CA Unpub Decisions

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Request for judicial notice. Denied.
Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, A. Natasha Cortina, Lynne G. McGinnis and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A. Gaab, Judge.
Channaveerappa & Phipps, Naresh Channaveerappa and Albert Lee for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.
Law Office of Armand Tinkerian and Armand Tinkerian for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents.
-ooOoo-
 
Twin Falls Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Triangle Truck Center (Triangle) and Larry Buehner (Buehner) (collectively, appellants) were jointly represented codefendants and cross-complainants in a suit over the alleged conversion of a set of truck trailers brought by respondents Morris and Lucille Srabian (collectively, respondents). Respondents obtained a jury verdict against Buehner while the jury found Triangle was not liable on any claims, and a directed verdict was entered against appellants on their joint cross-complaint against respondents. Both Triangle and respondents sought an award of costs, and appellants and respondents each filed motions to strike or tax each

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Conditionally reversed with directions.
Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, David Guardado and Glenn C. Moret, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendant and appellant S.F. (Mother) to her sons, B.H. and D.H. (collectively, the children). Mother contends the juvenile court erred by finding plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) conducted an adequate inquiry into whether the children are Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). We conditionally reverse the judgment with directions.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy F. Freer, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Anthony J. Dain, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Alfred Clarence Chadwick.
Law Office of Stein and Markus, Andrew M. Stein, Joseph A. Markus, and Brentford Ferreira for Defendant and Appellant Tracy Carson, Jr.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, and A. Natasha Cortina and Alan L. Amann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2006, three men — petitioners Alfred Clarence Chadwick and Tracy Carson, Jr., plus an accomplice — robbed a bank. Just as they were leaving, the police arrived; a pursuit followed. Chadwick drove the getaway vehicle, a Chevy Tahoe, some 70 to 80 miles an hour, in both commercial and residential areas that had speed limits of 30 miles an hour.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Tara Reilly, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Law Offices of Valerie Ross and Valerie Ross for Movant and Appellant.
Malcolm Cisneros, Arturo M. Cisneros and Brian S. Thomley for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Patricia R. petitioned to establish a probate guardianship of her minor granddaughter, A. Connie L. (Connie). The court appointed Patricia as Connie’s guardian over the objection of Connie’s father, Gonzalo L. Gonzalo appeals from that order.
Before any evidence was admitted at trial, the court erroneously indicated that the proceeding concerned Gonzalo’s petition to terminate Patricia’s guardianship of his daughter. Gonzalo and Patricia represented themselves in the trial court and did not object to the court’s erroneous characterization. At the outset of the trial, the court informed Gonzalo that he carried the burden of persuasion on his petition and directed him to present his case first.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Daniel A. Ottolia, Judge. Affirmed.
Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, Hallen D. Rosner and Arlyn L. Escalante, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Mahoney & Soll, Paul M. Mahoney and Richard A. Soll for Defendants and Appellants.
Plaintiff Janssen sued Oremor of Riverside, doing business as BMW of Riverside, and related BMW entities for fraud and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) when, after driving a certified pre-owned BMW vehicle for nearly two years after his purchase, he learned that the paint on parts of the vehicle appeared to have been reapplied, affecting the vehicle’s trade-in value. Following a jury trial in which special verdicts were returned, the jury rejected all the plaintiff’s claims except the claim for a limited CRLA claim, for which it awarded plaintiff $4500.00. Both plaintiff and defendant filed motions for new trial, but the motions were denied. Plaintiff sought attorneys’ fees under the CLRA violation o

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant L.H.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant K.K.
Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Tahra Broderson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This is the second appeal by L.H. (Father) arising out of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 modification petition seeking placement of his son, Z.B., with him in Iowa. In his first appeal, we reversed the denial of his section 388 petition on the ground the juvenile court applied an incorrect legal standard. (In re Z.B. (Jan. 25, 2022, D079559) [nonpub. opn.] (In re Z.B. I, the prior opinion).) On remand, we instructed the juvenile court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing on his petition, considering Z.B.’s then-current circumstances.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harold T. Wilson, Jr., Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with directions.
Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Andrew Mestman, and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for the Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Terin Janae Smith of aid by misrepresentation over $950 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2); count 1) and 95 counts of perjury by declaration (Pen. Code, § 118; counts 2-96). The court suspended the imposition of her sentence and placed Smith on five years formal probation, conditioned on her serving 365 days in county jail on a weekend/work release program.

THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 19, 2022, be modified as follows:
1. On page 11, delete the first two sentences of the first paragraph (starting with “Counsel for the City” and ending with “or were disqualified”), replace with the following two sentences, and add new footnote 11 as indicated, which will require the renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:
The appellate record does not contain evidence about the current status of the City’s licensing of storefront cannabis businesses.11 However, documents in the appellate record show that subsequent to the City’s denial of CVA’s applications, all of the applicants for storefront retail licenses in Council District One that had been selected to participate in Phase Two either dropped out or were disqualified.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy Casserly, Judge. Affirmed.
Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire, Kevin F. Quinn; Singleton Schreiber, Benjamin I. Siminou, Alicia M. Zimmerman, and J. Domenic Martini, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza, Alysia B. Carroll; Peabody & Buccini, Thomas M. Peabody, and Natalie J. Buccini, for Defendant and Respondent Scott M. Boles.
INTRODUCTION
Ramon Camacho died from a ruptured aortic dissection four days after he was released from Sharp Memorial Hospital’s Emergency Department. Surviving family members (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued the hospital, medical group, the emergency room doctor, and Does 1 through 50 for medical negligence and wrongful death.

Appointed counsel for defendant, Gregory Dean Kelley, has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the trial court’s order.
FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The People’s complaint charged defendant with driving or taking a vehicle without the consent of the owner (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) with an allegation he had suffered a prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (b).) (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code.) The parties resolved the case with defendant pleading guilty and admitting the prior strike. In exchange, defendant would receive a stipulated sentence to the lower term of 16 months doubled to 32 months because of the prior strike. The stipulated factual basis for the plea was that defendant took his friend’s Ford

Sixteen-year-old defendant Joaquin Segoviano Tapia, while intoxicated and driving too fast, ran a stop sign, causing a collision that killed a Lyft driver and his passenger. Charged with second degree murder and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and tried in adult court after a transfer hearing, defendant was acquitted of second degree murder but convicted of two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, in violation of Penal Code section 191.5, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced defendant to the maximum term of 13 years.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) admission of his prior drunk-driving incident was an abuse of discretion and violated his due process rights, (2) the trial court should have instructed the jury, with respect to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd. (a)), that the jury could find gross negligence only if a “reasonable child,” rather than a “reasonable person,” would have known defendant’s action

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Stacy Wiese, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
Janelle B. Price, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________

J.R. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to D.R. (the child) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, arguing that the order should be conditionally reversed and remanded for compliance with the initial inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (§ 224 et seq.). No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, counsel for father, the child, and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a joint application and

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Stephanie M. Davis, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed, in part, and conditionally reversed, in part, and remanded with instructions.
Sean Angele Burleigh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

A.C. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her three children (the children), D.M. (born in 2010), J.M. (born in 2013), and C.M. (born in 2015). Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it concluded the beneficial parental relationship exception did not apply and erred by failing to ensure that the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) conducted a sufficient initial inquiry under the the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S