CA Unpub Decisions

Coast Loans, Inc. (Coast) appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Scripps Investment & Loans, Inc. and Jeffrey Lubin (at times collectively Scripps) on Coast's causes of action for breach of contract and fraud arising from Scripps' alleged failure to pay loan referral fees. Coast contends it presented evidence raising triable issues of material fact with respect to each of these causes of action. Court agree and reverse.

David H. appeals judgments terminating his parental rights to his children, Priscilla H., David H., Jr., Antoinette H., Daniel H., Jasmine H. and Adrian H. He contends the court erred by not continuing Welfare and Institution Code[1]sections 366.26 and 388 hearings; by finding the children adoptable when the court did not have adequate information about the prospective adoptive parents for David, Jr., Daniel and Jasmine, and there were indications the adoptive placement for Priscilla and Antoinette would be unsuccessful; and by selecting adoption as the permanent plans for the children although adoption could interfere with their sibling relationships. Court affirm the judgments.

A jury found defendant guilty of possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) (count 1); possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364) (count 2); and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11550, subd. (a)) (count 3). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant had sustained five prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and five prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)). Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 30 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction on count 1, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to strike his priors. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

An officer apparently conducted a traffic stop of defendant.[1] Defendant threw a container of liquid, reportedly beer, at the passenger side window and door of the officers patrol vehicle. Defendant told the officer he did so because he hated cops and warned the officer that if the officer ever stopped defendant again, the officer would die. Court have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.

J.L. (Mother) appeals from the termination of her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]as to her 11-year-old daughter A.H. and her 6-year-old son P.H.[2] Mother contends (1) the social workers reports contain misrepresentation of facts; (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied her section 388 petition; and (3) the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the beneficial relationship exception set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the opposition filed by real party in interest, and the reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.

D.I. is the father of J.I., one of four children who were removed from their mothers custody in December 2004, due to neglect and mothers mental health problems. Because of regular visits and a beneficial parent-child relationship, the original permanent plan was one of guardianship. In 2008, father filed a petition to modify the prior court order (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] 388, hereafter the 388 petition) to resume reunification efforts with J.I. In response, the acting guardians filed a competing 388 petition, seeking to change the permanent plan from one of guardianship to one of adoption. The Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) agreed with the fathers 388 petition, but the juvenile court denied his petition and granted the guardians petition, setting a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan of adoption. ( 366.26.)
Father seeks review of the juvenile courts orders denying his petition and setting the permanent plan hearing by this petition for extraordinary relief. Court deny the petition.

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the opposition filed by real parties in interest, and the reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
Petitioners are directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.

A modification decision.

On December 27, 2007, the court committed appellant to the Elkhorn Correctional Facility for a period not to exceed 365 days. The court also ordered that prior orders not modified remain in place. The challenged probation condition is modified to provide: Not illegally use or possess narcotics, other controlled substances, related paraphernalia or poisons, and to stay away from places known by the minor to be frequented by illegal drug users. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

L.P. appeals from orders terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her three young daughters. She challenges the courts denial of her petition to reopen reunification services and its finding that the children were likely to be adopted as well as a much earlier finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; ICWA) did not apply. On review, Court affirm.

On February 27, 2008, appellant, Robin Rideaux, was charged in a criminal complaint with committing a battery on a correctional officer while confined in prison (Pen. Code, 4501.1).[1] The complaint also alleged a prior prison term enhancement. On April 2, 2008, Rideaux executed a felony advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form in which he waived his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 (Boykin/Tahl) and he agreed to admit the allegation and the enhancement. Appellant acknowledged he faced a maximum sentence of three years. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant, J.M., appeals from the juvenile courts order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 terminating his parental rights. Appellant contends that the department of human services (department) failed to notify all Indian tribes pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 1901, et seq.). Court affirm the judgment.

On February 6, 2007, appellant, M.L., approached a student at Buchanan High School, took an MP3 player from him, and ran away. Appellant was contacted by a police officer who found two prescription pills on him. Appellant told the officer that he was holding the pills for a friend. Appellant also denied any knowledge of the MP3 player. The judgment is affirmed.