CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Andre Lavont McDaniel was found guilty by jury trial of battery on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (e)(1)) and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)). He challenges his possession conviction, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Court affirm.

Alex Kumar and Custodians of Records of Best Vineyard Valley Inn and Cloverdale Oaks Inn (Kumar) petition this court for extraordinary relie from an order of the Sonoma County Superior Court dated January 30, 2007, finding Kumar guilty of contempt for failure to comply with legislative subpoenas issued by the City of Cloverdale (City) for the production of business records under the Citys transient occupancy tax (TOT). Court grant the petition and annul the trial courts contempt order.

After the juvenile court denied appellant Justin B.s motion to suppress, it sustained a petition alleging that he possessed cocaine base for sale and loitered in a public place with the intent to commit a specified offense. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602, subd. (a); Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5, 11532, subd. (a).) Justin urges on appeal that he cannot be found to have loitered in a public place within the meaning of section 11532 because the gated apartment complex where the alleged loitering occurred was not a public place. Court affirm the juvenile courts order.

Petitioner Sasha M. (Mother) seeks writ review of an order setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (hereafter the .26 hearing) in the dependency case of her daughter (Minor), born in February 2007. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Mother contends that real party in interest Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; former rule 5.664)[2]because notice was not given to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as to her and Minors alleged father, Dominique P. The petition is conditionally granted.

This case is before us for a second time, following remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for further consideration in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham), which held that Californias determinate sentencing law (DSL) violates a defendants federal constitutional right to a jury trial by assigning to the trial judge, rather than the jury, the authority to make factual findings that subject a defendant to the possibility of an upper term sentence.
parties submitted their briefs and we have considered their submissions. As we shall explain, we find no constitutional error in the sentencing in this case. Court again affirm the judgment in its entirety.

An attorney filed a collection action against former clients. The clients asserted an affirmative defense and a cross-claim of fraud, alleging the attorney misrepresented his level of experience and expertise in real estate litigation involving property line disputes and engaged in fraudulent billing practices, which caused them substantial financial and emotional injury. A jury found the attorney committed fraud, but awarded no damages to the clients. The trial court denied the clients motion for a new trial on damages, as well as the attorneys motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the contract claim. The court also denied the clients requests for attorney fees and costs on the ground neither party prevailed.
Court conclude the clients are entitled to a limited retrial on damages and, as prevailing parties, to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. We also conclude the trial court did not err in excluding certain expert witness testimony, nor in denying the attorneys motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

A jury awarded plaintiff and respondent Alice Mowat (plaintiff) $18,026,205.80[1] in damages for injuries plaintiff sustained when she was struck by a vehicle while crossing Cahuenga Boulevard West (Cahuenga) in a marked crosswalk. The jury found that defendant and appellant City of Los Angeles (City) controlled the crosswalk and intersection where the accident occurred, and that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time. The City appeals from the judgment and from an order denying the Citys motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The City contends that the evidence does not support the judgment; that conditions at the location of plaintiffs accident were open and obvious and therefore not dangerous; and that the City is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code sections 830.4 and 830.8. Court affirm the judgment and the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

A disappointed bidder on a school construction project claimed in a petition for a writ of mandate that the contract should have been awarded to it. The trial court disagreed and rendered judgment for the school district. Undeterred, the disappointed bidder filed a civil action for damages against the district, this time seeking damages for the profits it lost from other contracts as a result of its loss of the school construction project contract. The trial court resolved this suit in favor of the school district, finding that the current claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Court affirm.

Kenjuan De Adams appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of premeditated murder and two counts of attempted premeditated murder, with further findings that during the commission of these offenses he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death or great bodily injury. He was also convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Defendant was sentenced to multiple terms of life and 25-years-to-life in prison. He contends that he was prejudiced by being tried with a codefendant who entered a plea during trial, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to be recalled as a witness and alternatively defense counsel was ineffective in counsels examination of defendant, the trial court erroneously restricted cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the jury should have been instructed on voluntary manslaughter, and the finding of great bodily injury as to one of the attempted murder victims was not supported by the evidence and alternatively the great bodily injury enhancement is unconstitutionally vague. Court affirm.

Kenjuan De Adams appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of premeditated murder and two counts of attempted premeditated murder, with further findings that during the commission of these offenses he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing death or great bodily injury. He was also convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Defendant was sentenced to multiple terms of life and 25-years-to-life in prison. He contends that he was prejudiced by being tried with a codefendant who entered a plea during trial, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to be recalled as a witness and alternatively defense counsel was ineffective in counsels examination of defendant, the trial court erroneously restricted cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the jury should have been instructed on voluntary manslaughter, and the finding of great bodily injury as to one of the attempted murder victims was not supported by the evidence and alternatively the great bodily injury enhancement is unconstitutionally vague. Court affirm.

Alek Fidanian appeals from the judgment entered following conviction by a jury of manufacturing or distributing deceptive identification documents, conspiring to manufacture or distribute deceptive identification documents, and making false or misleading statements. (Pen. Code, 483.5, subd. (a), 182, subd. (a)(1); Bus. & Prof. Code, 17500.)[1] The same jury convicted appellant's corporate codefendant, United States Identification Cards, Inc. (USIC), of those offenses. USIC did not appeal its conviction. The court suspended imposition of appellant's sentence, placed him on probation for three years, and assessed a $700 restitution fine. The court stayed appellant's service of 180 days in county jail pending appeal. Appellant contends that the court erred by denying his request to represent himself and denying the request of USIC to substitute counsel for its trial attorney. Court reject his first contention and decline to review the second, as USIC is not a party to this appeal. Court affirm.

Cross-complainants and appellants George Hardie and Kard King, Inc., appeal from the judgment for cross-defendants and respondents The Bell Gardens Bicycle Club (the Bicycle Club), LCP Associates Ltd., Haig Kelegian, Robert Carter, and Walter Lack. The judgment was based on the trial courts confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of respondents. Finding no applicable exceptions to the general rule of arbitral finality, Court affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Jen-Kang Yang (Yang) appeals from separate judgments entered in favor of defendants and respondents Larry H. Fields (Fields) and Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), respectively, after the trial court granted Fieldss special motion to strike, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti SLAPP motion), to Yangs second amended complaint and sustained, without leave to amend, Zurichs demurrer to the second amended complaint. Court affirm the judgments.

Plaintiff James E. Middlestetter appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant Regents of the University of California. Court affirm.