CA Unpub Decisions

Having unsuccessfully attempted to recover the attorney fees he incurred in an underlying action involving the purchase of a residence, buyer Jay Lange attempts a second bite of the attorney fee apple in this action. (See Lange v. Schilling (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1412 [in which this court determined that Lange could not be awarded his attorney fees under the residential property purchase agreement because he commenced the action without first attempting mediation, as required under the agreement].) He now seeks, as the sellers' assignee, to recover the sellers' attorney fees from the sellers' real estate agent.

Stephanie G. (mother) appeals from the judgment of June 9, 2010, terminating parental rights to D.L. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Mother contends the dependency court abused its discretion in denying her a continuance of the hearing to obtain a bonding study and in finding that termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to D. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Anthony T., Sr., and Anthony T., Jr., are father and son; we will refer to Anthony T., Sr., as father and to Anthony T., Jr., by his first name. Father appeals from an order denying his petition brought under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. Court affirm.

James S. (Father) and his seven minor children challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the March 8, 2010 jurisdiction and disposition orders. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over the children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect), based on Father's failure regularly to take his psychotropic medication. The children were removed from Father and placed with G.S. (Mother), who was nonoffending.[1] Pending this appeal, on June 28, 2010, the juvenile court permitted Father to return to the family home.[2]
In an October 1, 2010 letter to the court, DCFS stated that â€

Jose L. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 following the juvenile court's finding that he committed the crime of sale or transportation of marijuana, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a). Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds of entrapment at the close of the People's case. Court affirm.

On the afternoon of September 13, 2006, a man wearing a blue jacket and blue t-shirt, whom the cashier was never able to identify, asked a cashier at the H and H Market in Los Angeles for change. When the cashier gave it to him, the man pulled out a gun and demanded the money from the register; the cashier handed over about $200. The man left. Soon thereafter, the cashier heard two shots fired.

After a police investigation, Levon Solak, a dentist, was charged with a felony count of â€

The father, Juan C., appeals from a dependency dispositional order. The father, who had moved to Texas, was found to have failed to protect the children, D.C. and H. C. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 300, subd. (b).) Further, the father was found to have failed to provide the necessities of life for the children including food, clothing, shelter and medical care. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The Department of Children's and Family Services (the department) appeals from the dismissal of a section 300, subdivision (g) failure to provide allegation. Court affirm the dispositional order. Court dismiss the department's appeal as it is moot.

Defendant Leland Chatman appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court resentenced him after we filed an opinion in defendant's prior appeal reversing gang enhancement findings, but before issuance of a remittitur. Court reverse the judgment because the trial court resentenced defendant before it had jurisdiction to do so.

A mother appeals from a juvenile court order declaring her daughter a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and removing her from her custody. She contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings or the dispositional order. Court affirm.

Plaintiff Cleo Wrap appeals from the order granting defendant Hyeob Sung USA's motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 to vacate the default and default judgment entered against it. Court affirm.

Appellants Farhad and Mahnaz Rashti, husband and wife, and Mike Rostami, Mahnaz's brother, filed an action against Joseph Boodaie, All Century, Inc. (not parties to this appeal) and respondent David Gadoshian because the defendants allegedly converted over $3.5 million that appellants had entrusted to Boodaie and All Century, Inc. Respondent's demurrer to the third amended complaint (hereafter the complaint) was sustained without leave to amend on October 29, 2009; the notice of appeal was filed on December 14, 2009; and judgment was entered on January 21, 2010. The notice of appeal is treated as filed immediately after the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(e)(1).)

Joseph Toliver Hager appeals his conviction of attempted murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle. He argues that (1) the court under the guise of asking clarifying questions became an advocate for the prosecution; (2) gang expert testimony was improperly admitted; and (3) a pretrial six-pack photographic lineup (six-pack) identification was unduly suggestive in violation of his right to due process. None of his contentions has merit. Court affirm.

Marc P. appeals from the juvenile court order declaring him a ward of the court and ordering him home on probation, after the court found true allegations that Marc P. committed aggravated assault for the benefit of a criminal street gang, and street terrorism. Marc P. argues that the evidence was insufficient that he committed aggravated assault, that his maximum term of confinement was incorrectly calculated, and that the court failed to consider whether the aggravated assault should be a misdemeanor. Court affirm.