CA Unpub Decisions

Diane Harman appeals a judgment entered in favor of defendant Citibank (West), FSB, successor in interest to California Federal Bank, (hereafter, the bank) following a defense verdict after a jury trial on Harmans allegations the bank improperly honored forged checks and withdrawal slips, thereby causing monetary damages and various manner of physical and emotional injury. Court reject Harmans claims of error and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiffs and appellants James and Joyce Starks sued defendant and respondent City of Los Angeles (City) for damages incurred when a City sewer line backed up, causing sewage to flow into their home. The Starks alleged causes of action for inverse condemnation, nuisance, dangerous condition of property, and negligence. After the Starks had presented their evidence, the trial court granted a nonsuit in favor of the City on all causes of action except nuisance. The basis of the trial courts ruling was a determination that the Starks had violated a City ordinance requiring them to install a backwater valve to protect their home from sewage backups. Had the Starks installed the valve as required, they would not have been harmed. The nuisance cause of action was presented to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the City. On appeal, the Starks contend the trial court erred in its interpretation of the controlling ordinance. Court conclude the trial court correctly interpreted the unambiguous language of the ordinance, and therefore affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Patrick Bertranou appeals following the trial courts order quashing service of summons on defendants and respondents Kenneth Weissberg (Weissberg), Weissberg Gaetjens Ziegenfeuter & Associes (WGZ) and Guy Viart (Viart) (sometimes collectively defendants). Appellant contends that the trial court erred because he demonstrated that defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with the state of California and the exercise of jurisdiction over them was reasonable. Court affirm. Substantial evidence supported the trial courts order.

Plaintiff and appellant Evelyn Massey (Massey) sued defendant and respondent Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), and one of its principals, Arturo Del Rio (Del Rio) (collectively defendants), for defamation and breach of contract, among other causes of action. Massey alleged that defendants breached a prior settlement agreement by failing to remove a below standard employee evaluation from her personnel file and by disclosing the below standard employee evaluation to potential employers.
The trial court granted defendants motion for summary adjudication of the breach of contract cause of action. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of defendants on the defamation cause of action and entered judgment accordingly. Here, Massey appeals only the order summarily adjudicating the breach of contract cause of action. We affirm. Massey failed to raise a triable issue of material fact that defendants alleged breaches of the settlement agreement caused her any damages.

Appellant American Land Investments, LLC (ALI) brought suit against the City of Palmdale (Palmdale), Betsy St. John, Palmdales Director of Finance, Palmdale T&C Partners, LLC, and respondents County of Los Angeles (the County), Vivian Handley, Supervisor of the Tax Sale Unit for the County, and First American Title Company (FATCO) seeking refund of the amounts deposited toward purchase of two parcels at a tax sale conducted by the County, along with other damages. The trial court sustained demurrers to ALIs first amended complaint (FAC). Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Earl Hobbs was a Deputy City Auditor for the City of Long Beach. He was also a licensed attorney. Defendant used documents and information that he had obtained in the course of his employment as a Deputy City Auditor to represent a client in a class action against the City of Los Angeles. Defendant was prosecuted for embezzlement (Pen. Code, 504) and grand theft (Pen. Code, 487), with respect to the documents and the confidential knowledge he had obtained. Defendants defense was that he had no fraudulent intent, because the documents he had used in his lawsuit were subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA), so he had an absolute right to possess them. At trial, the trial court instructed the jury that, as a matter of law, the documents defendant had taken from the Auditors office were not subject to disclosure under the PRA. Defendant appeals, arguing that this instruction took the determination of an element of the offense away from the jury. Court agree, and therefore reverse.

In a proceeding to modify custody and visitation, the trial court ordered wife to pay $5,000 toward husbands attorney fees. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Clarence Jones contends that a remand is necessary because he was sentenced without the benefit of having counsel present and because the trial court imposed sentence without stating reasons for its discretionary sentencing choices. The claims are without merit. Defendant did have counsel. And the court stated its reasons for its sentencing choices at defendants original sentencing hearing in 1996. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

A jury found Joe Rudy Encinas guilty on one count of vandalism (tagging) and found the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Two deputy sheriffs saw Encinas in an alley with a spray can in his hand and raised towards the wall as if spray painting. Encinas fled when the deputies approached but was later apprehended. The deputies retrieved a can of orange spray paint on the ground near where they had first seen Encinas. The graffiti on the wall close by was the same color. The judgment is affirmed.

A jury convicted defendant Ralph Jesse Niz of five counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)). On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the prosecution to offer evidence of two prior uncharged sex offenses involving minors. Court find no abuse of discretion, and therefore affirm the judgment.

On June 27, 2007, a jury convicted Anthony Garcia of carjacking in violation of Penal Code 215, subdivision (a),[1] and of robbery in violation of section 211 and found true that Garcia personally used a firearm during the commission of both offenses within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The court sentenced Garcia to the middle term of 5 years for carjacking, plus an additional 10 years for the firearm use pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b), for a total prison term of 15 years. The court sentenced Garcia to 3 years in prison for robbery plus 10 years for the firearm use but stayed that sentence pursuant to section 654. The court imposed various fines and fees.
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

A petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleged then 13-year-old Larry M. committed assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (a)) on Miguel Santos.
According to evidence at the jurisdiction hearing, Santos was waiting at a stop sign and saw Larry M. and about 12 other boys throwing rocks at the driver behind Santos. He got out of his truck, told the boys to stop, and was hit by a large rock thrown by Larry M. The rock was a piece of cement. Santos saw it coming towards him, and he raised his left hand to protect his face. The rock struck Santoss left palm, leaving about a one inch cut that bled profusely. The boys ran away, and Santos sought help from a police officer in the area. The judgment is affirmed.

John B. (father) has filed a petition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the juvenile courts order terminating family reunification services with his daughter, Sav. B., and setting the underlying juvenile dependency proceeding for a hearing to consider the termination of fathers parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.) Court find substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts order, and deny the petition.

The trial court erred when it denied FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.s (FedEx) Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2)challenge. Accordingly, Court grant FedExs petition for a writ of mandate.