CA Unpub Decisions

While appellant, Douglas R. Hansen, was employed by respondent, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), as a vocational instructor at the Correctional Custody Institution (CCI), CDCRs Office of Internal Affairs began an investigation into allegations that Hansen had engaged in misconduct and criminal activity. The alleged criminal activity included violations of Penal Code section 289.6, subdivision (a)(3) (prohibits sexual activity with inmates) and Penal Code section 4570 (prohibits unauthorized communications with inmates). Shortly thereafter, Hansen retired from state service. Nevertheless, the investigation continued engendering a warrant to search Hansens residence. CDCR agents, accompanied by the local police, executed the warrant, searched the residence, and seized several items. However, no criminal charges were ever filed. As discussed below, the trial court correctly analyzed this matter. Thus, the order will be affirmed.

B.H. (mother) appeals from the jurisdictional findings and consequent dispositional orders that removed two of her children from her legal and physical custody.[1] Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding jurisdiction over the children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (c) and (g).[2] Mother further contends the order temporarily removing custody of her children from her was not supported by evidence that removal was necessary to avoid a substantial danger to their physical health or emotional well-being or that the children suffered severe emotional damage, and there were no reasonable means to protect their physical or emotional health without removing them from her custody. ( 361, subd. (c)(1) & (3).) As we shall explain, Court disagree with mothers contentions and will affirm the juvenile courts orders.

Appellant C.M. challenges the juvenile court's ruling to not order visitation with her 16-year-old son, D.M., pending further evaluation by the minor's therapist, during the reunification period. Court affirm.

Bonnie M. Allen petitions for a writ of review (Lab. Code,[1] 5950, 5952; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.494) contending the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) erred by attributing 20 percent of her permanent disability to preexisting nonindustrial causes, by considering her age in violation of Government Code section 11135, and by not following the opinion of her vocational rehabilitation consultant. Court deny the petition.

Petitioner, B.H., is the maternal aunt of two preschool-age dependent children (the children) whom the superior court freed for adoption (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) in 2007.[1] The children lived with petitioner in a pre-adoptive placement for over 20 months, when in June 2008 real party in interest Kern County Department of Human Services (department) removed the children because petitioner left them unsupervised with their birth mother. Petitioner objected to the emergency removal, which the superior court subsequently found was in the childrens best interests. Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ relief from the superior courts finding. ( 366.28.) She contends she was not given a timely hearing or an opportunity to present evidence. On review, Court deny the petition.

Mark Kruse and Susan C. Kruse (the Kruses) appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted the motion of Jennifer K. McLaughlin to dismiss the Kruses complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 581 (all further code references are to the Code of Civil Procedure). The Kruses also appeal from a postjudgment order awarding McLaughlin contractual attorney fees and costs based on section 998. For reasons Court explain, we reverse the judgment and remand. Because we reverse the judgment on which attorney fees and costs were awarded, Court also reverse the order awarding attorney fees and costs. (Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1436.)

Rene Segovia Cruz appeals from his conviction on four counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a).[1] He contends one of the counts is not supported by substantial evidence, the trial court abused its discretion by denying probation and failing to order a psychological evaluation to assess his eligibility for probation, and the trial court miscalculated his presentence custody credits. Cruzs substantive arguments lack merit, and we affirm his conviction and sentence. Cruz is correct he is entitled to additional presentence custody credits, and Court modify the judgment accordingly.

The trial court granted the motion of defendant National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford as Successor by Merger to Transcontinental Insurance Company (Transcontinental) to disqualify counsel for plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company in an insurance coverage dispute arising from a construction defect action. Plaintiff appeals contending this was error because, among other things, there was no substantial relationship between this action and counsels representation of Transcontinentals corporate affiliate in a prior action. Court agree and reverse the order.

The trial court granted the motion of defendant National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford as Successor by Merger to Transcontinental Insurance Company (Transcontinental) to disqualify counsel for plaintiff Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania in an insurance coverage dispute arising from a construction defect action. Plaintiff contends this was error because, among other things, there was no substantial relationship between this action and counsels representation of Transcontinentals corporate affiliate in a prior action. Court agree and reverse the order.

Abraham Valdivia stands convicted of four felony drug counts. He contends there is insufficient evidence to support two of the counts, and the court erred in admitting evidence regarding a prior drug conviction he had suffered. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Kenneth Bloor, Yvone Spadini (his wife), and Jasmine Spadini (their minor daughter) (collectively, Bloor) appeal from a judgment that dismissed their claims against Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers), after a demurrer without leave to amend was sustained. Bloor argues the complaint is sufficient to state the various causes of action alleged. Court agree in part and reverse.

Defendant Carl R. Marciniak challenges a judgment against him, arguing (1) plaintiff Richard L. Jiverys conversion claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and (2) the court improperly denied Marciniaks motion to recover reasonable expenses caused by Jiverys failure to admit facts proved at trial. Jivery cross-appeals, claiming (1) the court improperly refused instructions relating to the alternative (indemnification for loss) measure of damages and . . . Jiverys entitlement to reasonable compensation for his time expended in pursuit of his converted stock, (2) the courts finding that Marciniak and defendant Omar V. Sanchez are not the alter egos of [defendant corporation] Sovcap Advisors, Inc. is not supported by substantial evidence, and (3) Jivery did not waive his right to amend the judgment to add . . . Marciniak and Sanchez as alter ego judgment debtors under the default judgment for fraud and conversion rendered against Sovcap Advisors, Inc.
For the reasons discussed below, Marciniaks contentions in his appeal and Jiverys arguments in his cross-appeal lack merit. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

Julio Trujillo appeals from a judgment in favor of Manuel Leyva, Rebecca Leyva, and Chris Leyva (Leyva) in this wrongful death action, brought after Trujillo killed Leyvas mother when he lost control of his car in a Santa Ana street race. Trujillo argues punitive damages awarded Leyva must be reversed. Court disagree and affirm.

Elmer Murry, Jr., appeals from a permanent injunction that directed him to remove a hot tub from the patio of his condominium unit, after the trial court found Pacific Ranch Homeowners Association (Association) had acted reasonably and in good faith when it voted to ban hot tubs on patios. Murry argues he was improperly denied a jury trial, the Association acted unreasonably, and the evidence was insufficient to warrant an injunction. Court disagree and affirm.