CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs and appellants Roberto Garcia, Ronaldo Aleman and Gilberto Vega appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendants SCORE International, Inc. (SCORE) and Steven Benitez (collectively defendants) on plaintiffs' action for premises liability and general negligence. By their action, plaintiffs sought damages for personal injuries they sustained when Benitez lost control of an all terrain vehicle (ATV or "quad") during an off-road race organized by SCORE at which they were spectators. On defendants' motions, the court granted summary judgment on grounds the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applied to relieve defendants of any duty and barred plaintiffs' causes of action. On appeal, plaintiffs contend primary assumption of the risk does not apply because as spectators, they were not injured by a risk inherent in the sport of off-road racing. They further contend the trial court improperly assigned them the burden of proof on summary judgment. Finally, they argue that to the extent secondary assumption of the risk applies, it would not totally bar their recovery but raise issues of comparative fault, which are not amenable to summary judgment. We conclude as to SCORE, summary judgment is not warranted based on the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. As to Benitez, Court affirm the judgment.

This is an appeal from judgment entered after the court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. Although we conclude the trial court erred in failing to allow amendment of the complaint, we also find the error was harmless. Because appellants essentially acknowledge that they were not prejudiced by the claimed error, Court not engage in a very lengthy discussion of the issues.

The court found that appellant, R.M. was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after it sustained allegations charging him with possession of stolen property and violating probation. On appeal, R.M. contends the court erred by ordering him to pay $484.85 in restitution without allowing him to dispute the amount at a hearing. Court agree and reverse the courts restitution order. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendants Irvine Imports, Inc., doing business as Power Toyota Irvine (Power), Brian Cole, Dina Gulo, and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (collectively, defendants) appeal from a postjudgment order denying their motion for attorney fees. They contend they were entitled to recover their fees pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, 1750 et seq.) (CLRA), the Automobile Sales Finance Act ( 2981 et seq.) (ASFA), and the sales contract. But the court found plaintiff acted in good faith, precluding an award pursuant to the CLRA. Plaintiff did not assert any ASFA claim. And awarding attorney fees pursuant to the contract would subvert the CLRAs non reciprocal attorney fee provision. Court affirm.

Pursuant to the opinion of the Supreme Court in Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431, the judgment of the superior court is reversed. The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to vacate its orders of July 8, 2003 and October 17, 2003, granting the motions of defendant Santa Clara County Open Space Authority for summary adjudication and to enter new orders denying both motions. The superior court is further directed to vacate its orders of July 8, 2003 and October 17, 2003, denying the summary adjudication motions of plaintiffs, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc., et al., and to enter a new order granting the first of those two motions (plaintiffs motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action) for the reasons set forth in the Supreme Courts opinion at pages 450 through 458. Plaintiffs are awarded their costs on appeal.

A modification decision.

Amanda Rose Hernandez appeals from the judgment following her guilty plea to felony unlawful taking/driving a vehicle. (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a).) Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court dismissed a count for carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(4)), suspended imposition of sentence, and granted probation with 120 days county jail.
The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted codefendants Isaac Vicente and Vincent Juan Tomas of one count of discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle and found, as an enhancement, that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, 246, 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Court find no prejudicial error and affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Geoffrey E. Woo Ming, representing himself, appeals from two judgments of dismissal after the trial court granted special motions to strike Woo Mings amended complaint by defendants Eric Graves and Chris Gordon. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16.) Court shall affirm the judgments.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred by granting Debra Montgomery summary judgment on Ramona Equipment Rental, Inc.'s (RER) cause of action against her for the alleged fraudulent transfer of residential property from the joint tenancy of Montgomery and her estranged husband, Lee Montgomery,[1]to her separate property. RER contends it raised triable issues of fact as to Lee's actual intent to defraud his creditors, or alternatively, his constructive fraud. Court affirm the judgment.

Natalie M. appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights over her daughter Jada B. Natalie contends she was denied due process because she was not served with a copy of a Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 387 supplemental petition and was not properly notified of section 387 hearings or the section 366.26 hearing. Natalie also contends the juvenile court erred by declining to apply the sibling relationship exception to termination ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v)). Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of kidnapping (Pen. Code, 207)[1]and forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)), during both of which he used a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The jury further found, as to the rape, that defendant had kidnapped the victim and her movement substantially increased her risk of harm, he used a deadly or dangerous weapon, and he bound the victim. ( 667.61, subds. (a) & (d).) He was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life plus 6 years. He appeals claiming the jury was misinstructed, his motion for a mistrial should have been granted, cumulative error requires reversal of his conviction for rape and sentencing error occurred. Court reject his contentions and affirm, while directing the trial court to correct an error appearing in the determinate abstract of judgment.

A modification decision.

A jury found defendant guilty of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a)),[1]making criminal threats ( 422), domestic violence ( 273.5, subd. (a)), and intimidating a witness or victim ( 136.1, subd. (c)(1)).[2] The court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of eight years. Court reverse with directions.