CA Unpub Decisions

The Round Valley Indian Tribe (the Tribe) removed Sebastian R. (Sam), T.R., D.R., and L.R., the children of Candice H. (mother), after a neighbor called to report suspected neglect. The Tribe contacted Audrey H. (great-grandmother), the paternal great-grandmother of the four children. Great-grandmother took the children into her home and filed a request in the Mendocino County Superior Court for a temporary guardianship over the children. The probate court granted this request. Subsequently, the probate court pursuant to former Probate Code section 1513, subdivision (c), referred the matter to the Mendocino County Department of Health and Human Services Agency (the agency) for a dependency investigation. The social worker for the agency decided not to file a dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, and the probate court granted, over mother’s objection, the permanent guardianship request of great-grandmother.

This appeal arises out of one of a series of related complaints by investors who purchased ownership interests in senior housing facilities. The appellants in this appeal are investors who purchased ownership interests in Wood River Village, a senior housing facility located in Pennsylvania. Appellants claim they were defrauded and sued various parties associated with the transaction, including defendant and respondent Stewart Title Guaranty Company (Stewart). In its role as title insurer, Stewart allegedly performed certain escrow functions in the individual transactions in which appellants purchased their interests. Although Stewart was not a party to the escrow instructions and had no contact with appellants, appellants nonetheless sued Stewart for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud, and fraudulent nondisclosure. The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal after granting Stewart’s demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm the judgment.

This appeal arises out of one of a series of related complaints by investors who purchased ownership interests in senior housing facilities. The appellants in this appeal are investors who purchased ownership interests in Colonnade of Schwenksville, a senior housing facility located in Pennsylvania. Appellants claim they were defrauded and sued various parties associated with the transaction, including defendant and respondent Stewart Title Guaranty Company (Stewart). In its role as title insurer, Stewart allegedly performed certain escrow functions in the individual transactions in which appellants purchased their interests. Although Stewart was not a party to the escrow instructions and had no contact with appellants, appellants nonetheless sued Stewart for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud, and fraudulent nondisclosure. The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal after granting Stewart’s demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm the judgment.

Mother Erin R. petitions for an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) in the dependency case of her children, S.R. and J.R. At a contested 24-month permanency review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.25, subd. (a)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.722)[1] conducted in November 2012, the juvenile court refused to return the children to mother’s care, terminated mother’s reunification services, and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for March 7, 2013. Because the court’s orders are supported by substantial evidence, we deny mother’s petition.

I.H. was taken into protective custody in January 2011, several days after she was born. She had been one month premature, and both I.H. and her mother, P.H. (Mother), tested positive for amphetamines. The juvenile dependency petition included two counts: count 1 was for failure to protect under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (further code references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted), and count 2 was for abuse of sibling under section 300, subdivision (j).
At the 18‑month review hearing in July 2012, the juvenile court brought its own motion under section 350, subdivision (c) (section 350(c)). After giving the parties the opportunity to argue, the court granted the motion, found the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to carry its burden under section 366.22, subdivision (a), and ordered that I.H. be returned to Mother’s custody under SSA’s supervision. I.H. appeals from this order. SSA has filed a letter brief stating it will not file a respondent’s brief but does not oppose I.H.’s appeal.
Applying the relevant standard of review, described in detail in the discussion section, we conclude the juvenile court did not err by granting the motion under section 350(c) at the 18‑month review hearing and ordering that I.H. be returned to Mother’s custody. We therefore affirm. Because the only issue presented by this appeal is whether the juvenile court erred by granting the section 350(c) motion, we start with an explanation of that code section and other relevant law, provide an abbreviated procedural history, and limit our recitation of the facts to the evidence presented at the 18‑month review hearing.

Defendants Monex Credit Company (Monex) and Louis E. Carabini (together, Appellants) appeal from an order granting Ihsan N. Shamaan equitable relief from the dismissal of his lawsuit.[1] The trial court granted the motion on the ground of extrinsic mistake and specifically found that counsel had abandoned Shamaan, that Shamaan had diligently sought relief from dismissal, and that Appellants would suffer no prejudice.
We affirm. After confirming our jurisdiction, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting Shamaan equitable relief from the dismissal. Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings, which satisfied the legal criteria for extrinsic mistake based on counsel’s misconduct. Because we affirm on the ground of extrinsic mistake, we do not address the parties’ arguments on extrinsic fraud.

The court found that appellant was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after appellant admitted allegations charging him with attempted second degree robbery (count 1/Pen. Code, §§ 211 & 664) and assault with a firearm (count 2/Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm.

Appellant, Michael Duran Apodaca, appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no contest to possession of a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(4)).[1] Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm.

It was alleged in an information filed December 2, 2011, that appellant, David Leon Jenkinson, committed the following offenses: driving under the influence of a drug and/or an alcoholic beverage (DUI) (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) within ten years of suffering two prior convictions of the same offense (Veh. Code, § 23550), a felony; unlawful possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364), a misdemeanor; and failing to perform a legal duty following an accident causing property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor. It was also alleged in the information that appellant had served four separate prison terms for prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

Plaintiff and appellant, Horace Bell, challenges the sustaining of a demurrer to his personal injury complaint.[1] In his complaint, appellant alleged that defendants and respondents, Correctional Officers S.D. Fane and J. Gallagher, filed a false rules violation report against him in June 2006. However, appellant did not submit a government claim regarding this incident until March 2011, over four years later.
The trial court correctly sustained respondents’ demurrer without leave to amend. Before suing a public entity, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages. (Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 208 (Shirk).) Because appellant did not present a timely tort claim, his lawsuit is barred. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.[2]

A jury convicted appellant, Ernie Olmedo, of felony child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)), and found true an enhancement allegation that, in committing that offense, appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury on a child under the age of five years (§ 12022.7, subd. (d)). The court imposed a prison term of seven years, consisting of the two-year lower term on the substantive offense and five years on the accompanying enhancement.
On appeal, appellant contends the court erred (1) in denying his Wheeler/Batson[1] motion, and (2) in instructing the jury on appellant’s failure to explain or deny adverse evidence. We affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Michael Robert Moore pled no contest to unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and admitted that he had suffered one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). In exchange, the remaining allegations were dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to a stipulated term of four years in state prison with credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment, challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea, as well as the validity of the plea or admission. We find no error and affirm.

Following a jury trial, defendant and appellant Nathan Allen Huyck was found guilty of one count of arson of an inhabited structure in violation of Penal Code[1] section 451, subdivision (b), and one count of arson of property in violation of section 451, subdivision (d). He was sentenced to state prison for a total term of eight years. The court further ordered him to pay a restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45) stating: “Restitution fine of $200 is set. Parole revocation restitution fine is set.”[2]

D.D., Sr., appeals findings and orders entered at a permanency plan and selection hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held that review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting his custody of a child or his status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny appellant's requests to review the record for error and to address the Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
Citing In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, appellant's counsel asks this court to exercise its discretion to provide her client the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. Counsel also asks this court to order counsel to brief any arguable issue. (Penson v. Ohio (1988) 488 U.S. 75, 88.) The requests are denied.