CA Unpub Decisions

A jury convicted defendant Daniel Jimenez of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).[1] The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for three years on condition, among others, that he â€

On February 11, 2008, plaintiff Rene Rosales Jimenez filed a complaint for damages in the Orange County Superior Court against defendant Saddleback Memorial Medical Center (Saddleback), three named individuals, and 100 Does. The complaint alleged causes of action arising out of plaintiff's employment at Saddleback, including violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. (FEHA); all undesignated statutory references are to the Gov. Code). His causes of action included harassment and retaliation, employment discrimination, failure to prevent employment discrimination and harassment, failure to accommodate his disability and failure to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine appropriate accommodations, wrongful and tortuous discharge in violation of public policy, unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. By the time the trial concluded, two of the three individuals named as defendants were no longer involved in the case, the court having sustained a demurrer and granted summary judgment in their favor. Rodney Butler was the sole remaining individual named as a defendant.

On August 11, 2009, appellant, Luis Miguel Raigoza, was charged in an information with possession of a controlled substance for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378, count one).[1] On April 14, 2010, the jury convicted Raigoza of the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)).[2] On July 23, 2010, the court denied probation and sentenced Raigoza to prison for the midterm of two years. The court granted Raigoza five days of custody and conduct credits and imposed various fines and fees.

On July 23, 2010, an information charged defendant and appellant David Baltierra, Jr. (defendant), with receiving stolen property under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) (count 1); and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 2). The information also alleged that defendant suffered a strike prior under Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and three prior conviction and prison commitments under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).[1]
Four days later, on July 27, defendant pled not guilty and denied the special allegations. On September 13, 2010, prior to trial, the trial court granted defendant's motion to bifurcate the priors.
After a jury trial, on September 21, 2010, the jury convicted defendant of unlawful taking of a vehicle, but acquitted defendant of receiving stolen property. After waiving his rights, defendant admitted his prior convictions.

Defendant and appellant, M.B., is the presumed father of J.B. who is the subject of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300[1] petition that Riverside County Department of Public Social Services-Child Protective Services (CPS) filed shortly after J.B.'s birth. According to the social worker, J.B.'s mother K.F. (hereafter mother) while hospitalized after giving birth to J.B. reputedly asked for help to separate from M.B. (hereafter father) because he is violent. The dependency petition alleges jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) based on acts of domestic violence father and mother committed in the presence of mother's five-year-old son, B.F.[2] With respect to father, the petition also alleges he abuses controlled substances, he has an extensive criminal history for possession of controlled substances, and he previously failed to reunify with his three other children after allegations of neglect and substance abuse resulting from his arrest on drug manufacturing charges were substantiated. Based on the noted allegations, the trial court detained J.B. and placed him in the custody of mother.

This case relates to a foreclosure on the home of plaintiff and appellant, Thomas Forbes. Forbes sued defendant and respondent Litton Loan Servicing, LP (Litton), for (1) violating Civil Code section 2923.5, which concerns notices of default; (2) violating Civil Code section 2923.6, which relates to loan modifications; (3) fraud; (4) actual fraud (Civ. Code, § 1572); (5) intentional misrepresentation; and (6) unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200). The trial court sustained Litton's demurrer without leave to amend.
Forbes raises four issues on appeal. First, Forbes asserts the trial court denied him due process by not granting him leave to amend his first amended complaint. Second, Forbes contends the trial court showed that it was biased in favor of Litton. Third, Forbes contends the trial court erred by not considering his evidence. Fourth, Forbes asserts that the trial court erred by disregarding Forbes's motion to file an amended complaint. We affirm the judgment.

N.H. (mother) and J.H. (father) appeal the juvenile court's orders terminating their parental rights as to minors J.H. (born March 2008) and I.H. (born February 2005). ( ADDIN BA xc <@st> xl 34 s KDOQBS000001 xpl 1 l "Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 366.26" Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 366.26; undesignated statutory section references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) They contend there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption did not apply. We affirm the juvenile court's orders.

