FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Cal App

Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.

Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Consumer Products, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets) In plaintiff's case against the defendant for misappropriation of its trade secrets of an anti-viral protein based therapeutic used as a daily nasal spray for the prevention and treatment of the common cold, plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to accept plaintiff's trade secret identification statement as sufficient and to allow it to commence discovery is denied where: 1) the trial court applied the correct legal standard to plaintiff's trade secret identification statement; and 2) there was a basis in the record to support the court's conclusion that the statement was not reasonably particular under the circumstances presented.

In re Cerny

Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing) Defendant's petition for habeas relief is denied as the parole board's decision to deny parole was supported by evidence that defendant might revert to his prior drug use and become a danger to public safety if he is released without firm, verifiable parole plans.

People v. Gonzalez

Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Trial court's sentence and conviction of defendant for assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury is affirmed for the most part, but the sentence is reversed and remanded as the trial court erred in imposing two enhancements for defendant's infliction of great bodily injury on the same victim in the commission of a single offense when it should have imposed only the greatest of those enhancements as required by section 1170.1(g).

Simandle v. Vista de Santa Barbara

Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate) Trial court's judgment in favor of defendant-Mobilehome Park that it could remove a mobilehome owned by plaintiffs' deceased parents at plaintiffs' expense is affirmed as the plaintiffs forfeited their statutory right under the Mobilehome Residency Law to sell their parents' mobilehouse at the Park.

Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital v. Danning Gill Diamond & Kollitz

Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Debt Collection, Judgment Enforcement) Trial court's ruling in favor of Credit Suisse concluding that a lien that arises upon service of an order to appear at a judgment debtor examination applies to funds acquired by the plaintiff-law firm from the judgment debtor after the lien came into existence is reversed and remanded as the exception provided under Cal. Code Civ. Pro. section 697.740 is limited to letter of credit transactions, and the record does not unequivocally show that there was no letter of credit transaction in this case.

In re Z.C.

Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Government Law, Juvenile Law) A juvenile court's order requiring that the Alameda County Social Services Agency provide reunification services to a guardian to maintain the legal guardianship is affirmed as, under the plain meaning of the statute when considered within the context of juvenile dependency law, section 366.3(b)of the Welfare and Institutions Code provides the juvenile court with the power to order the social services agency to provide reunification services to a legal guardian when deciding whether it is in the best interests of the child to maintain the existing legal guardianship.

People v. McRoberts

Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Health Law, Juvenile Law, Sentencing) Trial court's order committing defendant to a state hospital for an indeterminate term of treatment and confinement is affirmed where: 1) trial court was correct in applying section 6600.1, of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), to defendant's juvenile adjudication for child molestation, as the government satisfied this element of an SVPA commitment; 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of his lay witnesses; and 3) court did not err in refusing defendant's request for an instruction requiring the jury to find it was necessary to keep him in a secure facility for the protection of the health and safety of others.

People v. Katzenberger

Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) Trial court's conviction of defendant for inflicting corporal injury on the mother of his child in violation of Penal Code section 273.5(a) is affirmed where, although the prosecution's use of Power Point presentation in its closing argument to illustrate the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard was improper, such misconduct did not prejudice the defendant.

Toal v. Tardif

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Evidence) In plaintiffs' petition for confirmation of an arbitration award against defendants, trial court's grant of plaintiff's petition is reversed as plaintiffs failed to prove a basic prerequisite of private arbitration, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, and the signature of defendants' attorney on the arbitration stipulation, standing alone, did not constitute substantial evidence that defendants agreed to arbitrate the dispute.

M.T. v. Sup. Ct.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Family Law) Petitioner's request for an extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court's order for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to consider modifying the permanent plan for two of his three children from long-term foster care to adoption is denied as petitioner did not have a right to a contested hearing.

Lake Almanor Assoc., LLP. v. Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Construction, Contracts, Environmental Law, Injury And Tort Law) In plaintiff-developer's breach of contract and negligence case against a consultant hired by a county to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), district court's sustaining of defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint is affirmed as the balance of the factors militates against a conclusion that a consultant owes a duty of care to a project applicant in the timely completion of a draft EIR.

People v. Reyes

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) Trial court's conviction of defendant for kidnapping to extort a ransom is affirmed as the trial court did not err in denying defendant's suppression motion as circumstances preclude any reasonable expectation of privacy in any markings displayed on the outside of an envelope, such as those identifying AT&T Wireless as the addressor.

California Unions for Reliable Energy v. Mojave Desert Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Environmental Law, Government Law) In plaintiff's action against defendant-district concerning its adoption of Rule 1406 claiming that it was exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, judgment of the trial court is reversed as there was insufficient evidence to support the District's finding that the adoption of Rule 1406 was within the Class 8 categorical exemption.

Lee v. Valverde

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) Trial court's ruling that the document establishing that defendant was driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or higher was inadmissible hearsay is reversed as the court abused its discretion in determining that the forensic report was inadmissible hearsay.

People v. Tuggles

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) Trial court's conviction of defendants for first degree murder and firearm enhancement is affirmed where: 1) trial court did not err in admitting witness' testimony in response to questions by the prosecution about one of the defendant's reputation in the community; 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion by restricting cross-examination of a witness; 3) there was no error in challenged instructions that required the defense to remedy by requesting modification or amplification in order to provide effective assistance of counsel; 4) trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on flight; 5) trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' joint motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct; and 6) trial court did not err in denying defendants' access to jurors' personal contact information.