CA Unpub Decisions

Respondent Vahid Razavi (Razavi) commenced this action against appellant Neocase Software, Inc. (Neocase), his former employer, for wrongful termination and other causes of action. Citing a mandatory arbitration clause in Razavis at-will employment contract, Neocase petitioned the court to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint, or, in the alternative, stay the proceedings. The court denied the petition on the ground that a provision in the arbitration clause providing that the cost of arbitration will be borne by the losing party rendered the contract unenforceable under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 (Armendariz) and its progeny. Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Patricia Mackey challenges the dismissal of her complaint seeking a declaration that she is entitled to the benefits of a life insurance policy issued by defendant American General Life Insurance Company (American General) on the life of her deceased husband. Court conclude the court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant Esther Perkins was found guilty by jury trial of felony child abuse. (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a).)[1] Her subsequent motion to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor ( 17) was denied. Defendant challenges the denial of the motion to reduce, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion. Court affirm.

Defendant was placed on Proposition 36 probation after pleading no contest to possession of heroin. Less than five months later, he was arrested after he was found in possession of recently stolen property and charged with violating the conditions of his probation. The trial court found defendant had violated his probation and sentenced him to the mitigated term for the drug possession offense. Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in failing to order the preparation of a supplemental probation report in connection with the probation violation, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he had received stolen property, (3) the court failed to exercise its discretion to consider reinstating defendants probation, and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

Appellants Richard DosRemedios and Cynthia DosRemedios appeal a summary judgment entered in favor of respondents Pantheon Design & Construction (Pantheon), Clint Reed, and Edward Wenger, in their lawsuit over a dispute in connection with faulty construction at a home they own. They claim that there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether the contractor they hired to perform improvements on their home was acting as the ostensible agent for respondents. No other basis for granting summary judgment has been briefed or argued by respondents on appeal. Because Court agree with appellants contentions on appeal, Court reverse.

Appellant Blair R. (the minor) appeals from a judgment entered under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.[1] He argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, and in failing to exercise its discretion to grant or deny deferred entry of judgment. Court affirm.

A jury found in favor of respondents John T. Emanuele and others on their fraud complaint. The trial court denied motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial filed by appellants Robert H. Bisno and others. Now, Bisno appeals, challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting the awards of compensatory damages and compound prejudgment interest. Court deny Emanueles motion to dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment.

Appellant seeks to reverse an order that denied her reunification services in this dependency proceeding. We conclude that the juvenile court was justified in denying reunification services to appellant pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b), (10) and (11), and affirm the order.

Appellant Katherine De Mingo appeals the trial courts order denying her petition for relief from the claim-filing requirements of the Government Claims Act. Court affirm.

The juvenile court found Ryan L. had committed carjacking (Pen. Code, 215) and robbery ( 211). Ryan contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that the maximum term of confinement was calculated incorrectly. Court agree, and order the dispositional order modified to reflect the correct term.

Defendant Ezra McDaniel appeals a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance in a jail or state prison. (Pen. Code, 4573.6) His attorney has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
The judgment is affirmed. The Marin County Superior Court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment accurately reflecting the crime of which defendant was convicted and to forward the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections.

A marriage of 33 years ended when the parties were approaching retirement age. The parties signed a marital settlement agreement in which the husband agreed to pay wife spousal support. The husband retired seven years later and filed a motion to modify support. The husband claimed a material change in circumstances, namely, reduced income following his retirement and wifes receipt of social security benefits. The trial court denied the motion. Finding no abuse of discretion, Court affirm that decision.

Robert H. (Robert) appeals from the juvenile courts dispositional order made pursuant to a probation violation. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. Court find no arguable issue and affirm.

Alexander N. appeals an order of commitment entered by the juvenile court. His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Alexander has been apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The judgment is affirmed.