CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
|
A dispute concerning the Scott, Danly, Hernandez Partnership (the Partnership) resulted in several lawsuits. While the first lawsuit was pending (Lawsuit No. 1), certain of the partners, including appellant W. Michael Scott (Scott), caused the Partnership to transfer a piece of Partnership real property to Scott individually. A second lawsuit pertaining to Partnership assets ensued (the Lawsuit No. 2). A judgment for the dissolution of the Partnership and for an accounting was entered in Lawsuit No. 1 and Lawsuit No. 2 was dismissed thereafter. Court reject Scotts arguments. The judgment in Lawsuit No. 3 is a judgment against Scott individually, not a judgment against The Car Wash. It pertains to his obligations arising out of the Partnership and not to the assets of The Car Wash. The legal maneuvering is at an end. Court affirm the judgment.
|
|
Francisco Fuentes Verdeja appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c))[1] (count 1) and aggravated assault with a vehicle ( 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 2), and the trial court sentenced him to a total term of two years in state prison. Verdeja argues there were instructional errors, the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct, and there was cumulative error. He also contends we must modify the abstract of judgment to reflect the courts intent of imposing and staying the sentence on count 2. Finding no error, Court affirm the judgment, but remand the matter for sentencing to allow the trial court to determine the appropriate term on the stayed sentence on count 2.
|
|
The trial court found Charles M. Davis to be the alter ego of American Automotive Group (AAG), and therefore, jointly and severally liable for damages arising from a breach of contract action brought by Centurion Partners Services (Centurion). On appeal, Davis challenges the courts alter ego finding, claiming it is not supported by sufficient evidence. Court agree Centurion did not meet its burden of proof on the alter ego issue and the courts ruling on this issue must be reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
|
|
An information charged David George Logan, Jr., with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c), count 1);[1] carrying a loaded firearm in public by a felon ( 12031, subd. (a)(1) & (a)(2)(A), count 2), and possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 3). As to count 1, the information alleged Logan personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). Also alleged were two prior strike convictions ( 667, subds. (d) & (e)(2)(a), 1170.2, subds. (b) & (c)(2)(A)), and one prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)(1)). After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence, Logan pled guilty to all counts and admitted all allegations. The trial court exercised its discretion pursuant to section 1385, struck two prior convictions, and sentenced Logan to a total term of 17 years in prison. On appeal, Logan contends the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress all physical evidence seized during the search of his apartment. We find no error. We affirm the judgment as modified to grant Logan one additional day of actual custody credit and to accurately reflect that counts 2 and 3 were stayed pursuant to section 654.
|
|
Appellant May Hasso (May) appeals from an order denying her anti-SLAPP motion[1] to strike respondent Helene Hassos (Helene) first amended probate petition.[2] The court correctly denied the motion because Helenes petition arises from Mays alleged failure as a trustee to distribute trust income to her. This conduct is not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Helenes petition does not arise from Mays protected act of petitioning for instructions about the alleged trust income. Court affirm.
|
|
Appellant Alan Hasso (Alan) appeals from an order denying his anti-SLAPP motion[1] to strike respondent Helene Hassos (Helene) probate petition. The court correctly denied the motion because Helene repeatedly represented she did not assert a cause of action against Alan. Court affirm.
|
|
Appellants Ronald Hasso (Ronald) and Heather Hasso (Heather) appeal from an order denying their anti-SLAPP motion to strike respondent Helene Hassos (Helene) probate petition. The court correctly denied the motion because Helene did not assert a cause of action against Ronald and Heather. Court affirm.
|
|
C.G. (Mother) appeals following an order terminating her parental rights over her daughters A.G. and L.G., now five years old and four years old, respectively (collectively, the children). In August 2005, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging, inter alia, Mother failed to protect the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300, subd. (b).) (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The children were detained at that time and have never since been returned to Mothers custody. Finally, although evidence at the permanency hearing showed Mother regularly visited the children and her interactions with them were positive, she did not satisfy her burden to show that severing her relationship with the children would deprive them of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child[ren] would be greatly harmed. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.)
|
|
Defendant challenges the constitutionality of his commitment to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) for an indeterminate term under the recently amended Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, 6604 et seq.)[1] He argues that his indeterminate commitment violates due process, because it: (1) places the burden on the him to prove he is no longer a sexually violent predator; and (2) fails to provide for mandatory periodic review hearings on the question whether continued commitment is warranted. He also argues that indeterminate commitment violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy because it renders the SVPA punitive; that the combination of indeterminate commitment with limited judicial review violates the equal protection clause; and that the limits on judicial review violate his First Amendment right to petition the court for redress of grievances. Finally, he argues that his commitment should be reduced to two years because he has been prejudiced. Court reject these arguments and affirm the courts order committing defendant to the DMH.
|
|
Rudy A., a minor, appeals a judgment in which he was declared a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for carrying a loaded firearm on his person in violation of Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (a)(1). The minor admitted the allegation after the court denied his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1. The case is remanded for the juvenile court to declare the allegation of possession of a loaded firearm as either a felony or a misdemeanor, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code, section 702.
|
|
Appellant Gloria, mother of Gina[1] appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[2] The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Childrens Services (the Department) took Gina into custody when she was a day old because she was born at home in a bathroom and tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. Gloria, who had a long history of substance abuse and a criminal record, had not received any prenatal care while pregnant with Gina and admitted to taking drugs while pregnant. Although the Department recommended reunification services for Gloria, Ginas counsel requested bypass of services, arguing it was in the childs best interest. Because Gloria parental rights had previously been terminated and because the court found that she had not made reasonable efforts to remedy the problems that had led to the prior termination of her parental rights, the court ordered no services for Gloria and set a section 366.26 hearing. Gloria failed to appear at the contested hearing and the court terminated her parental rights. This timely appeal ensued.
The appeal is dismissed as abandoned. |
|
Appellant Susan, mother of Dana[1] appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Dana was born while Susan was incarcerated. Susan arranged for Dana to live with a family friend who agreed to become Danas guardian. Unfortunately, the guardianship could not be finalized because Susan repeatedly failed to appear at court hearings.
|
|
Defendant Jorge Luis Rubio, Sr. appeals from an order entered on November 28, 2007, deeming his term of commitment as a sexually violent predator to be indeterminate and retroactive to his original commitment date of August 18, 2005. Defendant filed timely notice of appeal from this order. Further, the grounds for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment. Proceeding with this appeal where this courts precedent is without contrary authority would be a waste of judicial resources. Additionally, the risk that allowing a stipulated reversal in this case will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement in future cases of this nature is extremely low in light of the fact that Whaley was decided after the subject order, and it is unlikely that this situation will arise in the future. (Code Civ. Proc., 128, subd. (a)(8)(B).)
|
|
Appellant Victoria, mother of Debbie[1] appeals from a Juvenile Court Order terminating her parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[2] The Santa Cruz County Human Resources Agency (Agency) took Debbie into protective custody after Victoria, who had a long history of drug abuse and related criminal activity was arrested. Although Victoria suggested that Debbie be placed with Victorias mother, the Agency rejected the placement because Victorias mother had her own criminal and child welfare history. Instead, the court placed Debbie with the same family who had adopted Victorias younger brother (Debbies uncle). The appeal is dismissed as abandoned.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
