CA Unpub Decisions

2251 Skycribs, LLC and Matthew Elliott Green (collectively Skycribs) appeal from the trial court’s judgment after an order granting summary judgment, ruling that Skycribs did not hold the rights to an easement over the property of Peter W. Kraus, Daniel Taheri, and Khaneh Holdings, LLC (Khaneh). We affirm.

Appellant S.F. (father) appeals the order terminating parental rights as to his son, S.F. (the child). On appeal, father argues that the order must be reversed because (1) he did not receive adequate notice of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing, and (2) the Riverside County Department of Social Services (DPSS) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We affirm.

Santiago M. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating his parental rights as to his now eight-year-old daughter, Marisol, and seven- and two-year-old sons, Alfredo and Lorenzo respectively. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Father contends the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) and the juvenile court failed to comply with section 361.3, subdivision (a), which he contends required the agency to place the children with a relative. We conclude father lacks standing to raise the issue of relative placement and dismiss the appeal.

In this products liability case, plaintiffs Kawika Demara (Demara) and Sandra Demara (together, Plaintiffs) appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendants The Raymond Corporation (Raymond) and Raymond Handling Solutions, Inc. (RHSI) (together, Defendants). As relevant to this appeal, Plaintiffs asserted claims for strict liability and negligence based on injuries Demara suffered allegedly as a result of design defects in a forklift designed by Raymond and sold by RHSI.

A conservatee suffering from probable Alzheimer’s disease was placed in a care facility when her personal residence of more than 25 years became unsafe for her to live in. Several years later, the trial court was asked to determine whether the care facility or the conservatee’s former residence would provide the least restrictive appropriate residence for her. The conservatee’s nephews and niece sought to keep her in the care facility. The conservatee’s guardian ad litem and court-appointed attorney requested that she be allowed to return to her former home. After a contested evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the least restrictive, most appropriate placement for the conservatee was her former home, and directed the conservator to make any necessary repairs or modifications to the residence before moving the conservatee. The nephews and niece appeal.
We affirm. Under the appropriate test, there was sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the car

In this employment litigation, Ruben Casarez appeals from a judgment of dismissal after the court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend in favor of his former employer, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). We reverse because Caserez's causes of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.; FEHA) are neither time barred nor barred by res judicata, and, on Casarez's remaining causes of action, the court should have sustained IID's demurrer with leave to amend.

Petition for writ of mandate to order superior court to hold jury trial on once-in-jeopardy plea. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, George G. Lomeli, Judge. Petition denied. Order striking once-in-jeopardy plea is affirmed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The order to show cause is discharged.

At a March 2017 dispositional hearing on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 petition, the juvenile court denied Andrea L.’s (mother) section 388 petition, modified her visitation, and set a section 366.26 hearing (.26 hearing). Mother petitions for writ relief, contending insufficient evidence supports the dispositional order, and that the court erred by modifying visitation.

Petitioners Anderson & Anderson LLP and Steven A. Micheli (collectively, Anderson) are defendants in a legal malpractice action. Real party in interest Guido DiMitri is Anderson's former client and one of the plaintiffs in the underlying action. DiMitri's wife is also a plaintiff, but her cause of action is not at issue in this proceeding. We will therefore omit further reference to her.
Anderson filed a motion for summary judgment on DiMitri's cause of action for legal malpractice, which the trial court denied. In its petition, Anderson argues the court erred by (1) failing to adequately state its reasons for denying the motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (g), and (2) denying the motion on its merits. (All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Anderson seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion and enter an order granting the motion or, in the alternative, enter an

After four-month-old R.M. suffered a broken leg under suspicious circumstances indicating the injury was not an accident, the juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over her, found her to be a dependent child, and set a permanency plan hearing pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26, bypassing reunification services to her mother, A.P. (Mother), pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5) and (b)(6). In these writ proceedings, Mother seeks to stay the section 366.26 hearing and challenges the court’s findings under section 361.5. She contends the court abused its discretion in failing to grant her services under section 361.5, subdivision (c), which provides an exception to bypass if certain factual findings are made. The Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) argues there was more than sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings. We agree with the Bureau, find no error, and will affirm.

Appellant Joel Campos appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury for second degree robbery, with firearm use and a finding he committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022.53, subd. (b), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) We affirm.

In this proceeding for dissolution of marriage, Donald Wolff appeals from post-judgment orders denying his requests to divide assets purportedly omitted or not adjudicated by the judgment and declining to award him reimbursement for certain payments. He contends the court erred primarily because it found that the issues had already been considered by the court in rendering the judgment and were therefore not omitted or unadjudicated assets within the meaning of Family Code section 2556. We will affirm the orders.

Defendant and appellant Chase Pizza, Inc. (Chase) appeals from the trial court’s order denying its motion for attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 after judgment was entered in its favor in this breach of contract action brought by plaintiff and respondent Royal Capital Holdings, Inc. (Royal). Because the parties’ contract contains no attorney fee provision that applies to the instant action, we affirm the order denying the motion for attorney fees.

This case concerns the phased development of the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (Airport) under the 1997 Airport Master Plan Update (Airport Master Plan) as amended over the years. Before the Airport Master Plan was adopted, an environmental impact report (EIR) analyzing the proposed plan, the San Jose International Airport Master Plan Update EIR (Master Plan EIR), was prepared for the City of San Jose (City). Over the ensuing years, a supplemental EIR (SEIR) and multiple addenda to the Master Plan EIR were prepared and the Airport Master Plan was amended a number of times.