CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
In this employment discrimination case, Thomas A. Matos (Matos) appeals from a summary judgment in favor of his former employer, the University of San Francisco (USF). Matos contends the court erred in granting summary judgment because a triable issue of material fact exits as to whether Mr. Matoss employment with the University was terminated based on his HIV+ status. . . . Court conclude the court properly granted summary judgment.
|
Appellant Lee Edmundson appeals, contending that the superior court erred when it denied his petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and/or injunctive relief, ordered his $2,500 bond be paid to Monte Reed and Barbara Reed (collectively, Reeds), and sanctioned him $7,920 in attorney fees. The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (Board) and the Reeds appear as respondents in opposition to the appeal. The Reeds have moved for sanctions, contending Edmundsons appeal is frivolous. Court affirm the superior courts judgment, bond order, and sanctions order, and deny the Reeds motion.
|
Appellants R.G. (mother) and Sean M. (father) appeal various orders of the juvenile court, which terminated their parental rights as to their daughter S.M. They argue that the juvenile court erred in (1) denying fathers motion to set aside disposition orders that were entered before his status was elevated to that of presumed father, (2) denying mother additional reunification services, (3) terminating parental rights, (4) denying the request of the minors great aunt to place the minor with her, and (5) precluding fathers counsel from questioning a social worker about the financial motive for selecting adoption as the permanent plan for the minor. Court disagree and affirm the orders.
|
Respondents Sarah Shaker and Instituto Laboral de la Raza (collectively, Shaker) move to dismiss the appeal of Joseph L. Williams for his failure to file an opening brief in compliance with California Rules of Court, rules 8.204(a)(1)(C) and 8.204(a)(2)(B). Despite three opportunities, Williams has failed to file an opening brief in conformance with the California Rules of Court, most glaringly by failing to support matters in the brief with citations to the record. Accordingly, Shakers motion to dismiss, which was unopposed, is granted. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
|
R.J. and her five siblings were removed from their parents home after it was determined that the parents engaged in serious domestic violence and failed to maintain a safe and sanitary home. The childrens alleged biological father, James J. (Father), appealed the juvenile courts dispositional order, contending that plaintiff San Francisco Department of Human Services (Agency) failed to provide adequate notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). Court affirm, concluding that Father failed to demonstrate that he has standing to raise ICWA compliance issues.
|
Appellant Ra Sop appeals from the order denying his motion to set aside a default judgment from a prior marital dissolution action filed by his wife, respondent Kathy Sop. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the default judgment, reasoning that (1) he did not have actual notice of the dissolution proceedings; (2) he is due equitable relief; and (3) the trial court erred in granting Kathy Sops motion to serve notice by publication. Court affirm the judgment.
|
The juvenile court denied appellant Andres S.s motion to suppress evidence after sustaining the San Francisco District Attorneys petition declaring him a ward of the court for illegal possession of a dirk or dagger. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)(4).) Appellant urges we reverse the judgment because the circumstances leading to his detention and patdown search cannot survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny against unreasonable searches and seizures. Court affirm the judgment.
|
Plaintiff Melvin R. Ford appeals from a judgment dismissing his action against defendant Dominican Sisters of Mission San Jose, Inc. (Dominican), based on his failure to serve the complaint within three years after the action was commenced. (Code Civ. Proc., 583.210, subd. (a).)[1] He contends that he effected timely service when, two days before the mandatory three year period expired, he left a copy of the complaint at the office of the registered agent for service of process without personally serving her or mailing her copies. Court affirm.
|
Prior to this appeal, L.D. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 in this court. In her petition, mother challenged the juvenile courts order terminating reunifications services for her children, J.D. and Jay D., and the setting of a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] We denied that petition. She now appeals from the lower courts order denying her section 388 petition, which requested reinstitution of reunification services and reinstatement of visitation with her children. She also appeals from the order terminating her parental rights, arguing that the court erroneously suspended her visits with her children. Since she could not visit with her children and develop a bond with them, she claims she could not present any defense to the termination of her parental rights under section 366.26 and her due process rights were violated. Court conclude that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying mothers section 388 petition and that mothers due process rights were not violated when the court terminated her parental rights because the court had not erroneously denied her visitation with her children.
|
Petitioner Kathleen R. (mother) seeks writ review of an order setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] in the dependency case of her daughter, Anastasia W. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450, 8.452.) Mother contends that real party in interest Solano County Department of Health and Social Services (Department) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), because the notices it sent to the relevant Indian tribes did not contain identifying information sufficient to allow a complete search of their registration rolls. The Department concedes the notices were inadequate and that the order must be reversed. Court agree.
|
Defendant and respondent Peter Weber, M.D., moves unopposed to dismiss plaintiffs appeal as untimely filed. He supports his motion with a request for judicial notice of the record below. The request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code, 452, subd. (d), 453, 459.) The record supports his motion. Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs (The Rutter Group 2006) 3:4, p. 3-1.) Court hereby dismiss this appeal as untimely.
|
Gary Chester Ervin appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of stalking; stalking in violation of a court order; assault upon a former spouse; two counts of first degree burglary; two counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury; three counts of criminal threats; dissuading a witness; dissuading a witness by force or threat; five counts of disobeying a domestic violence protective order; vandalism; unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm; and resisting arrest. (Pen Code, 646.9, subds. (a) & (b); 240; 242; 243, subd. (e)(1); 459; 245, subd. (a)(1); 422; 136.1, subds. (a)(1) & (c)(1); 273.6, subd. (a); 594, subd. (b)(2)(A); 12031, subd. (a)(1); 148, subd. (a)(1).)[1] The trial court sentenced him to state prison for 16 years. He claims that the court erred by failing to conduct a Marsden inquiry (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118); that prosecution misconduct and a related instructional error compel the reversal of his conviction of unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm; and that the court imposed the upper term sentence for counts 4, 5 and 9 based upon factors not found by a jury, in violation of the Cunningham rule. (Cunningham v. California(Jan. 22, 2007, No. 05-6551) 549 U.S. [2007 WL 135687]; U.S. Const., 6th Amend.) Court affirm.
|
Bradley and Terrye Landis (collectively referred to as Landis) hired Tri-Tech Restoration Co., Inc. (Tri-Tech), to repair and restore their home after it sustained earthquake damage and mold infestation. Tri-Tech sued Landis for breach of contract, claiming Landis owed approximately $50,000 under the contract. Landis cross-complained for breach of contract and negligence, claiming that some of the work required by the contract was not performed at all by Tri-Tech and that other work was performed, but performed negligently. A jury found that Landis breached the contract but that Tri-Tech did not breach the contract and was not negligent. The jury awarded damages to Tri-Tech in the amount of $165,000. Landis appealed. Court agree with Landis that the verdict with respect to the complaint and the cross complaint is not supported by substantial evidence and reverse the judgment.
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77266
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77266
Last listing added: 06:28:2023