CA Unpub Decisions

J.D., the mother of minor J.T., appeals from the order terminating her parental rights after a Welfare and Institutions Code section[1]366.26 hearing and from the order denying her section 388 petition. Appellant contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied her section 388 petition without a hearing and that the court committed reversible error when it terminated her parental rights as she established the continuing beneficial relationship exception to termination. Court affirm.

In this case of familial violence, the victim witnesses descriptions of the events at trial differed significantly from their earlier statements to law enforcement. The jury believed the earlier statements. Against this background, defendant Jaime Gabiola Santos appeals his convictions of two felony counts of assault with a firearm in violation of Penal Code[1]section 245, subdivision (a)(2), two felony counts of making criminal threats in violation of section 422, one count of misdemeanor battery in violation of section 243, subdivision (e)(1), and one misdemeanor count of child endangerment in violation of section 273a, subdivision (b). The trial court denied defendants motion for new trial. The trial court suspended imposition of judgment and sentencing and placed defendant on five years formal probation on counts one and three, the assaults with a firearm, conditioned on, among other things, concurrent service of 180 days in county jail with work furlough recommended. Sentencing on counts two and four, the criminal threats, was suspended pending successful completion of probation. The trial court sentenced defendant to 30 days in county jail on each of his misdemeanor convictions to run concurrently with the concurrent jail time imposed on counts one and three.
On appeal, defendant makes several claims: The evidence is insufficientto support five of his six convictions; there were instructional errors andpleading errors;theprosecutor committed misconduct; the court erred in denying his motion for new trial; the trial court failed to exercise its discretion to treat his assault with a firearm and criminal threat convictions as misdemeanors; and his counsel was ineffective. Court shall affirm the judgment.

Appellants Scott G. (father) and Tamera G. (mother) appeal from an order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights over the minor, J. G. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395.) Appellants contend the juvenile court erred when it declined to apply the beneficial parent child relationship exception for adoption. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Court affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

Phillip Kohler (defendant) appeals an order committing him to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) as a sexually violent predator (SVP) for an indeterminate term. Defendant contends that the court abused its discretion, and violated his federal due process rights, by denying his request for a continuance to allow his court-appointed expert to complete an evaluation and testify on his behalf at trial. Defendant also contends that amendments to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6600 et seq.) that became effective in 2006, changing the commitment to an indefinite term and modifying the procedure for petitions for release, violate his state and federal constitutional right to equal protection, due process, and the prohibition of ex post facto laws. Court shall hold that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the continuance, nor did that ruling result in a violation of due process. Court shall also hold that the amended version of the SVPA does not violate any of the aforementioned constitutional provisions, and shall affirm the judgment.

Defendant Henry Charles Johnson, Jr. (Johnson) appeals from his conviction of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and battery. He argues that the court erred by giving an incomplete and misleading instruction on the reasons for which the jury could consider evidence of his prior convictions, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct. Court agree that the instruction incorrectly omitted a key word from the instruction but conclude that neither the omission nor the prosecutors arguments were prejudicial. Court affirm.

R.P. (mother) appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to A.P. (the minor). Mother contends the Contra Costa CountyBureau of Children and Family Services (Bureau) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). Court affirm.

Appellant was convicted of three counts of tax evasion and three counts of money laundering, and acquitted of insurance fraud. He contends the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on the definitions of money laundering and tax evasion, and erroneously allowed the aggregation of money laundering transactions for purposes of sentence enhancement, resulting in punishment for legitimate transactions. Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence of criminal activity as a predicate to the money laundering charges, and insufficient evidence that he engaged in or authorized the transactions on which the money laundering and tax charges were based. Appellant also contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during summation, and that restitution was not properly imposed or correctly calculated. Appellants final contention is that the sentence as to count 22 for money laundering must be vacated, because the sole aggravating factor cited by the trial court in imposing the upper term of imprisonment planning and sophistication was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Court also conclude that remand is necessary to recalculate restitution. Court conclude that although the tax evasion instruction was incomplete, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Court reject appellants remaining contentions, and remand to the trial court to resentence appellant on count 22 and to recalculate victim restitution.

