CA Unpub Decisions

On June 25, 2008, the Alameda County Juvenile Court terminated the parental rights of presumed father D.D. and mother J.L. over minor J.D. in accordance with Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father appeals from that order, contending only that the court and respondent Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) failed in the duty under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. (ICWA)) to determine whether J.D. was a child with Indian ancestry, thus requiring notice to the relevant tribe of its right to intervene or assert jurisdiction. Court conclude that this contention is without merit, and affirm.

T.G., the alleged father of T.K.L.G (the minor), appeals from an order denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition[1] and terminating his parental rights. T.G. contends the order terminating his parental rights must be reversed because the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) had reason to know that the mother and the minor had Cherokee ancestry, yet mistakenly sent notice pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to the Choctaw tribes.
Court shall hold that notices were properly sent to three Choctaw tribes based upon specific information that the mother had possible Choctaw ancestors, and all three responded that the child is not an Indian child. The only reference in the record to Cherokee ancestry is an obvious clerical error, and in any event was not supported by any specific information that gave the court or the Agency reason to know that the mother or the minor might be eligible for membership in a Cherokee tribe.

Plaintiff, Isaak Ayzenshteyn, appeals from summary judgment for defendants, Rexam Beverage Can Company (Rexam) and its supervisors Gregory Rome and Robert Riggs, in an action for employment discrimination. Plaintiff seeks reversal and reinstatement of causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable accommodation for disability, failure to engage in interactive process, wrongful constructive termination, and retaliation, all grounded in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. (FEHA; undesignated section references are to the Government Code), as well as a claim for unlawful business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code 17200), and for punitive damages. Of these, only the retaliation and unfair practices claims were alleged against the individual defendants as well as Rexam.
Plaintiff, Isaak Ayzenshteyn, appeals from summary judgment for defendants, Rexam Beverage Can Company (Rexam) and its supervisors Gregory Rome and Robert Riggs, in an action for employment discrimination. Plaintiff seeks reversal and reinstatement of causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable accommodation for disability, failure to engage in interactive process, wrongful constructive termination, and retaliation, all grounded in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. (FEHA; undesignated section references are to the Government Code), as well as a claim for unlawful business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code 17200), and for punitive damages. Of these, only the retaliation and unfair practices claims were alleged against the individual defendants as well as Rexam.

Richard Stanley appeals from thejudgments in his suit against Rosemary Kay Stanley-Gilbert (Gilbert) and Dorn, Platz & Company (DPC; collectively defendants). Stanley sued defendants for trespass, conversion, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. He filed the suit in propria persona and identified himself as disabled. Stanley appeals, claiming the trial court improperly denied his request for appointed counsel as an accommodation; improperly granted summary judgment in favor of Gilbert and judgment in favor of DPC; and abused its discretion in imposing discovery sanctions against him. Court affirm.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sustained, without leave to amend, a law firms demurrer to a second amended complaint for legal malpractice. The client, who replaced the law firm as her counsel several months before the trial of a lawsuit in which she suffered an adverse jury verdict, did not allege facts demonstrating any causal connection between the law firms alleged acts of malpractice and the adverse verdict.

Defendant and appellant Kenneth Lewis appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of possession of heroin for sale.[1] He contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment; (2) the trial court failed to instruct that an experts opinion is circumstantial evidence; and (3) imposition of the upper term violated the principles set forth in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). Court affirm.

On February 2, 2007, an information was filed charging appellant Tracy Vaughn Paul in count 1 with the murder of Branden Terrell (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)), and in count 2 with possession of a firearm as a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1)).[1] The information alleged under count 1 that appellant had personally used a firearm causing great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d)), and that the offense had been committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)); in addition, the information alleged that appellant had two prior convictions within the scope of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), two prior convictions for a serious felony ( 667, subd. (a)(1)), and four prior convictions ( 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant pleaded not guilty.

Alden Enterprises, Inc. (Alden) and Longwood Management Corporation (Longwood; collectively defendants) moved to compel Benedicto Dominguez to arbitrate his wrongful termination action against them. The trial court found that defendants had waived the right to arbitrate, and that the parties arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. Defendants appeal the trial courts order denying their petition to compel arbitration. Court affirm.

Lucille and Alicia B. Estrada, daughters of the late Gillermo B. Estrada (Estrada), appeal from a probate court order granting the petition of their sister, Elizabeth Munoz, trustee of Estradas trust (respondent), to confirm the trusts title to family real property (the property). Appellants contend that the court erred by not abating the petition, in favor of appellants earlier-filed action for partition of the property, and that the court denied due process by determining ownership without affording appellants a trial and opportunity to present evidence. Court find these contentions unmeritorious, and affirm the order.

James Wark appeals from a judgment holding him liable, as a guarantor, to pay the past due rent of Adventure Training Consultants doing business as Zen Bo. Court affirm.

Appellant was charged with two counts of second degree commercial burglary (counts 1 & 3, Pen. Code, 459),[1]two counts of petty theft with a prior (counts 2 & 4, 484, subd. (a)/666) and one count of failure to appear while on bail (count 5, 1320.5). The information alleged that the offense was committed while appellant was released from custody ( 12022.1, subd. (b)), that he had been convicted of three serious or violent felony offenses ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and served three prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to reduce his felonies to misdemeanors or refusing to strike a prior conviction. He further asserts that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Court affirm.

In this dependency proceeding the juvenile court sustained the petition as to two teenage sisters, V.L. and E.L., finding jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (j). The court entered a dispositional order removing the minors from the custody of R.L. (Father) and releasing them to the custody of C.L. (Mother). The court also issued a restraining order against Father. On appeal, Father maintains the evidence is insufficient to support jurisdiction and the restraining order.
While this appeal has been pending, V.L. became an adult and the appeal of the jurisdictional orders relating to her are moot. Also during the pendency of this appeal the juvenile court vacated the restraining order, imposed a new restraining order and terminated jurisdiction. That action moots Fathers challenge to the restraining order but not his challenge to jurisdiction as to E.L., so Court consider that challenge on its merits. Court find that substantial evidence supports dependency jurisdiction and affirm the order.

David Inselman appeals from a pretrial, criminal protective order issued pursuant to Penal Code section 136.2. The two main issues raised by this appeal are (1) whether such an order should be reviewable as an appealable injunction or by a writ petition, and (2) whether the order issued complied with due process. Court dismiss the appeal as the protective order is no longer in effect.

Defendants and appellants Ken Baker, Jann Wenner, Janice Min and Wenner Media LLC (sometimes collectively appellants) appeal from an order denying their special motion to strike a complaint filed by plaintiffs and respondents Jill Ishkanian (Ishkanian) and Sunset Photo and News (Sunset Photo). The trial court ruled that appellants met their threshold burden to show that the complaints allegations arose from protected activity within the scope of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,[1]but that Ishkanian and Sunset Photo thereafter met their burden to establish a probability of prevailing on the basis of the allegations in their verified complaint. Court reverse. Although the trial court properly concluded that the complaint arose from protected activity, it erred in concluding that Ishkanian and Sunset Photo could and did meet their burden to show a probability of prevailing in the absence of offering any supporting evidence.