http://www.fearnotlaw.com Latest articles on Fearnotlaw.com. en-us http://feedvalidator.org/docs/rss2.html Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:34:17 PST Copyright 2005, Fearnotlaw.com Real party in interest Alison Ulman (Ulman) is a tenant of appellants, Old Mothers Cookies, LLC, Russell W. Taylor and J.R. Eddie Orton, III (collectively, appellants). In 2004, Ulman petitioned the City of Oakland Rent Adjustment Program (Rent Adjustment Program), alleging unlawful rent increases. Ultimately, the City of Oakland Housing, Residential Rent and Relocation Board (Rent Board) upheld her petition and rejected appellants contention that Ulmans unit was exempt from City of Oaklands residential rent control ordinance (Ordinance) as new construction. (Oakland Mun. Code, ch. 8.22, 8.22.010 et seq.) Appellants unsuccessfully petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative mandate and contend that court erred in denying their petition, because (1) Ulmans unit is exempt from the Ordinance under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civ. Code, 1954.50 et seq.) (hereafter Costa Hawkins), and (2) Ulmans unit is exempt under the Ordinances exemption for newly constructed dwellings. Court disagree and affirm. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:34:17 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23820.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23820.html In consolidated appeals, plaintiffs and appellants John Friedmann, Patty Pierce and Ron Sheppard, and plaintiff and appellant Brad Greenspan appeal from judgments entered against them following the trial courts orders sustaining demurrers without leave to amend brought by defendants and respondents Intermix Media, Inc. (Intermix), Richard Rosenblatt, Brett Brewer, Daniel Mosher, Lawrence Moreau, James Quandt, William Woodward, Jeffrey Edell, VantagePoint Venture Partners IV (Q), L.P. and related entities, David Carlick, Andrew Sheehan, Alan Salzman and Richard Harroch. Appellants brought an individual and proposed class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty and other tort claims stemming from News Corporations acquisition of Intermix. The trial court ruled that the shareholders ratification of the acquisition vitiated the breach of fiduciary duty claims because there had been adequate disclosure of all material facts. It also found that Brad Greenspans individual claims relating to his employment were time barred. Court affirm. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:33:55 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23819.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23819.html This appeal and cross appeal arise out of a judgment entered on a petition for financial elder abuse and undue influence. Court affirm. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:33:03 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23818.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23818.html A citizens coalition appeals from the denial of its petition for a writ of mandate to set aside the City of Commerces certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and its adoption of a statement of overriding considerations approving the Telegraph Road Corridor Revitalization Project. The citizens coalition contends the City of Commerce violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to provide adequate public notice of the draft EIR and by failing to include adequate studies of certain adverse impacts and mitigation measures in the final EIR. Court affirm. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:32:31 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23817.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23817.html In a prior lawsuit, Gina F., through her attorneys Stephen L. Belgum and the Law Offices of Stephen L. Belgum (Belgum), sued Eugene L. for damages for allegedly infecting her with the human papilloma virus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease. Eugene obtained a final judgment in his favor (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2004, No. GC031240), and then brought the instant action against Gina and Belgum for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted Belgums special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16), and Eugene appealed. Court reverse the order granting the special motion to strike because the evidence showed a prima facie case on all elements of a malicious prosecution claim against Belgum. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:31:40 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23816.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23816.html Appellant James Gutter contends that the judgment must be reversed because the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the courts factual findings, and, applying our independent judgment to the legal issues, Court conclude the court did not err in denying the motion. Thus, Court affirm the judgment. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:31:16 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23815.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23815.html In a prior lawsuit, Gina F. sued Eugene L. for damages for allegedly infecting her with the human papilloma virus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2004, No. GC031240.) Eugene obtained a final judgment in his favor and then brought the instant malicious prosecution action against both Gina and her attorney in the underlying action, Stephen Belgum. The trial court granted Ginas summary judgment motion on the ground that there was no dispute of material fact that she had established the defense of reliance on the advice of counsel, which defense established that she had probable cause to bring her underlying action against Eugene. Because there are triable issues of material fact as to this defense, Court reverse the summary judgment. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:30:45 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23814.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23814.html Alqahira Bakra appeals from the judgment entered following revocation of probation under the terms of Proposition 36[1] and his sentence to prison for three years. He previously pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). He contends the trial court erred at sentencing by imposing an increased restitution fine and a parole revocation restitution fine in excess of the original restitution fine. Respondent agrees. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court modify the restitution and parole revocation restitution fines. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:30:21 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23813.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23813.html Father, D.B., Sr., appeals from the termination of his parental rights, alleging error in the juvenile courts jurisdiction and disposition findings and orders. Respondent contends that father forfeited review of such findings and orders, by failing to file a timely appeal. Father contends that considerations of due process require making an exception. Court find no due process violation that undermined the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, and thus no exception applies to preserve the challenged issues for review. Court also reject fathers contention that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying a continuance of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing, and Court affirm the order terminating fathers parental rights. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:28:24 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23812.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23812.html James Williams appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of two counts of unlawful firearm activity (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (c)(1)). Imposition of sentence was suspended and Williams was granted three years probation on the condition he serve 180 days in county jail. Court affirm. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:27:55 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23811.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23811.html J.P., the alleged father of child J.P., appeals from denial of his petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 in this dependency proceeding. He argues the court abused its discretion by denying the petition without a hearing and that we must reverse because of that error, which would compel vacation of a subsequent order terminating his parental rights. Court find no abuse of discretion in denial of the petition without a hearing, and deny J.P.s second argument for that reason. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:27:29 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23810.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23810.html Robert S., the father of 20 month old A. H., appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying him reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1), and thereafter terminating his parental rights under section 366.26. Court affirm. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:27:07 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23809.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23809.html Gregory McMillion appeals from an order of restitution following the entry of judgment upon his no contest plea to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, count 1 (Pen. Code, 191.5, subd. (a)), and driving the wrong way on a divided highway, count 3 (Veh. Code, 21651, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to prison for six years and counts 2 and 4, violations of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivisions (b) and (a), respectively, were dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. Following a hearing, the court ordered appellant to pay direct restitution to the spouse of the deceased in the amount of $2,389,224. The order is affirmed. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:26:45 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23808.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23808.html Anthony E., the father of four-year-old A. S. and two-year-old C. S., appeals from the juvenile courts February 20, 2008 order terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]as to A. S., terminating reunification services as to C. S. and denying his petition pursuant to section 388 to obtain custody of both boys. Anthony E. contends the juvenile court was prohibited from terminating his parental rights absent a finding of parental unfitness, which he asserts was not made in this case. He also contends the court erred in denying his petition to obtain custody of the boys, refusing to continue the February 20, 2008 hearing and failing to ensure compliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). Although Court reject most of Anthony E.s contentions, Court conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:26:27 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23807.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23807.html In an appeal from an order denying its motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal, appellant contends the court erred in dismissing her complaint with prejudice for failing to appear at the final pretrial conference. Appellant contends the statute upon which the court relied did not authorize a dismissal with prejudice in this case, and that the court abused its discretion in rejecting its claim of excusable neglect. Court conclude that because the court was not authorized to dismiss appellants complaint, it was required to grant appellants motion to vacate. Court thus reverse with directions to vacate the judgment of dismissal. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:23:35 PST http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23806.html http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article23806.html