CA Unpub Decisions

Mother appeals from an order of the juvenile court denying a modification petition that was filed by her sister, Bethany G., and her sister's husband, Justin G. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388.) Court affirm.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, appellant T.V. admitted the truth of the allegation that he possessed cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). The juvenile court found the allegation true, sustained the petition containing that allegation, declared the offense a felony, found that appellant was a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, adjudged appellant to be a ward of the court, and placed appellant on home probation with a maximum period of confinement of three years. Appellant appeals from the orders sustaining the petition and adjudging him to be a ward of the court, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Court affirm the juvenile court's orders.

This dependency matter involves three sisters, Naomi, Gwendolyn and Ruby. From 2005 to 2009, they were shuffled from one foster home to another and often separated. Parental rights were terminated in April 2009, and plans for adoption were approved by the juvenile court. Their older sister N., along with their parents, appeal the juvenile courts decision, contending it erred when it failed to protect Naomis right of participation in the termination proceedings and when it held that the sibling bond exception did not apply. Court affirm.

Ryan P. Angle appeals from the judgment entered in favor of respondent, James Barnett, following an order granting his motion for summary adjudication. Appellant contends that triable issues of fact exist with respect to his bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Court affirm.

Father appeals from a judgment in which the juvenile court found that it had jurisdiction over Fathers two children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)[1] and made a dispositional order which did not return the children to Fathers custody. We find that substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional finding that there was a substantial risk that the children would suffer serious physical harm or illness as a result of Fathers failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect the children or by his willful or negligent failure to provide the children with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or by his inability to provide regular care for the children due to his mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse. We also find that substantial evidence supported the finding, pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c) that return of the children to fathers custody would substantially endanger the childrens physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. Court affirm the judgment.

Javier M. appeals from the juvenile court's order sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition that he possessed a deadly weapon (a billy (baseball bat)).[1] (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a).)[2] The juvenile court declared the crime a misdemeanor, and placed appellant on probation. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that the bat is a deadly weapon. He further argues that there is not sufficient evidence to support the finding that he possessed the bat. He also requests that we take judicial notice of Juan Marichal's assault upon Johnny Roseboro with a baseball bat. Court affirm the judgment and deny the request for judicial notice.

Landon V. (mother) appeals from an order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition as to her son, Nathaniel, and a subsequent order terminating her parental rights.[1] She contends: (1) the summary denial of her petition was an abuse of discretion; and (2) if the order denying her petition is reversed, the order terminating parental rights should also be reversed. Court affirm.

Joe Matthews appeals from an order of the trial court committing him to the State Department of Mental Health (DMH) for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO). (Pen Code, 2962, 2966.)[1] He argues that he did not qualify as an MDO because he did not receive at least 90 days of mental health treatment during the year preceding his parole release date. Court affirm.

Maba Randolph appeals from a post-judgment order revoking her probation and executing a previously suspended state prison sentence. In November 2008 in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BA340267, Randolph entered a no contest plea to selling marijuana in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a), and admitted she had violated probation in case No. BA345699. Pursuant to the terms of the negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Randolph to three years in state prison, suspended execution of sentence and ordered three years of formal probation. One of the conditions of probation was she stay away from the 5th Street corridor; the area between 4th and 6th Streets, bounded by Broadway and Central in downtown Los Angeles.

Sam Duron appeals an order committing him to the Department of Mental Health for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) (Pen. Code,[1] 2962). He contends the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's finding that his commitment offense, possession of child pornography in violation of section 311.11, subdivision (a), qualifies as a crime involving an implied threat to use force or violence likely to produce substantial physical harm, as contemplated by section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(Q). Court agree. Accordingly, Court reverse.

Baby Girl B. was born in December 2007, testing positive for drugs. Her mother (not a party to this appeal) was uncooperative with the hospital staff and with the social workers from the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), disappearing for a while after B.s birth, and DCFS took appropriate steps to protect B. Appellant M.P., the alleged father of B., first appeared in this case on July 14, 2009, for the hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] The purpose of the hearing was to provide for a permanent plan placing the child for adoption and terminating parental rights. M.P. requested a continuance. The court denied the request, stating that there were no grounds that M.P. could raise that would forestall the adoption. The court terminated parental rights and freed B. for adoption. M.P. appeals and Court affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant John Clifton Elstead has filed two appeals, which we have consolidated. In No. A117521, Elstead asserts a variety of reasons why we should reverse the trial courts judgment, issued after the court granted the motion for summary judgment brought by defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation (Chase Manhattan),[1] and Chase Mortgage Services, Inc. (collectively, Chase). In No. A119606, Elstead appeals from the courts award of $610,530 attorney fees to Chase and against Elstead in an amended judgment.
Court affirm the trial courts summary judgment regarding all but one of Elsteads causes of action, that being for breach of contract. Given our reversal regarding this one cause of action, we vacate the trial courts judgment, the award of attorney fees, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings and orders consistent with this opinion. We dismiss Elsteads appeal of the attorney fees award, No. A119606, without prejudice as moot and express no views regarding its merits.

At a March 13, 2007 meeting, the Menlo Park City Council approved a use permit allowing a private school to operate in a M-2 district zoned for general industrial use after finding that the project was exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et. seq.) (CEQA) and its Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15000 et. seq.). Appellant Menlo Business Park, LLC (MBP), the owner of real property located near the school, filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief, against respondents City of Menlo Park and the City Council, challenging the grant of the use permit alleging noncompliance with Menlo Parks Municipal Code and CEQA and its Guidelines. On March 6, 2008, the trial court filed a final statement of decision in which it denied the petition and dismissed the complaint. Court affirm.

Defendant and appellant Joseph Davis, Jr. (appellant), was convicted of four sexual molestation charges. He contends he was deprived of a fair trial due to references made to his custodial status and due to juror inattentiveness. He also contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.