CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Jay Kurian appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of respondents U.S. Mortgage Capital, Inc., (U.S. Mortgage), as well as Amber Scholer, a corporate officer of U.S. Mortgage, and Ryan Scholer (the Scholers), dismissing appellants actions for minimum, overtime and other wages due under the California Labor Code and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[1] The trial court found that this action was barred under the doctrine of res judicata, and that the statute of limitations had run on the eighth and ninth causes of action against the Scholers individually. We conclude that the prior judgment does not bar this action, but we do not reach the statute of limitations, as we agree with respondents that appellant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against the Scholers. We reject respondents contention that all appellants claims have been released under a settlement agreement. Court therefore affirm the dismissal of the Scholers from the eighth and ninth causes of action, but otherwise reverse the judgment.

Erika W. (mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court denying mothers petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to modify the juvenile courts previous order appointing legal guardians for her 10-year-old son, Cornelius H. Linda W., the maternal great aunt and legal guardian of Cornelius H., appeals an order of the juvenile court reinstating jurisdiction as to Cornelius. Court conclude both appeals lack merit and affirm the orders.

Plaintiff Kathryn F. Moore appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered in her civil action against parties she denominates as the U.S. Government and Police Department. Court affirm.

After defendant Marcus Lee Roberts entered a guilty plea to two counts of child molestation (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) with an express waiver of his rights under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403], the trial court denied probation and sentenced him to state prison for the aggravated term of eight years plus a consecutive two-year term. In a previous appeal, this court vacated the sentence and denial of probation, and remanded for a new probation and sentencing hearing. (People v. Roberts (Mar. 15, 2006, C049129) [nonpub. opn.] (Roberts I).) On remand, the trial court conducted a new probation and sentencing hearing, after which it again denied probation and imposed the same aggregate prison term of 10 years. Defendant again claims on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a prison term instead of probation. In the alternative, he asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper term. Court reject both contentions and affirm.

Joseph R. (petitioner), the father of the minors, seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate orders of the juvenile court entered at the 18-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Petitioner contends he was not provided reasonable reunification services. He also claims the juvenile court erred by finding he did not regularly participate and make substantive progress in court-ordered services and that return of the minors would create a substantial risk of detriment. Disagreeing with these contentions, Court deny the petition.

A jury convicted Joey Manuel Estrada of residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460), three counts of assault with a firearm ( 245, subds. (b)) and possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)). After admitting two prior strike convictions, Estrada was sentenced to 50 years to life (plus 17 years) in state prison. Court Affirmed.

Court find no merit in the Wedbushes' arguments for reversal of the judgment. However, the Wedbushes have pointed out a clerical error that appears in the judgment concerning the amount of contractual damages awarded to Farina. As a result of the clerical error, the damages are overstated by $980. We therefore modify the judgment to correct the clerical error, and Court remand for the trial court to recalculate the amount of prejudgment interest on the modified damages award. Court affirm the judgment as modified.

deliberations, it responded to the jury's question about how to proceed due to its current 11-1 deadlock, by allowing the case to be reopened to permit the introduction of additional evidence. (People v. Funes (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1520(Funes); Horning v. Shilberg (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 197, 208-209(Horning).) The petitioner, the Public Conservator of the County of San Diego (petitioner), had previously prepared a chronology of placements in which T. L. had resided from 1997 to the present, and the court admitted that document as Exhibit 1 at trial in response to the jury's question, after discussions with counsel. As will be explained, the procedure used by the trial court was an appropriate exercise of discretion in light of the nature of the jury's question and the discussion with counsel. T. L.'s arguments on appeal are not well taken and the judgment will be affirmed.

Janet G. (Janet) appeals from a judgment imposing a Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) conservatorship on her person pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5350.[1] Janet contends the judgment is not supported by sufficient evidence, and the trial court erred by denying her motion to exclude expert testimony relating to the ultimate issue of grave disability, and relating to her ability to obtain housing. We find no prejudicial evidentiary error, and that the judgment is sufficiently supported by substantial evidence. Court affirm.

The People appeal from the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer to a portion of a grand jury indictment against Raymond T. Vailuu, who was an inmate at Calipatria State Prison serving a term of 25 years to life.[1] After the court sustained his demurrer, Vailuu entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of assault (Pen. Code, 4501).[2] Under the plea bargain, the remaining charges in the indictment were dismissed and the prosecution retained the right to challenge the demurrer by this appeal. The trial court sentenced Vailuu to a two-year prison term to run consecutive to his sentence of 25 years to life. The appeal is dismissed.

Following a mistrial, Jesus Manuel Carrasco entered negotiated guilty pleas to two counts of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,[1] 192, subd. (a)) as lesser included offenses of two counts of murder ( 187, subd. (a)), and admitted that one of the manslaughter counts was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The plea bargain called for a stipulated sentence of 18 years in prison.
The trial court denied Carrasco's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, and sentenced him in accordance with the plea bargain.
Carrasco appeals, contending that the court erred by denying his motion to continue the hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

Alma U. appeals dispositional orders regarding her children, Andrea U., Christian U. and E.U. She contends insufficient evidence supports the court's findings the children were at substantial risk if returned home and there were no other reasonable means to protect them. She also claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Court affirm the orders.

Lucio Reyes (defendant) was charged with evading a police officer with willful disregard for the safety of others. (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a).) The complaint also alleged he had been convicted previously of two serious felonies, within the meaning of the Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)),[1]and has three felony convictions for which he had served prison terms. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) The two alleged strikes, which were also alleged as prison priors, related to separate convictions for violations of section 245, subdivision (a)(1), without further description. On August 9, 2007, defendant pled to the sheet, pleading guilty to the charge, and admitting one strike, as well as the three prison priors. The plea agreement included a stipulated sentence of nine years in state prison, dismissal of the remaining allegations, and a provision that the sentence would be served concurrently to any other sentence. The court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. The upper term of three years was selected for the base term, which was doubled because of the Strike. Three additional years were imposed, one each for the three prison priors, for a total term of nine years in state prison. Defendant appealed from the sentence on August 27, 2007.
Defendant appeals from the prison term imposed pursuant to a plea bargain with a stipulated sentence.

Respondents demurrers to the complaint were sustained without leave to amend on the grounds the complaint was not timely filed, the complaint failed to state a cause of action against the respondents, and respondents were immune to liability on the claims alleged. Appellant appeals, contending the complaint was timely filed and not defective; alternatively, he contends he should have been granted leave to amend to cure any defects. Court affirm.