CA Unpub Decisions

Following the termination of his employment by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Angelo Navarette sued his former employer and a supervisor. He appeals from the judgment of dismissal following the trial courts grant of LAUSDs motion for judgment on the pleadings. Court affirm.

Joseph Anthony Delgado (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)) and admission that he had suffered a prior strike under the Three Strikes Law ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to the low term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months for the prior strike. Court appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.

This case involves a claim by an hourly employee, plaintiff Luis Castillo, for unpaid wages for the rest breaks and meal periods he was denied by his employer, defendant Beverly Books, Inc. Castillo successfully litigated his claim before the State Labor Commissioner, but Beverly Books filed an appeal to the Los Angeles Superior Court (Lab. Code, 98.2). After a trial de novo, the superior court court denied his claim and entered judgment in favor of Beverly Books. Court affirm because, unlike his claim before the Labor Commissioner, at the trial de novo Castillo failed to present evidence of damages with specific dates and total hours alleged to be unpaid, rendering any award of damages speculative.

In this dependency matter (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300),[1]contrary to the contention of appellant Carla H. (mother), the juvenile court did not abuse its broad discretion in transferring the matter to Santa Clara County, where father resides and the two children had been relocated. Nor did the court err in not considering placement of the children with a maternal cousin, because mother had voluntarily agreed to placement with fathers female companion in San Jose when mother signed the mediation agreement.

New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. (Cingular) is a creditor of Wire Comm Wireless, Inc. (Wire Comm), which had been a retailer of wireless equipment and dealer of Cingular wireless services. After Wire Comm terminated its dealer agreement with Cingular, Cingular brought suit against Wire Comm and its shareholders, Richard and Shirley McCormick and their son and daughter-in-law, Tim and Renee McCormick (collectively, the McCormicks), and Premiere Wireless Solutions (Premiere), alleging the McCormicks conspired to cause Wire Comm to fraudulently transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars and most of its physical assets to Premiere for no consideration so that they could avoid a multi-million dollar obligation to Cingular arising from Wire Comms breach of the dealer agreement. Cingular also alleged the McCormicks regularly used the assets of Wire Comm and Premiere for their personal uses and caused the assets to be transferred to themselves for no or inadequate consideration, and a unity of interest and ownership exist[ed] between the McCormicks and both [Wire Comm] and Premiere such that the corporations ha[d] no distinct identity.

The facts of the instant case reflect an appalling breakdown in social order and public safety. We are deeply disturbed at the crimes committed by the minor and his accomplice, and the inability of any responsible person to protect the innocent victim, a boy senselessly beaten and humiliated on school grounds.

Mylon Dranoel Doakes appeals from the decision of the trial court extending Doakes's commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code section 2972. Doakes contends the trial court erred when it denied his petition to dismiss the petition to extend commitment on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction since his commitment offense does not qualify for MDO treatment. We find the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss because the commitment offense was a crime involving force and violence under section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P). Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Mylon Dranoel Doakes appeals from the decision of the trial court extending Doakes's commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code section 2972. Doakes contends the trial court erred when it denied his petition to dismiss the petition to extend commitment on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction since his commitment offense does not qualify for MDO treatment. We find the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss because the commitment offense was a crime involving force and violence under section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P). Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Mylon Dranoel Doakes appeals from the decision of the trial court extending Doakes's commitment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) pursuant to Penal Code section 2972. Doakes contends the trial court erred when it denied his petition to dismiss the petition to extend commitment on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction since his commitment offense does not qualify for MDO treatment. We find the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss because the commitment offense was a crime involving force and violence under section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(P). Court therefore affirm the judgment.

The juvenile court declared 16-year-old Alejandro P. a ward of the court after he admitted the crime of attempted murder. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602, undesignated statutory references are to this code.) The juvenile court found the crime to be a felony constituting a strike and committed Alejandro to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice for the maximum term of nine years. It also ordered him to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $82,298.23, and restitution fines in the amounts of $119 and $100. ( 730.5. 730.6.)

Appellant S.S. (Mother) is the mother of four girls: Tiffani M., Harmony F., Leila F. and Cherish S.[1] Appellant Albert F. is the father of Harmony and the alleged father of Leila. This is the fourth time this matter has been before us.[2] This appeal involves only the two younger girls, Leila and Cherish. Albert contends the juvenile court erred in terminating parental rights over Leila pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition seeking to modify its prior order terminating reunification services with respect to both girls. Court affirm.

Yvette D., the mother of nine children, all of whom have been removed from her care, appeals from an order summarily denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 seeking, among other things, reunification services and visitation with her three youngest children at her place of incarceration. Yvette D. contends the juvenile court erred in denying her petition without an evidentiary hearing. Court affirm.

E.B., a minor, was made a ward of the court based on a sustained petition for possessing a firearm, carrying a loaded firearm while being an active participant of a criminal street gang, and possession of live ammunition. He was found to have possessed the firearm and ammunition for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22.[1] On appeal, he challenges only the section 186.22 findings on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence. Court agree with the minor and reverse those findings.

In 1999, defendant and appellant Gabriel Sepulveda, a Mexican citizen and permanent resident of the United States, was charged with two counts of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211.[1] He entered into a negotiated plea agreement in which he pled nolo contendere to one of the robbery counts and was placed on formal probation, pursuant to a variety of conditions, including that he serve 364 days in jail. Upon his return from a trip to Mexico in 2006, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against defendant, based on defendants robbery conviction. Defendant subsequently filed a motion under section 1016.5 to vacate his guilty plea, along with a petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking the same relief. Defendant timely appealed the denials of his motion and petition, contending the trial court erred in denying statutory and equitable relief. Court affirm.