CA Unpub Decisions

Having invested $345,000 in a real estate development, Maurice Benbeniste appeals from a judgment which may award him less than his initial investment. Benbeniste claims multiple errors by the trial court which he contends require reversal of the judgment, including: (1) the judgment fails for uncertainty; (2) the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction; (3) the trial court erred by failing to issue a statement of decision; (4) no substantial evidence supports the trial courts findings; (5) he was entitled to a jury trial; and (6) he was entitled to prejudgment interest on the award. Court affirm in all respects except that we find the judgment uncertain as to the precise amount to be paid to Benbeniste and whether prejudgment interest is owed on that amount. Court remand to the trial court on these limited issues for a determination.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant First Transit, Inc., entered after the trial court granted First Transits motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. Court affirm the judgment because the motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly noticed and the first amended complaint shows on its face that it is barred by both the one year and the two year statute of limitations. Plaintiff also did not allege sufficient facts to invoke the equitable estoppel doctrine as a bar to First Transits statute of limitations defense.

Plaintiffs and appellants Trailblazer Technologies, Inc. and Richard J. Brownstein II appeal from a judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend in favor of defendant and respondent Michael Timothy Regas (Regas). Court affirm.

Steven Williams appeals a judgment after his conviction of selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), and possession of cocaine base ( 11350, subd. (a)). We conclude that: 1) the trial court gave proper instructions to the jury on the issue of credibility and gave a proper cautionary instruction to correct a statement made by the prosecutor in oral argument, 2) an in camera Pitchess review (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531) by this court is not required, and 3) a probation condition must be modified because it did not include a knowledge requirement. Court order the probation condition modified, but in all other respects Court affirm.

A modification decision.

After a court trial, Raul Antonio Arriaga (appellant) was found guilty of lewd acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced appellant to six years in state prison. Appellant appeals on the grounds that: (1) he was denied his right to present a defense under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments and article I, sections 7 and 15 of the State Constitution when the trial court ruled inadmissible third party culpability evidence and propensity evidence relating to the third party, (2) assuming arguendo that appellants claim is meritorious and that defense counsel failed to preserve this issue, appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Ruth Collins established that Harrison A. Baker, Jr. orally promised to bequeath her the house she rented from him. She prevailed in this action for quantum meruit against William H. McIlhany, beneficiary and trustee of Bakers trust, and recovered the value of services she rendered to Baker in anticipation of this gift. McIlhany appeals, contending the trial court exhibited gender bias against him, the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, and the court erred in its application of certain Probate Code provisions. Court affirm.

In May 2006, Judy Burnett was brutally attacked while sleeping in her apartment. A jury convicted her boyfriend Jackson Gumisiriza of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (Pen. Code, 664, 187, subd. (a)).[1] The jury also found true the special allegations that he used a deadly and dangerous weapon ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence ( 12022.7, subd. (e)). The jury also found Gumisiriza guilty of first degree burglary ( 459). He contends on appeal that: (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) the trial court erred by acting as an expert and by allowing police officers to offer unqualified expert testimony; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Court affirm.

This family law dispute evades simple solutions. Mother and father, both Israeli citizens, are unmarried and have one son, T.A. Father challenges on procedural and substantive grounds the trial court judgment allowing mother to relocate to Israel with T.A. He understandably worries that the long-distance move may negatively impact his relationship with T.A., who was born in 2005. Finally, father challenges the attorney fee award. That order was not included in the notice of appeal and therefore is not cognizable on appeal. Court affirm.

Alex Darnell Holifield appeals his convictions for robbery and attempted robbery. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support three of the robbery convictions. We conclude the convictions are supported by substantial evidence. Appellant argues, and respondent concedes, that the trial court erred in imposing the full 10-year enhancement for firearm use under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b) on four subordinate counts. Court direct the modification of his sentence to rectify that error as Court explain.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of the City of Los Angeles (City) on the ground that the action was barred by both the one-year and the two-year statute of limitations. Court affirm the judgment, rejecting plaintiffs contentions that (1) the action is timely filed under the delayed discovery doctrine and (2) the statute of limitations defense is barred by the equitable estoppel doctrine. We also reject plaintiffs claim of untimely service of notice of the summary judgment motion and his challenge to the trial courts order denying his motion to bifurcate the trial.

Father P. D. appeals from the order adjudicating his three children dependents. He claims there was insufficient evidence to support the courts jurisdictional findings. For this reason, he claims the dispositional order removing the children from his custody is moot. We conclude there is insufficient evidence to support dependency jurisdiction based on Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), but the evidence is sufficient to support jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (d). Court affirm the jurisdictional and dispositional orders.

A modification decision.

This products liability case arises from a very sad situation. In February 2004, Mark and Colette Contois took their son Caleb and his friends to play paintball at Realstar Outdoor Adventures (ROA) in celebration of Calebs 10th birthday. Mark and Colette stood nearby as the children, finished with the game, disassembled their paintball equipment in the area designated for that purpose. Paintball equipment consists of a cylinder, valve and paintball marker or gun with an air source adapter (ASA). (See appendix.) The paintball marker fires only when the valve/cylinder assembly is screwed into the markers ASA.