CA Unpub Decisions

Anthony S., father of 16-year-old L.S., appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings and the order denying his request for reconsideration. He contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) (all statutory references are to this code unless otherwise noted) and that the court should have dismissed that petition and declared L.S. a ward of the court under section 601. Court find no error and affirm.

T.B. is the mother of two girls, B.B. (age five) and M.B. (age four), and a boy, F.B. (age two). The juvenile court terminated parental rights to the children and ordered them placed for adoption pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Mother appeals, claiming insufficient evidence supports the courts finding that the children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. More specifically, mother challenged the adoptability finding based on evidence that the children suffered from multiple disabilities as a result of intrauterine exposure to drugs and alcohol. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the adoptability determinations. Court therefore affirm the orders terminating parental rights and placing the children for adoption.

This is the sixth appeal arising out of the underlying lawsuit, Sole Energy Company v. Petrominerals Corporation, Orange County Superior Court case No. 00CC06333. The issue in this appeal is whether the judgment that resulted from Sole Energy III and Sole Energy V bars the claims of Sole Energy Company against Petrominerals Corporation (Petrominerals) under principles of res judicata or claim preclusion. The trial court also granted Petrominerals motion for judgment on the pleadings on Sole Energy Corporations fraud cause of action. Sole Energy Corporation does not challenge that ruling on appeal. Court therefore affirm the judgment in favor of Petrominerals on Sole Energy Corporations fraud cause of action, but otherwise reverse the judgment and remand.

T.B. is the mother of two girls, B.B. (age five) and M.B. (age four), and a boy, F.B. (age two). The juvenile court terminated parental rights to the children and ordered them placed for adoption pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Mother appeals, claiming insufficient evidence supports the courts finding that the children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. More specifically, mother challenged the adoptability finding based on evidence that the children suffered from multiple disabilities as a result of intrauterine exposure to drugs and alcohol. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the adoptability determinations. Court therefore affirm the orders terminating parental rights and placing the children for adoption.

This is the sixth appeal arising out of the underlying lawsuit, Sole Energy Company v. Petrominerals Corporation, Orange County Superior Court case No. 00CC06333.[1] The issue in this appeal is whether the judgment that resulted from Sole Energy III and Sole Energy V bars the claims of Sole Energy Company[2] against Petrominerals Corporation (Petrominerals) under principles of res judicata or claim preclusion.
The judgment in favor of Petrominerals is affirmed on Sole Energy Corporations fraud cause of action. In all other respects, the judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Appellant to recover costs incurred in this appeal.

This is the seventh appeal arising out of the underlying lawsuit, Sole Energy Company v. Petrominerals Corporation, Orange County Superior Court case No. 00CC06333. In this appeal, appellants challenge the judgment entered after the trial court granted defendants motion for summary judgment. Court affirm.

This appeal does not challenge the judgment; rather, it argues the sentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment do not accurately reflect the trial courts oral pronouncement and therefore must be corrected. The Attorney General concedes the point, and Court agree.

Rhonda Lynn Ivaldi (appellant) appeals a judgment in favor of Robert Mott and Marjorie Mott (respondents) regarding their respective ownership interests in a parcel of real property.[1] Appellant contends some of respondents claims are barred by the statute of limitations and the court erroneously concluded that she has no ownership interest in the subject property. Court reject the contentions and affirm.

A residential tenant, appellant Carole Marasovic, sued her former landlords for disposing of the tenants personal property following her eviction. The landlords retained respondent Robert Florian DeSmet to provide legal representation. Attorney DeSmet failed to provide any meaningful defense: he did not file necessary court papers, did not respond to discovery, and did not inform his clients of the proceedings. His clients suffered discovery sanctions as a result of Attorney DeSmets gross neglect.
Attorney DeSmets clients moved for relief from the sanctions, and submitted the attorneys declaration admitting his neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., 473, subd. (b).) The trial court granted defendants relief without directing Attorney DeSmet to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to the opposing party (appellant). Appellants motion to modify the order to provide fees and costs was denied. This appeal followed, in which appellant represents herself on appeal and respondent has not filed a brief. Court reverse and remand with directions to award fees and costs.

Plaintiff Californians for Alternative Toxics (CATs) appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer based on CATss failure to exhaust its administrative remedies against defendant Department of Agriculture County of Humboldt (Department). We agree with the trial court that CATs failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Accordingly, Court affirm.

The minor, T.L., appeals from a jurisdictional finding and dispositional order of the juvenile court after the court sustained a petition alleging the minor had violated his probation. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After review of the record, we find no arguable issues or error and affirm.

Following entry of a no contest plea by defendant to evading a police officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years, upon the condition, among others, that he register as a gang member pursuant to Penal Code section 186.30. In this appeal defendant claims that the evidence fails to support the imposition of a gang registration condition of his probation. Court conclude that the gang registration order is supported by substantial evidence, and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff and respondent Gary L. Effron (Effron) brought this wrongful termination action against his former employer, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith (LBBS), and two of its clients, American International Group, Inc., and AIG Technical Services, Inc. (collectively AIG). He claims that comments made by AIG to LBBS led to LBBSs decision to terminate Effron from the law firm.
Plaintiff and respondent Gary L. Effron (Effron) brought this wrongful termination action against his former employer, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith (LBBS), and two of its clients, American International Group, Inc., and AIG Technical Services, Inc. (collectively AIG). He claims that comments made by AIG to LBBS led to LBBSs decision to terminate Effron from the law firm.
Court agree with the trial court that Effrons allegations do not fall within the purview of section 425.16. Accordingly, Court affirm.

Plaintiff, Masoud Koshki, appeals from the summary judgment granted to defendants Tranzon Asset Strategies LLC (Tranzon), Tranzon LLC, several of Tranzons employees, and two insurance companies that bonded Tranzon. Plaintiffs two causes of action sought damages for alleged statutory violations under Civil Code sections 1812.600-1812.609 and negligent misrepresentation, deriving from Tranzons overstatement, in advertising, of the square footage of a commercial building that plaintiff purchased via Tranzon at auction. Court affirm the summary judgment. The sale in question was not subject to the regulatory provisions of section 1812.600 et seq., and defendants established that plaintiff did not reasonably rely on the questioned representations.