CA Unpub Decisions

In this dependency case, T. J. and Marcus P., parents of the minors, appeal from the judgments of disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 358, 360, 395; undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellants raise various challenges to both the jurisdictional findings and the dispositional orders. Court affirm.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into an agreement concerning the development of residential property. The plaintiffs sued the defendants, asserting that a partnership existed and seeking an accounting and damages. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiffs appeal the judgment. Because the evidence was insufficient to raise a triable material issue concerning the existence of a partnership, Court affirm.

In this administrative mandamus case, plaintiffs sought review of a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the board) arising out of an assessment for adjusted unemployment insurance contributions. The trial court dismissed the writ petition on the ground (among others) that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Finding no error, Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Anthony Joseph Bunce entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one misdemeanor count of infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant. (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a).) He was granted probation (case No. CM024397) and instructed to refrain from contacting the victim.
The judgment is affirmed.

After defendant Marcus C. Starkey pled no contest to receiving stolen property, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years formal probation. At sentencing, the court indicated defendant would be required to pay, as a condition of probation, the reasonable cost of probation. Thereafter, it found defendant had an ability to pay $1,320 for probation supervision costs, and entered an order that defendant pay probation supervision costs in that amount (Pen. Code, 1203.1b).
The conditions of probation are modified to delete the requirement to pay the costs of probation supervision; however, the order that defendant pay such costs is affirmed. As modified, the probation order (judgment) is affirmed.

A jury found defendant Jeffrey Arne Thunander guilty of felony assault with a deadly weapon and misdemeanor assault and defendant admitted he had been convicted of a prior serious felony. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 11 years in state prison for the assault with a deadly weapon and a serious felony conviction enhancement. The trial court also imposed a concurrent six-month sentence for the misdemeanor assault conviction. Court affirm the concurrent six month sentence, but strike the order of restitution.

Gretchen W. and Michael M., parents of the minor, appeal from an order terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, 395; undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellants contend there was a failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). County Counsel concedes the trial courts error. Court reverse and remand for compliance with the ICWA.

A master lessee under a long term lease is an owner of property within the meaning of Business and Professions Code[1]section 7044 such that it is not required to obtain a contractor's license in order to enter into a "build to suit" lease with a sublessee. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered below in favor of the master lessee in the sublessee's action to recover amounts it paid the master lessee for building an aircraft hangar.

Richard D. Russell appeals a March 19, 2007 order requiring him to pay Kelly Ahearn $645,142.39 in a dissolution action under Family Code section 1101, subdivision (h), which pertains to the nondisclosure or transfer of a community asset in violation of a spouse's fiduciary duty. Russell's principal contention is that the evidence is insufficient to support the award. Court affirm the order.

This case arises from events in which Julie Spencer, a caregiver, severely beat and cut a 98-year-old man for whom she worked. She bound him with a vacuum cord and attempted to set fire to his mobile home and to the victim as well. Spencer then took the victim's phones so that he could not call for help and left him in his mobile home. The victim survived the beating, was able to put out the fire and ultimately received help and medical care. The victim was active and apparently healthy, except for emphysema, at the time of the attack. Thereafter he deteriorated and was ultimately placed in a nursing home where he died about one month after the attack. The principal question presented by this appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Spencer's attack on the victim was a proximate cause of his death. The answer to the question is yes. There is abundant evidence to support the verdict.
Spencer appeals contending there is not sufficient evidence to prove her acts were a legal cause of the victim's death and that the court erred in imposing concurrent sentences for the robbery and attempted arson convictions, which she argues should have been stayed pursuant to section 654. Court reject both contentions and affirm.

Arthur Budman sued St. Bernard Software, Inc. (SBS) and its chief financial officer, Alfred Riedler, alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation pertaining to Budman's SBS stock. Defendants petitioned to compel arbitration of Budman's claims, relying on an arbitration provision in the stock purchase agreement between Budman and one of SBS's predecessor corporations. The court denied the petition, finding the arbitration provision was inapplicable because Budman's claims did not relate to his former employment with SBS's predecessor. Defendants appeal. Court conclude Budman's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision, and SBS is a proper party to assert the arbitration provision. Court further determine the arbitration provision remains enforceable despite two corporate mergers. Court thus reverse and remand.

Presumed father Ralph F. appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights over Clarissa F. He contends the juvenile court violated his due process rights because it did not make findings he was an unfit parent, and he received reasonable reunification services; the Imperial County Department of Social Services (the Department) did not provide him reasonable services; and the court erred by denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking services. Court affirm.

Carl F. appeals the findings and orders entered at the permanency planning hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, including the denial of his section 388 petition. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. Carl F.'s counsel also requests leave for him to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied.

Suzanne S. and Preston R. appeal the findings and orders entered at the permanency planning hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, including the denial of Suzanne S.'s section 388 petition. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, they ask this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting his [or her] custody of a child or his [or her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) Court therefore deny their requests to review the record for error and to address their Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)