CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff law firm Dillingham & Murphy, LLP (D&M), on its complaint for unpaid legal fees. Geiche, who appeared in propria persona in the trial court but is represented by counsel on appeal, contends that the trial court erred in granting D&Ms motion for summary judgment. Many of the arguments asserted by Geiche in the trial court were barely comprehensible. Some are plainly wrong. Many of the arguments asserted on appeal were not raised below. Nonetheless, a fair review of Geiches papers submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment reveals several triable issues of material fact that preclude summary adjudication. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Appellant appeal the trial courts ruling that concluded they were not prevailing parties and denied them attorney fees and costs. Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Appellant appeal from a judgment awarding damages to former employee Brian Levy for RPMAs failure to timely pay wages. Court conclude Miller, a corporate officer of RPMA, is not personally liable for the judgment, but otherwise affirm. Appellants also appeal from a postjudgment award of attorney fees and costs. Court similarly conclude Miller was not personally liable for attorney fees and costs, but otherwise affirm that order.

Appellant appeals from a dispositional order committing him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (DJJ). He contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering a DJJ commitment and that the matter must be remanded to permit the court to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 731, subdivision (b) in setting the maximum term of confinement. Court affirm.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered after the court sustained defendant Stephen Frasers demurrer to their second amended complaint without leave to amend. The Muranos maintain the court erred when it determined they could not state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Fraser. Court affirm.

Humberto P. appeals from jurisdictional and dispositional orders declaring his sons, Geno and Arturo P., dependent children and placing them in out of home care. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support either the jurisdictional finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j), or the order continuing the removal of the children from appellants custody. Court affirm.

In this appeal from a dispositional order, Christina H. contends the court erred by calculating the date for the six-month review hearing from the date M. H. was placed in foster care, instead of from the date of the dispositional hearing. Court hold that the court correctly set the six month review hearing, and affirm the order.

K. I., a minor, appeals from a judgment following an order continuing him as a ward of the juvenile court and the imposition of terms and conditions of probation. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to appellant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Upon independent review of the record, Court conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the order.

Defendant appeals from a judgment and sentence following his guilty plea. 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 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Court find no such issues and affirm.

On June 14, 2004, Paige Covell filed an action against Peter W. Gilson and Hamilton Potter, former officers of Covell's previous employer, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and fraud. Gilson and Potter answered the complaint and following discovery, moved for summary judgment. Deposition testimony, declarations, and documentary evidence.The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant appeals from the trial courts order denying his motion to vacate default and to set aside the default judgment for $98,637.16 entered in favor of Mike Pavich in this action for conversion. Court reverse.

Appellant Mark Frederick Cumbess challenges his burglary and receiving stolen property convictions on the grounds of instructional error, insufficiency of the evidence regarding one burglary count, abuse of discretion in refusing to vacate a prior serious felony conviction finding, and sentence disproportionality. Court conclude the trial court did not commit prejudicial instructional error or abuse its discretion by denying appellants motion to vacate a prior serious felony conviction finding. Substantial evidence supports appellants burglary conviction. Appellant forfeited his disproportionality claim, but defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to raise the claim in the trial court.

The following facts are from the clerks transcript. Larry Glynn sued the City of Long Beach and Police Officers Ray Alexander and Sunny Shin asserting violations of Civil Code sections 51.7 and 52.1, subdivision (b). He also asserted causes of action for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery. Glynn alleged that on December 29, 2003, he was driving his wifes car and his preexisting back injury was exacerbated when Officers Alexander and Shin stopped him and searched him.
The City of Long Beach filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of an internal affairs investigation on the grounds that the results of the investigation were irrelevant to any issue in the case and would prejudice the defendants. The court granted the motion to exclude testimony on internal affairs investigation . . . with the exception of the taped interview of the officers minus certain redaction to be agreed upon by counsel.
The jury found that neither officer subjected Glynn to an unreasonable search or used unreasonable force. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants. Glynn appeals from the judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.