A modification decision.

D&M Construction Inc. (D&M) appeals from a judgment entered upon the trial courts order granting the respondents, City of Los Angeles (the City) and Washington International Insurance Company (Washington), motion for judgment on D&Ms complaint. Under a contract with Washington, D&M agreed to complete a construction project for the City. Disputes arose concerning the project construction. The Citys Board of Parks & Recreation Commissioners (the Board)the Citys contracting agency for the projectconducted a review of the matter. As a result of the proceeding, the Board adopted findings that D&M was an objectionable entity under the contract documents and was in default. The Board directed Washington to remove D&M from the project. After D&M was terminated, it filed the instant lawsuit against Washington and the City for breach of contract and interference with contract, respectively. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. During the first phase of the trial, the court granted the Citys and Washingtons motions for judgment, ruling D&M failed to exhaust its administrative remedies to set aside the Boards determinations. The court held the Boards determinations were final and binding on D&M, and effectively created a defense to D&Ms affirmative claims. During a second phase of the case the court also ruled in favor of Washington and the City on their respective cross claims against D&M. The court also granted Washingtons and the Citys requests for attorneys fees.

James Stevens, respondent, brought an action against the Vons Companies, Inc., appellant, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov.Code, 12900 et seq.) Appellant appeals from that portion of the judgment awarding respondent punitive damages. It contends that punitive damages are unwarranted because the evidence is insufficient to establish that a managing agent of the corporation ratified or engaged in oppressive or malicious conduct. Appellant also appeals from an order awarding respondent attorney fees. It contends that the trial court erroneously applied a multiplier to the lodestar calculation of attorney fees. Respondent cross-appeals from the judgment, challenging a conditional new trial order that reduced the jury's award of punitive damages ($16,729,880) by way of remittitur. Court affirm the judgment which awards respondent Stevens $1.2 million .in compensatory damages, $1.2 million punitive damages, $300,709.50 to the Allred law firm and $343,265.60 to the Davis law firm.

Charles D. Marable (Marable) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of the estate of his father, Charles Dickens Marable (the decedent), on a petition brought by the estates executrix, Patricia Vaughn, for an order compelling reconveyance of two pieces of property. Court affirm the probate courts order directing the reconveyance of the property to the decedents estate. However, Court reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the court to calculate a reduced award of damages.

This appeal arises from Appellant Steven Greensteins (Greenstein) appearance on a reality-based television program about the life of Gene Simmons (Simmons), a well-known musician and member of the rock band, KISS. After an episode featuring Greenstein was aired on national television, Greenstein filed suit against the alleged producer and distributor of the program, asserting claims for common law and statutory misappropriation of his persona. In response to Greensteins complaint, Respondents The Greif Company and A&E Television Networks (collectively Respondents) brought a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the complaint arose from acts in furtherance of Respondents right of free speech in connection with a public issue and that Greenstein failed to prove a probability of prevailing on the merits of his claims. For the reasons set forth below, Court affirm.

This is an appeal from an order disqualifying the Metzger Law Group (Metzger) from representing plaintiff and appellant Teresa Meza. Metzger hired Brett Drouet, an attorney who previously represented one of the defendants in this action. Drouet was privy to confidential and privileged work product of the attorneys for all of the defendants in this action. Court conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying Metzger from representing Meza.

David Vincent Garcia appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of transportation of marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a).) Based on an anonymous tip, officers saw marijuana plants in a van, saw appellant drive away in the van, and stopped appellant in Camarillo. The officers found 16 potted marijuana plants in the van. Appellant told the officers that he had transported the plants from San Fernando Valley and that the marijuana was for personal use and to distribute to friends. The judgment is affirmed.