CA Unpub Decisions

While he was in chapter 7 bankruptcy, plaintiff Steve K. Zinnel filed an action, in propria persona, against defendant Ed Herman for tortious interference with contract and related causes of action. Herman filed successive demurrers, each raising the bar of the statute of limitations. The second demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.

When a criminal defendant is induced to enter a plea of guilty or no contest by a promise of a fundamental nature that cannot be kept, he or she is entitled to a reversal of the resulting judgment and sentence. (People v. Hollins (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 567, 574.) Gunter Mannich appeals from a conviction after he pled no contest to one count of criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422). He was sentenced to state prison for 16 months. Appellant contends he is entitled to withdraw his no contest plea, because he entered the plea in reliance on the misrepresentation that he would be permitted to petition the trial court for reduction of his felony offense to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 17(b)). Court disagree and affirm.

The trial court granted summary judgment to respondents Mad River Community Hospital and Robert Lock, M.D., on the complaint for professional negligence filed by appellants Diane and David Parker. After their motion for new trial was denied, the Parkers appealed. They challenge the propriety of both the order granting summary judgment and the order denying their motion for new trial in their appeal. Neither of these orders is appealable. Even if we liberally construe the December 28, 2007 notice of appeal to intend an appeal from the judgments entered in favor of the hospital and Dr. Lock, the notice of appeal would be untimely. Thus, Court must dismiss the purported appeal.

Following a successful mandamus action in which Uphold our Heritage (Heritage) challenged Town of Woodsides (Town) decision to authorize the demolition of a historic house by real party in interest Steve Jobs, Heritage moved for an award of attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.[1] Appellants Town and Jobs contend that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the litigation conferred a significant benefit on the general public and that the burden of private enforcement was disproportionate to the personal interest in the litigation of the president of Heritage. They also contend that the $403,548 award is excessive. Although the award is indeed substantial, we see no basis for concluding that the trial court abused its discretion and thus shall affirm the award.

Plaintiff Phillip Branscomb was a patient in a mental health facility when he was stabbed by another patient. Through his conservator, Margaretta Davis, he sued the facility, Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center, and also named as a defendant the Daughters of Charity Health System, which he alleged to be associated with the facility. We refer to both defendants collectively as RFK-MC. The trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer filed by RFK-MC to Branscombs first amended complaint, which alleged a claim for abuse of a dependent adult under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600 et seq. Branscomb then filed a motion for reconsideration accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint which alleged a cause of action for negligence. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, and dismissed the action. On appeal, Branscomb contends the court erred by denying him leave to amend to allege a negligence claim as contained in his proposed second amended complaint. Court affirm.

A modification decision.

Plaintiff and appellant DAS Corporation sued defendants and respondents Kyung Joon Kim (often referred to as "KJ Kim"), Erica Kim, and Bora Lee,[1]for fraud, money had and received, and other causes of action. Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that res judicata and/or collateral estoppel barred DAS from proceeding on any of its claims. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. We reverse the judgment. DAS is barred from proceeding on its fraud cause of action and on its other causes of action to the extent they are based on fraud. In all other respects, Court find no bar.

Gregory Wayne Johnson appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction for failing to update his registration as a sex offender, contending there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Court affirm.

Defendant Jesse Maldonado appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of possession for sale of methamphetamine. Court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed a request for independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Plaintiff and respondent USA Aisiqi Shoes, Inc. (Aisiqi) filed a lawsuit against its employee, defendant and appellant Peter Zhuang Fei Huang (Huang). During trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement in open court and on the record, by which Huang agreed to pay Aisiqi a specified amount, and to execute a third deed of trust on his residence as security for the monetary obligation. When he defaulted on his obligations, Aisiqi brought a motion for the trial court to enter a stipulated judgment, and the court did so. As a result of Aisiqis instituting nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings, Huang paid Aisiqi the principal amount of the monetary obligation, but did not pay the attorney fees which the court had awarded as part of the stipulated judgment. Aisiqi filed a motion for an award of the attorney fees it incurred in enforcing the settlement agreement, based on the provision in the deed of trust which allows for an award of attorney fees. The trial court granted the motion. Huang appeals from the resulting order, contending there was no basis for the award of attorney fees. Court disagree and affirm the trial courts order.

C.C. (Mother) appeals from a February 13, 2008 order terminating parental rights to S.C. (Child), born in July 2007, and freeing him for adoption. Mother challenges the order denying placement of Child with the paternal relatives. We affirm the order because the juvenile court properly applied the relative placement provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3, any error in failing to evaluate the paternal relatives home was harmless error, and the courts placement decision was not an abuse of discretion.

On the night of November 27, 2007 Carlos Molina offered to help an undercover officer purchase narcotics. Molina led the officer to the gated entrance of an alley, where the officer had a brief conversation with a man in a wheelchair. The officer was then allowed to enter the alley, accompanied by Molina. They walked up to Diana Bronson, who was seated at a table about 60 feet from the gated entrance. Several rocks of cocaine were on the table. Bronson told the officer she remembered him and asked for his money. After receiving the officers money, Bronson instructed a man sitting next to her to give him two pieces. The man handed the officer two rocks of cocaine from the table. After the officer made his purchase, Molina bought some rock cocaine as well. The officer notified his fellow officers of the transaction and described Bronson and Molina. Shortly thereafter, Bronson and Molina were arrested. During a search incident to Bronsons arrest, police found two glass pipes and more than $115 in cash on her person. The judgment is affirmed.

Mother, A.H., appeals from the juvenile courts order terminating reunification services and placing her minor daughter in long-term foster care. Mother, as well as respondent Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the minor have stipulated to reverse the courts findings and orders. Court conclude this is a proper case for a stipulated reversal, and therefore reverse the juvenile courts orders.

Mother Ruby T. appeals from the dependency courts denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking return of her children to her. She contends the dependency court abused its discretion in denying her petition because the evidence demonstrates changed circumstances. Court affirm.