CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and appellant William Wright III appeals from a judgment following an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Northrop Grumman Corporation in this action arising out of the termination of Wrights employment. Wright contends triable issues of fact exist as to whether he had an oral agreement providing that Northrop would not terminate his employment without cause. Court conclude that Wright was an at will employee and therefore affirm the judgment.

Appellant Judy Reed (Reed) appeals the dismissal of her third amended complaint following the sustaining of a demurrer filed by respondent Ferguson & Melvin, Inc. (Ferguson). The trial court found that Reeds action was barred by the two-year contractual limitation in the parties contract. Because Reeds third amended complaint made no attempt to plead around the time bar by alleging that the contractual limitation was unconscionable, alleging that the contractual limitation was longer than two years, or alleging delayed accrual, her pleading is defective. She does not contend that she can ameliorate these problems. Court find no error and affirm.

The jury convicted defendant Tredis Earl Ferguson of unlawfully taking or driving the vehicle of another without consent in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). Regarding the recidivist allegations, defendant waived his right to a jury trial, and the trial court found defendant suffered one serious or violent felony within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d))[1]and served three prior prison terms ( 667.5). The trial court imposed an eight-year prison term consisting of the three-year middle term doubled under the three strikes law, plus two one-year prior prison term enhancements (the third having been stayed as it was based on the prior strike conviction). Court agree with defendant on the second two contentions and therefore conditionally reverse and remand for a Pitchess hearing, and reverse the imposition of the crime prevention fines. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Linda Reiswig and her brother, Robert Sauser, appeal an order of the probate court admitting to probate and construing a holographic codicil written by their stepfather, Serfie G. Silveira. Court independently interpret the holographic codicil and affirm as to Linda, but dismiss the appeal as to Robert.

Defendants, Paul Douglas Fowler, Jr. and Brian Matthew Thomas, appeal after they were convicted of carjacking (Pen. Code,[1] 215, subd. (a)) and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)) and the jury found they personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the carjacking. ( 12022, subd. (b)(2).) Additionally, Mr. Thomas appeals from his convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery ( 182, subd. (a)(1)) and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and the findings he personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of both the carjacking and the aggravated assault and used a deadly weapon. ( 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a).) Mr. Thomas argues there was insufficient evidence to support his count 2 aggravated assault conviction and he improperly received the upper term. Mr. Fowler argues there was insufficient evidence to support his count 4 aggravated assault conviction and the trial court improperly instructed the jury on aiding and abetting. Both defendants argue the trial court improperly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt and flight. The Attorney General argues the trial court should have imposed a court security fee as to each count. Both defendants argue no additional fines or penalties need be imposed. Court affirm with modifications.

The jury found defendant Adolph Laudenberg guilty of the first degree murder of Lois Petrie in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a). Defendant received a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. In his timely appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the physical evidence (a Styrofoam cup) from which the police collected the DNA evidence that connected him to the murder. As the trial court found, however, defendant had no enforceable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment because he abandoned the cup. Court therefore affirm.

Timothy B. Gordon appeals from the judgment following his multiple convictions of first degree burglary and other offenses for breaking into cars in enclosed parking areas of several apartment buildings. Court affirm.

This case arises out of a dispute over extra work performed on a construction project. The general contractor, Mackone Development, Inc. (defendant), appeals from a judgment in favor of the subcontractor, Bannaoun Engineers Constructors Corp. (plaintiff). Court reverse the judgment only insofar as it awards $2,138.07 in Public Contract Code section 7107 prompt payment penalties to plaintiff. Court affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Defendants and appellants Champion Chevrolet, Inc. and Champion Chevrolet LLC (collectively referred to as Champion) appeal from an order denying their motion to compel arbitration in favor of plaintiff and respondent Carlos Campos in this employment discrimination case. Champion contends Campos signed an enforceable arbitration agreement as part of his application for employment. Campos argues the agreement failed to provide the minimum requirements for judicial review under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 91 (Armendariz) and was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Contrary to the ruling of the trial court, we hold that the arbitration agreement met the requirements for judicial review stated in Armendariz and no substantive unconscionability has been shown. Court reverse with directions to grant the motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiffs and appellants Evelyn Thomopoulos and her husband Andreas Thomopoulos[1]appeal from a judgment following an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants and respondents Oakwood Woodland Hills Lessee, LLC, doing business as Oakwood Woodland Hills, Oakwood Worldwide, LP, and ASN Woodland Hills East, LLC (collectively Oakwood) in this premises liability action. Evelyn tripped on a floor mat that had been rolled or folded to prop open a fire door in the Oakwood apartment building in which the Thomopouloses live. The Thomopouloses contend triable issues of fact exist as to whether Oakwood had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Court conclude there was no evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude that Oakwood had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition, and therefore affirm the judgment.

The minor, Manuel D., appeals from the August 22, 2007 order declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] 602) and committing him to the Division of Juvenile Justice. On August 1, 2007, the juvenile court sustained the allegation of a delinquency petition filed July 9, 2007, charging the minor with burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) The juvenile court declared the offense to be a felony. The juvenile court also found true the allegation that in the commission of the burglary, the minor took, damaged and destroyed property of a value exceeding $50,000. (Pen. Code, 12022.6, subd. (a)(1); Stats. 1998, ch. 454, 2.) The minors maximum confinement time was set at 7 years, 8 months: 6 years for the burglary; 8 months for second degree robbery; and, 1 year for the section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(1) finding. The minor argues: there was insufficient evidence to support his burglary conviction; the trial court improperly committed him to the juvenile justice division; the commitment order should be reversed. Court affirm the wardship order and remand to allow the juvenile court to calculate the minors confinement time.

The jury convicted defendant Alejandro Garcia Castaneda of possessing a counterfeit public seal in violation of Penal Code section 472, and he received a two-year prison sentence. In his timely appeal, defendant contends there was constitutionally insufficient evidence as to one of the elements of the offense, that he possessed a counterfeit drivers license with intent to defraud someone. Court reject defendants claim and affirm.

Ruth Ann Alvarez appeals a judgment following her jury conviction of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378). On appeal, she contends the trial court erred by denying her Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine found in her purse during a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. She argues her motion should have been granted because: (1) the police officer unlawfully entered the "business curtilage" of the public storage facility; (2) the scope of her consent to search her recreational vehicle (RV) did not permit the officer to open closed containers (e.g., her purse); (3) the "automobile exception" did not apply to allow the warrantless search without consent; (4) the search was not permissible as incident to an arrest; and (5) the methamphetamine would not have been inevitably discovered.

Keith Douglas Dyson entered a negotiated guilty plea to burglary (Pen. Code, 459)[1]and admitted he had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Under the plea bargain, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining charges against him: 24 counts of burglary, 19 counts of grand theft, six counts of petty theft of merchandise with a prior, one count of recklessly evading officers and one count of receiving stolen property. The parties also stipulated to a four-year prison term. The trial court sentenced Dyson to four years in prison in accordance with the plea bargain. Dyson obtained a certificate of probable cause.