CA Unpub Decisions

M.M. and J.R., parents of the minor, appeal from orders of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.)[1] Appellants contend that reversal is required because reversal of the order terminating the parents rights as to the siblings in In re S.R. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 864 completely undermines termination of parental rights in this case. Court disagree and affirm.

Marc McGuire owns a condominium unit in a downtown San Diego building known as "235 On Market." The building is governed by the 235 On Market Homeowners Association (the HOA) and is subject to a written declaration of rules (the CC&R's). About six years ago, the HOA and McGuire began disputing whether a small area of interior floor tile in McGuire's unit violated the CC&R's. McGuire filed a lawsuit against the HOA, and the HOA cross-complained against McGuire. The court ultimately granted summary judgment in the HOA's favor on the complaint and cross-complaint, and denied McGuire's summary judgment motion on the cross-complaint. The court ordered McGuire to remove the disputed floor tile and replace it with approved floor covering. The court awarded the HOA $225,200 in attorney fees and $12,803.50 in costs. McGuire appeals, contending the court erred in granting the HOA's summary judgment motion on the cross-complaint and denying his summary judgment motion.[1] McGuire also challenges the amount of attorney fees awarded. Court conclude the court properly granted summary judgment in the HOA's favor, and the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the attorney fees. Accordingly Court affirm.

A real estate developer and a grading subcontractor entered into an agreement under which the subcontractor agreed to grade a hillside for construction. Pursuant to the contract, the subcontractor agreed to indemnify the developer against liability associated with the subcontractor's work. The grading performed by the subcontractor removed adjacent support from neighboring houses, causing substantial property damage. The neighbors sued the developer and the subcontractor, along with the geological consultants who planned the grading. The neighbors also sued the landowner. The defendants filed cross-complaints against one another. Thereafter the defendants reached a settlement with the plaintiffs which was found to be made in good faith. Accordingly, Court reverse the trial court's judgment.

In 2004, a Republic of Korea (Korea) court issued a final money judgment against Chong Sung Lee (a San Diego County resident) in favor of Korea Water Resources Corporation (Korea Water). Korea Water then filed an action in California requesting recognition of the Korean judgment. The trial court granted Korea Water's request and, based on the Korean judgment, entered judgment in favor of Korea Water. Lee appeals from this judgment. He contends California should not recognize the Korean judgment because he did not receive basic due process in Korea. Court reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

In the underlying action, South Bay Rod and Gun Club (Club), a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, sued Charles M. Dashiell on numerous theories, including a claim alleging he breached his fiduciary duties while acting as a director of Club in connection with a real estate transaction. Club alleged claims for specific performance of an agreement with Dashiell, declaratory relief and breach of fiduciary duty, and sought a determination that Dashiell held certain real property as constructive trustee for Club. Dashiell cross-complained for breach of the agreement, specific performance of his option to retain the real property, declaratory relief and to quiet his title to the real property, and slander of title. The trial court ruled in Dashiell's favor, and this court affirmed in an unpublished opinion. (SouthBay Rod and Gun Club v. Dashiell (Jan. 3, 2008, D048864 [nonpub. opn.] (SouthBay I).) In the present appeal (South Bay II), Club challenges a posttrial order, entered after remand, that awarded Dashiell his attorney fees. Club asserts (1) res judicata principles precluded the trial court from awarding attorney fees, and (2) even if res judicata was not a bar there was no statutory basis for awarding attorney fees.

A jury convicted William Morris Hall of six counts of making false bomb threats. (Pen. Code,[1] 148.1, subd. (c).) Hall appeals, contending admission of recorded voice lineups which identified his voice as the bomb threat caller was improper. Hall argues the lineups were unduly suggestive and infringed upon his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because his counsel was not present when the lineups were conducted. Hall concedes his trial counsel did not object to the lineups on Sixth Amendment grounds, but argues his counsel's failure to raise the issue gives rise to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Court conclude the voice identifications were not unduly suggestive and did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Court therefore affirm the judgment.

Ervin Sommer, in propria persona, appeals a postjudgment order denying his Code of Civil Procedure[1] section 683.170 motion to vacate the renewal of the 1999 monetary judgment against him in favor of Linda Hawkes, trustee of the Julia Jeppesen Hawkes Family Trust (Trust). On appeal, he contends: (1) the judgment does not apply to him; (2) the judgment has been satisfied and paid in full; (3) the trial court erred in calculating the original amount of the judgment; (4) he is entitled to an offset that exceeds the amount of the judgment; and (5) the court denied him due process of law.

A jury convicted Shawn Robert Miller of one count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and resisting a peace officer (id., 148, subd. (a)(1)). Outside the presence of the jury, Miller admitted he had suffered a prison prior within the meaning of sections 667.5, subdivision (b), and 668. The trial court sentenced Miller to three years in prison.

Sergio Rodriguez appeals a judgment entered following his conviction for first degree murder, contending the judgment must be reversed because the prosecutor violated his privilege against self-incrimination and right to due process by referring to his failure to testify, which is proscribed by Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609. Court affirm the judgment.

In December 2008 Marlon Orlando Davis entered a negotiated guilty plea pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 to two counts of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a))[1] and one count of committing a lewd act on a child with substantial sexual contact ( 288, subd. (a), 1203.066 subd. (a)(8)). Thirteen other counts involving a total of five victims were dismissed as part of the plea bargain. In January 2009 Davis notified the court that he wished to withdraw his guilty plea. In February the court appointed new counsel who filed a motion to withdraw the plea. The court denied the motion at a hearing in March. It sentenced Davis to a stipulated 10 year prison term: the six-year middle term for a lewd act on a child with substantial sexual contact and consecutive two year terms (one third the middle term) on each remaining count. Davis appeals. Court affirm.

Gerardo V. appeals a dispositional order denying reunification services to him under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivisions (b)(4) and (c). Court affirm the order.

This is the fourth appeal filed by William C., father of dependent minors Peter C., Jennifer C. and Melissa C. (collectively, the minors) in which he challenges the juvenile court's visitation orders. As in his prior appeals, William again contends that the court erred by giving the minors discretion to determine whether they will have visits with him. Court affirm the orders.

In March 2009 Philip Craig Nychay possessed a usable amount of methamphetamine. He entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted serving two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b); all further statutory references are to the Penal Code). The court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated four-year term: the two-year middle term for possessing methamphetamine and one year for each prison prior. The court imposed fines including an $800 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)). Nychay appeals, contending the court abused its discretion by imposing the $800 restitution fine under the mistaken belief that a fine in that amount was mandatory. The People correctly concede the point. ( 1202.4, subds. (b), (d); People v. Dickerson (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1379-1380.) We remand the case for a new restitution hearing so that the court may exercise its discretion pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivisions (b) and (d) in setting the amount of the fine.

Jennifer N. (J.N.) and Alfred W. (together, the parents) appeal juvenile court orders terminating their parental rights to their minor children Jennifer W. and Mandy W. (together, the minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption did not apply to preclude terminating their parental rights. Court affirm the orders.