Defendant Robert Glenn McClure pled no contest to receiving property stolen from an optical business. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for three years and ordered him to pay victim restitution of $10,180.
A week after sentencing, defendant sought reconsideration of the victim restitution order. Defendant argued that an order that he pay the victim's entire loss from the burglary was improper, because he neither pled guilty to burglary nor entered a Harvey[1] waiver as to any burglary charge. The trial court declined to consider defendant's request on the ground it had lost jurisdiction to modify the victim restitution order when it committed defendant to state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends, and the People concede, that the trial court erred in concluding it had no jurisdiction to consider a request by defendant to modify the victim restitution order.
We agree. â€

On August 4, 2009, narcotics officers stopped a vehicle for an unspecified unsafe condition in which defendant Jeremiah Dean Palmer was a passenger. Both the driver and defendant were fidgety, talking rapidly, and attempting to talk at the same time. Defendant was searched pursuant to a probation search condition and was found to be in possession of 1.4 grams of methamphetamine and .6 grams of concentrated cannabis.
Defendant pled guilty to transportation of methamphetamine and was placed on Proposition 36 probation. Defendant also was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine, another $200 restitution fine stayed pending successful completion of probation, a $720 fine with assessments, a $180 crime lab fee with assessments, a $30 court security fee, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment.
In March 2010, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of probation alleging defendant had used methamphetamine and marijuana. Defendant admitted the allegations and the court reinstated him on probation.
In April 2010, the probation department filed a second petition for revocation of probation alleging defendant had used methamphetamine and marijuana, had possessed marijuana, and had been noncompliant with treatment. Defendant admitted the allegations and the court reinstated him on probation.
In May 2010, the probation department filed a third petition for revocation of probation alleging defendant had used methamphetamine. Defendant admitted the allegations and the court set the matter for sentencing with the understanding that sentencing would be continued if defendant was in residential treatment.
In September 2010, on the date set for sentencing, the probation department filed a fourth petition for revocation of probation based on the filing of a new case alleging defendant had illegally possessed Vicodin.
On November 17, 2010, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to the upper term of four years in


state prison, but suspended sentence and committed defendant to the California Rehabilitation Center.

Plaintiffs Home Builders Association of Northern California, Inc. (Home Builders) and Award Homes, Inc. (Award) challenge the trial court's order denying their motion for attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.[1] They contend that the trial court improperly found that the burden of the litigation costs was not disproportionate to plaintiffs' financial interests in the litigation. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' attorney's fees motion.

Victor B. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court's ruling, following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (f),[1] hearing, that Father was provided reasonable services to reunify with his 14-year-old daughter, Z.G. Specifically, Father asserts Z.G.'s therapy failed to address reunification, Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) refused to help pay for his telephone calls and postage from Mexico to the United States, and the social worker should have ensured Z.G. communicated with Father and could have better facilitated computer chats between them. The trial court concluded the services provided were reasonable before it terminated those services and scheduled a permanency hearing (§ 366.26).

Z.M. (Father) appeals from the order made at the dispositional hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361)[1] removing his daughter D.M. from his custody and placing her with her mother (Mother) under a plan of family maintenance supervision. Father contends: (1) the juvenile court mistakenly believed a removal finding was necessary to place the child with Mother; and (2) there is insufficient evidence to support removal. We find no merit to his contentions and affirm the order.

etitioner, Cesar Rodriguez (Rodriguez) seeks relief from the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The petition is granted.
A jury convicted Rodriguez of possessing methamphetamine for sale, possessing cocaine for sale, possessing a firearm and ammunition as an ex-felon, and cultivating marijuana.
In People v. Rodriguez (G039986, Unpublished, July 29, 2009) this court affirmed the judgment but ordered a remand for sentencing. In the opinion, this court concluded: â€

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] hearing as to her one-year-old daughter, R. She contends the juvenile court erred in denying her reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5) which she argues requires this court to vacate the section 366.26 hearing and direct the juvenile court to order services. Under the circumstances, however, even if we concluded that the juvenile court erred in denying petitioner reunification services pursuant to subdivision (b)(5) of section 361.5, it would have no practical effect because the court also denied petitioner services pursuant to subdivision (b)(6) of section 361.5 which petitioner does not challenge. Consequently, we will dismiss the petition.