CA Unpub Decisions

Eveline Brownstein (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following the trial courts denial of her motion for summary adjudication against Keith Hagaman, Walter Huber, and Deborah Huber (collectively referred to as respondents) and the grant of respondents cross-motion for summary adjudication. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Stephan Lilly timely appealed from his conviction for simple assault and criminal threats. Defendant also timely appealed from the order denying his motion for new trial. This court consolidated the appeals. Defendant contends that he was denied due process as his conviction and sentence were procured before a biased adjudicator and that the court abused its discretion when it imposed a life sentence. Court affirm.

Respondent Allen Ashkenazi (Ashkenazi) retained Krakow & Kaplan, LLP, predecessor-in-interest to appellant Rottman-Kaplan P.C. (collectively, Rottman-Kaplan), to represent him in a wrongful termination case. The case went to trial and resulted in a substantial verdict for Ashkenazi. After trial, Ashkenazi disputed the fees and costs to which Rottman-Kaplan was entitled, and also contested the fees claimed by some experts and litigation support personnel retained by Rottman-Kaplan, including appellant Christopher Turko (Turko). Ultimately, Rottman-Kaplan paid Turkos fees in exchange for an assignment of his claim against Ashkenazi. At the conclusion of a one-day bench trial, the trial court found, among other things, that Ashkenazi was not obligated to pay Turkos fees because the parties had never agreed that he would do so. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion, and we thus affirm.

A jury found defendant Kenneth Callahan guilty of possession of cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). In a separate proceeding, the jury found defendant served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and had suffered two prior convictions under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). On the prosecutions motion, the trial court dismissed one prior strike conviction for purpose of sentencing. The court imposed a seven-year state prison sentence consisting of the middle term of two years, doubled as a result of the remaining strike prior conviction, plus one year for each of the three prior prison terms.
In his timely appeal, defendant (1) requests this court to conduct an independent review of the sealed portion of the record pertaining to discovery of personnel records of an officer under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) to determine whether the trial court erroneously withheld discoverable information from the defense, and (2) contends the trial court failed to award sufficient custody credits. As Court explain, our independent review discloses no abuse of discretion under Pitchess. Court, however, conclude defendant was entitled to one additional day of custody credits.

The Scotts Company, LLC (defendant) appeals from a February 7, 2007 judgment in favor of ITT Corporation, formerly known as ITT Industries, Inc. (plaintiff). Applying New York contract law, Court affirm the judgment.

On May 30, 2006, an amended information was filed charging appellants Wilbur Lawtron Lawson and Dontae Ray Williams, as well as Sean Thomas, with the murder of David Avila Rodriguez (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) and robbery (Pen. Code, 211).[1] The information alleged that the murder had been committed during the robbery ( 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). In addition, with respect to both charges, the information alleged that Lawson personally fired or used a firearm ( 12022.53, subds. (b) - (d)), that Williams personally used a firearm ( 12022.53, subd. (b)), that a principal personally used a firearm ( 12022, subd. (a)(1)), and that Williams was a minor of at least 16 years of age at the time of the crimes (Welf. & Inst. Code, 707, subd. (d)(1)). Appellants and Thomas pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.
The trial court sentenced Lawson to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole plus one year as to the murder count, and to a four-year term as to the robbery count, which was stayed ( 654). It sentenced Williams to life imprisonment plus one year on the murder count, and to an additional four-year term as to the robbery count, which was also stayed ( 654) This appeal followed.

This appeal concerns plaintiff Robert Gomezs claim that he was wrongfully terminated by defendant Lee Armstrong Co., Inc. (LAC) in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleged the same claim against LACs owner, defendant Steve Armstrong (Armstrong), under an alter ego theory.[1] According to plaintiffs allegations, he had a long-term employment relationship with LAC as a floor-installer. Twice, when pulling up tiles or carpet on an LAC jobsite, he encountered the carcinogen asbestos. Plaintiff notified his supervisors and refused to do additional work on those projects. As a result, he contends LAC reduced his work hours before firing him for his asbestos complaints, using the pretext that he refused to show up to work when ordered at a time when the employer knew he had conflicting childcare responsibilities. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of LAC and Armstrong, finding insufficient evidence as to various elements of plaintiffs claims. As relevant to this appeal, the trial court found no substantial evidence of the required nexus between the public policy of preventing an employees exposure to asbestos and plaintiffs termination as an at-will employee, and no evidentiary basis for disregarding LACs corporate status. Our independent review demonstrates that summary judgment was properly granted and there was no abuse of discretion in denying the reconsideration motion. Court therefore affirm.

