence on her causes of action for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. She further contends the court erred by sustaining demurrers to her causes of action for battery and fraud. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Paul Blazevich (Paul), representing himself on appeal, contends a $50,000 note he drafted in 1993 in favor of his aunt and uncle, Carollyn Blazevich (Carollyn) and Edward Blazevich (Edward), was usurious because he only received $48,000 of the $50,000 they transferred to him, and the $2,000 difference, when combined with the interest at the "maximum rate allowed by law" provided under the note, exceeded the statutory maximum. Paul thus seeks reversal of the portion of the judgment denying his usury claim and requests the matter be remanded for a new trial on that issue.
We conclude Paul's usury claim is barred by res judicata, and that, in any event, the note was not usurious. Court thus affirm the judgment.

A jury found John Cameron (Cameron) guilty of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, 422).[1] In a bifurcated hearing, Cameron waived his right to a trial on a strike allegation and admitted the strike. The court dismissed the strike and placed him on three years' probation. Cameron appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence that his statements "convey[ed] . . . a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat" and caused the victim "reasonably to be in sustained fear for his . . . own safety." ( 422.) Court affirm.

Edgar J. appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights over his son Christian A. Edgar contends the juvenile court violated his due process rights by failing to provide him notice as required by Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 316.2, subdivision (b) and California Rules of Court, rule 5.635(g);[2]abused its discretion by denying his section 388 petitions; erred by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to termination ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)); and failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). Court affirm.

Orion Felix Li was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) with personal use of a deadly weapon ( 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)) and misdemeanor battery ( 242). The court suspended criminal proceedings and ordered a mental competency examination and hearing ( 1368 et seq.). At the hearing, the court received into evidence a report from the examining psychiatrist. The court concluded that Li was not mentally competent to stand trial and ordered him committed to Patton State Hospital for a maximum term of three years. Li appeals. Court affirm.

Thirteen year old Fernando S. entered a negotiated admission to one count of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). The juvenile court declared Fernando a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) and ordered that he be placed in a 24-hour school. Ten days after he was placed at the school, Fernando left without permission. After Fernando agreed to return to the 24 hour school and complete the program, the court ordered that he be returned to the school. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant, Maurice Leonard Alberti, was charged with three felony counts: (1) possession of a firearm by a felon (count 1), (2) possession of armor piercing ammunition (count 2), and (3) actively participating in a criminal street gang, namely, Four Corner Hustler Crips (FCHC) (count 3). It was alleged that counts 1 and 2 were committed for the benefit of FCHC. The jury found defendant guilty on all counts and also found the gang allegations true. Defendant was sentenced to 12 years in prison. on count 1. The trial court is further directed to forward a copy of defendants corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Defendant Timothy Michael Willard challenges the restitution (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b)) and parole revocation restitution ( 1202.45) fines imposed by the trial court at his probation revocation hearing. Court will affirm.

J.M. (hereinafter also defendant) appeals from a judgment entered against him asserting that (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering that he enter foster care that might place him outside of his own community, and (2) the juvenile court failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 United States Code, section 1901 et seq. and related California legislation (ICWA). Specifically, he argues that Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.3[1]required the juvenile court to inquire whether he has any Indian heritage and its failure to do so requires reversal. Court find that J.M.s first argument is not ripe for consideration on the record before us and decline to reverse the judgment on that ground. And, because the question has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal, court decline to consider whether the juvenile court was required to comply with the ICWA. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

J.P. (father) appeals as error (1) the juvenile courts denial of his request for a continuance of the permanency planning hearing regarding his two children, (2) the denial of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions, and (3) the courts failure to make a specific visitation order. Court affirm.

Curtis Wright appeals the judgment of the San Francisco Superior Court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his eight year sentence in state prison. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded that appellant violated the terms of his probation by furnishing cocaine base and resisting arrest. Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the probation violation finding. Court shall affirm.

Appellant, an attorney, was hired by a relocation consultant to represent two businesses in connection with the impending condemnation of their business premises. Appellant was discharged shortly before the condemnation case went to trial. Appellant and the businesses participated in a nonbinding mandatory fee arbitration proceeding, in which appellant sought to recover the fees he contended were owed to him for his pretrial work on the condemnation proceeding. After losing the arbitration, appellant filed the present case against the businesses and the relocation consultant. Appellant settled his suit just before trial, agreeing to dismiss his case against the two businesses in exchange for a payment from the relocation consultant. As part of the settlement, appellant expressly agreed that the two businesses retained their right to seek recovery of their costs and attorney fees.
As authorized by the mandatory fee arbitration statutes, the trial court awarded the businesses the attorney fees and costs they had incurred in defending appellants suit against them. Appellant now challenges the trial courts attorney fee order on numerous grounds. Court reject all of appellants arguments, and affirm the order.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the Solano County juvenile court sustained allegations against T.F. for carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle (Pen. Code, 12031, subd. (a)(1))[1] and carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle ( 12025, subd. (a)(1)). It adjudged appellant a ward of the court and placed him on probation in the custody of his parents, with conditions including 30 days in juvenile hall with 30 days credit for time served. On appeal, he contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the true findings. Court disagree and hence affirm the judgment.