CA Unpub Decisions

Darold Shirwo, an attorney formerly appointed to represent the mother, T.R., has appealed from a September 26, 2007 order relieving him as counsel. After Mr. Shirwo was relieved, the Law Office of Timothy Martella was appointed to represent the mother. We agree with the mothers appellate counsel the appeal is moot as she no longer wishes to be represented by Mr. Shirwo and her change of view means her rights are no longer at issue. Thus, Court dismiss the appeal.

T.P. (mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying a hearing on her petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 388 and terminating her parental rights with regard to her daughter, S.K. We hold that the juvenile court erred by denying mother a hearing on her section 388 petition. We reverse both orders and remand with directions to the juvenile court to hold a hearing to determine if a modification of the courts previous orders would be in S.s best interests. The orders denying mothers section 388 petition and terminating her parental rights are reversed. The matter is remanded, and the juvenile court is ordered to conduct a hearing on the petition after affording mother an opportunity to amend the petition to allege additional facts regarding any changes that have occurred since her original petition was filed.

Appellants, heirs seeking to bring a wrongful death action against a public hospital, appeal from the dismissal of their petition to file a late government claim. The trial court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Government Code section 911.4, subdivision (b), because appellants application for leave to present a late claim had been filed with the public entity more than one year after the cause of action accrued. Appellants contend that section 911.4 is a statute of limitations subject to tolling or estoppel. We hold that section 911.4 is not a statute of limitations, but a statute defining the courts jurisdiction. Court thus affirm the judgment of dismissal.

Appellant Steven Craig Hamilton was convicted by a jury of one count of receiving stolen property and he admitted a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to the middle term of two years, which was doubled for the prior conviction. He was ordered to pay two fines totaling $400 and received presentence credit. Court affirm the judgment.

Randy Michael Lopez appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, his no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance, cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i).) He was sentenced to the low term of 16 months, which was doubled to 32 months by reason of his prior strike conviction. He contends his detention began when officers approached him and due to their show of force there was never a consensual encounter. He also contends because the detention began before any questions were asked, the officer violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination by asking him whether he possessed anything illegal without first advising him of his Miranda rights. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the judgment.

4X Projects Co. and Richard Gray appeal the dismissal of their first amended petition for writ of mandate after the trial court sustained the demurrer of respondent City of Moorpark (City) without leave to amend. The petition challenges the facial validity of parking regulations adopted to increase parking in a commercial area of the City. Court affirm.

Alfredo Romero appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)) and his admission that he personally used a firearm, a handgun, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, 664/187) and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, 246) were dismissed and appellant was sentenced to prison for six years, consisting of the middle term of three years plus three years for the firearm enhancement. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Jimmy Renne Garcia was charged and convicted of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a).) As a second-strike offender, he was sentenced to a total of eight years imprisonment. (See Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(i).) This is his second appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Bassem Yousri filed an action for slander against respondent Ahmed Aly. Respondents motion to strike pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the SLAPP[1]statute, was granted. Court reverse.

Frank Mejia appeals from a judgment following a resentencing hearing ordered under Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). Court reject his claim that the trial court erred when it again imposed the upper term on the principal count and consecutive sentences on two of the subordinate counts.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant Emmanuel Cabanero pled guilty to residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) Counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has informed defendant that he may personally file a supplemental opening brief, but defendant has not done so. Court conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm.

Plaintiff Nationwide Indemnity Company (hereinafter, Nationwide) appeals an order imposing discovery sanctions. Nationwide properly contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motions by defendants American States Insurance Company and American Economy Insurance Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as American Insurance) to compel further responses to interrogatories and to demand production of documents after expiration of the statutory 45 day period from service of its discovery responses. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c).)
Although delay ensued in agreeing upon a discovery referee, American Insurance failed to exercise its statutory right ( 639, subd. (a)) to move for the appointment of a discovery referee before whom it could have timely filed its motions to compel and for sanctions. Thus, it cannot be heard to complain about the purported lack of a forum in which to bring the motions. Because the jurisdictional 45 day period for motions to compel further responses had lapsed and the motions to compel were untimely and opposed with substantial justification ( 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (d)), American Insurances complaints about Nationwides inadequate discovery responses provide no valid predicate upon which to base sanctions.

This case arises from a summary judgment entered in favor of the respondents, County of Los Angeles, Mark Pestrella and Hector Bordas. The appellant, Joseph Addison, filed this action to recover for what he alleged was a wrongful termination based on his race. In his third amended complaint, the operative pleading herein, he alleged five causes of action: (1) defamation, (2) racial discrimination, (3) retaliation, (4) harassment and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Our review of the appellate record fully supports the trial courts conclusions. In addition, Court find no abuse of discretion with respect to the trial courts post judgment order awarding attorney fees. Court will therefore affirm both the judgment and the post judgment order.

A Board of Rights found Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Officer Frank Trevino, who was the subject of an LAPD Internal Affairs sting operation, guilty of five counts of misconduct, resulting in the termination of his employment. Trevino filed an administrative writ of mandate in the trial court, where he successfully challenged one of the five counts (count 3) on statute of limitations grounds. Court find the evidence as to count 5 insufficient because Trevino had been suspended without pay and was not on duty at the time of his allegedly false statement. However, all other contentions, both on the appeal and the cross-appeal, are unavailing.