Appellant Deron Early was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction in violation of Penal Code[1]section 666. Appellant admitted the prior theft-related conviction before trial. The trial court found true the allegation that appellant had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced appellant to the mid-term of two years in prison for the current conviction plus a one-year enhancement term for the section 667.5 enhancement.
Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that his admission of a prior theft-related conviction was invalid and that in any event the conviction itself did not satisfy the requirements of section 666. Court affirm the judgment of conviction.

An information filed on October 10, 2006 alleged that defendant and appellant Douglas Pickett committed the crime of possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5) and of carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(4)). The information also alleged that defendant had suffered eight prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On March 21, 2007, a jury found Pickett guilty of the lesser offense of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and of carrying a dirk or dagger. The trial court sentenced Pickett on April 6. Pickett waived his right to a jury trial on his eight prior convictions alleged under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and admitted that he suffered them. The court then sentenced Pickett to the midterm of two years on the possession count plus eight months for carrying a dirk or dagger. The court imposed two 1-year terms under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and stayed sentence on the remaining six enhancements. Pickett now contends, and the People concede, that the trial court erred in staying sentence on the remaining Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), enhancements. A court may either impose the enhancement or strike it under Penal Code section 1385; it may not be stayed. (People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241.) Remand is appropriate to permit the court to exercise its discretion to impose or to strike the enhancements.

Plaintiff and appellant T&M Projects, Inc., doing business as T&M Construction, appeals from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer in favor of defendant and respondent City of Long Beach in an action arising out of a construction contract. T&M contends that a letter it sent to personnel at the Port of Long Beach constituted a claim under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, 910, et seq.). Court conclude that T&M failed to present a claim to the City as required by statute, and therefore, Court affirm.

Appellant Chaudhry Fikir Muhammad (husband) appeals from that portion of a dissolution judgment awarding spousal support and attorney fees to respondent Socorro Ramos Santana (wife). Husband argues the trial court abused its discretion in fixing spousal support and awarding attorney fees. Husbands appellate brief fails to establish an abuse of discretion by the trial court, and Court therefore affirm.

In January 2005, Gilda Valencia (Gilda)[1]was killed in an accident when her daughters car collided with a truck driven by Jesus Hernandez (Hernandez) and owned by his construction company, Jesmar Construction Company, Inc., a California corporation (Jesmar). Gildas estate, her daughter, and other survivors (collectively the Valencias[2]), together with Hernandez and Jesmar (all parties collectively plaintiffs), brought an action against Allstate Indemnity Company (Allstate) for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Allstate moved for summary judgment and summary adjudication. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate and plaintiffs appeal. Court affirm the judgment (order granting summary judgment).

Eddie Edward Velasquez, Jr., appeals the judgment entered after he pled no contest to selling or transporting heroin (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)). He also admitted serving two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). In exchange for his plea, he was sentenced to five years in state prison. Because Velasquez pled no contest after waiving his right to a preliminary hearing, the facts are derived from the probation report. On May 18, 2007, narcotics officers from the Santa Maria Police Department conducted surveillance of Velasquez's residence after receiving a tip from a confidential informant that Velasquez was selling heroin. At approximately 11:30 a.m., the officers observed Velasquez emerge from the residence and approach a known heroin user who had arrived by vehicle. The two men moved close together, which led the officers to believe that a drug transaction had just taken place. When the officers exited their vehicle and prepared to conduct a probation search of Velasquez, he tried to run away but fell after taking a couple of steps. The officers handcuffed and searched Velasquez, then asked him to open his mouth. When he did so, the officers observed a white piece of paper under his tongue. Velasquez eventually spit out the paper, which was found to contain two individually packaged bindles of heroin. He also displayed signs of being under the influence of a controlled substance. A digital scale with heroin residue was subsequently found on top of the refrigerator in Velasquez's kitchen, along with a bag containing several small ziplock baggies in a nearby cupboard. A syringe full of a substance that appeared to be heroin was also recovered from Velasquez's bedroom. The judgment is affirmed.

Jose Guadalupe Carrillo appeals from the judgment following his jury trial and conviction of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a).) The court sentenced him to a middle term of two years in prison and awarded him actual and conduct credits. Court have examined the entire record. Court are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.