CA Unpub Decisions

Delores Pugh petitioned for review of a decision by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding that her claim for benefits is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Court hold that if an employer fails to post the notice of employees workers compensation rights required by Labor Code section 3550 and the employee is otherwise unaware of her rights, then the statute of limitations is tolled until the employee gains actual knowledge that she may be entitled to benefits.

An insurer for a construction company seeks equitable contribution and subrogation for defense costs incurred in connection with two lawsuits against its insured. It has sued 10 insurance companies that insure subcontractors who worked for the construction company on a defectively built condominium project. The subcontractors policies named the construction company as an additional insured.
The trial court dismissed the lawsuit. Court reverse. Appellant has stated a cause of action for equitable contribution against its co insurers. Further, appellant must be given leave to amend its pleading to allege that it is an excess insurer relative to respondents.

A former trustee appeals an order of the probate court rejecting his trust accounting and finding he breached his fiduciary duty. He asserts the court erred in denying his request to be represented in the trust proceedings by his wife, permitting the successor trustee to testify, and ordering him to return $300,000 he withdrew from the trust. Court affirm.

This action concerns two parcels of property in Los Angeles. Lot 122 is located at 5255 Adams Boulevard and is owned by defendants and appellants Richard Wilson and Gilda Wilson (the Wilsons), as co-trustees of the Wilson Family Trust (the Trust). Defendant and appellant Alpha Schools, Inc. (Alpha Schools) is a school that operates on the property. Lot 120 is an undeveloped, triangular shaped parcel that adjoins the southern border of Lot 122, and is owned by plaintiff and respondent Itai Ben-Artzi, as trustee of The 5242 Adams Land Trust (respondent). Appellants claimed to have an easement over Lot 120, and respondent filed this action for quiet title, trespass, and injunctive and other relief.
Following a bifurcated trial, the trial court ruled that appellants had no easement rights over Lot 120 and enjoined appellants from entering onto or obstructing access to Lot 120, and from interfering with respondents use and enjoyment of that property. A jury tried the trespass and damages issues and awarded respondent $41,400 in damages. A judgment in that amount was entered against appellants. Court affirm the judgment, as modified herein.

D. F. appeals from the juvenile courts order continuing his wardship after finding he had committed the offense of possession of a firearm by a minor. (Pen. Code, 12101, subd. (a)(1).)
The order under review is affirmed.

Convicted of sexually abusing his stepson D. S. for years and then trying to keep him from testifying about it, defendant James Lyons Hawes contends: (1) By permitting D. S., aged 22 at the time of trial, to testify with a support person, and without holding a hearing to determine whether it was needed, the trial court violated defendants right to a fair trial. (2) Due process requires reversal of defendants convictions on all counts of lewd conduct supported only by generic testimony. (3) The trial court violated defendants constitutional rights by admitting testimony about prior misconduct and instructing the jury to use it to infer guilt even if it was proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. (4) The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint new counsel to litigate a new trial motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel. (5) The trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a new trial when newly discovered evidence showed that D. S. had not told the truth at trial. (6) The trial court violated due process and defendants right to jury trial by imposing upper terms and full consecutive terms based on facts not tried to the jury. Court affirm.

On September 17, 2006, defendant Robin James Morgan attacked his half brother, Steven McGirr, with a metal pipe during a dispute about the presence of a cat in their mobile home. The jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court suspended sentence and placed him on formal probation upon certain conditions, including time in county jail. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in instructing the jury and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Court affirm.

In April 2004, defendant Spencer Lamar Bornes pleaded no contest to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (b)(1)), in Shasta County Superior Court case No. 04F359. The charge arose out of an incident in which he attacked his half-sisters house with a sledgehammer and damaged her truck with an unknown object. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation. On appeal, defendant contends the sentence imposed by the court was based on improper considerations and mistaken facts, was not an exercise of the courts discretion, and violates due process by punishing defendant for having previously exercised his right to jury trial. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Armando Cordova of two counts of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)),[1]one count of attempted murder ( 664/187, subd. (a)), one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter ( 664/192, subd. (a)), and two counts of assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found true a series of special allegations regarding gun use and great bodily injury appended to the various counts. On appeal, Cordova asserts the court erroneously instructed the jury on relevancy of the evidence of his voluntary intoxication to his guilt of the charged offenses.

Jeffry Bryan (Jeffry) appeals a judgment granting the Probate Code section 850[1]petition to recover property filed against him by, and awarding damages to, Patricia Bryan (Patricia), as the administrator of the estate of Connie Bryan (Connie). On appeal, Jeffry apparently contends the trial court erred by: (1) proceeding with the trial on the petition without accommodating his disability; and (2) finding his trial testimony was not credible. Patricia filed a motion to dismiss Jeffry's appeal, asserting his notice of appeal was untimely filed. Because we conclude his notice of appeal was untimely filed, Court grant that motion and dismiss the appeal.

Dawn Bricker Pursell and Dale Bricker were cotrustees of their mother's revocable living trust until litigation between them resulted in a compromise settlement (Code Civ. Proc., 998) under which Pursell returned assets to the trust and a neutral party was named trustee in their place. Pursell appeals an order denying her request for reimbursement of accounting expenses and granting in part Bricker's request for accounting expenses and trustee fees. As to the denial of her request, she principally contends the probate court erred by considering the terms of the compromise settlement since it was not an admission of liability. As to Bricker's awards, she claims abuse of discretion based on several factors, including his alleged agreement to not claim trustee fees and the excessiveness of both awards. Court affirm the order.

Appellant Stephen Durant Weaver challenges the imposition of a medical examination fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1h. Court will affirm the judgment.

Appellant Eugene Forte sued respondents Michael Albov, Peter Williams and the law firm of Hudson, Martin, Ferrante & Street (collectively, Hudson) for legal malpractice. The superior court granted Hudsons motion for summary judgment on the ground that the malpractice claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. Court conclude that the undisputed facts show that (1) Forte knew of the facts constituting the wrongful acts or omissions of Hudson in August 1999, (2) he suspected the acts and omissions were wrongful in a nontechnical sense in August and September of 1999, and (3) he sustained actual injury in 1999 in the form of attorney fees incurred in connection with the specific performance lawsuit. Accordingly, the one year limitations period began to run in 1999 and expired before Forte filed his malpractice action in July 2001.
Therefore, the judgment in favor of Hudson will be affirmed.

Marquesa at Monarch Beach (Marquesa) is a common interest development governed by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code, 1350, et. seq.). It is comprised of single family homes in the Monarch Beach development of Dana Point, many of which have ocean and golf course views. The community is managed by the Marquesa at Monarch Beach Homeowners Association (the Association), which is governed by a board of directors (the Board), and is subject to a recorded declaration of conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs). The trial court granted the Plaintiffs request for declaratory relief and mandamus to compel the Association to enforce its CC&Rs. The Association appeals contending: (1) the business judgment rule precludes judicial intervention in this matter; (2) the judgment is overbroad and void for vagueness; and (3) the judgment is void because the Plaintiffs did not join as defendants the individual homeowners whose trees might be affected by the judgment. Court reject the contentions and affirm the judgment.