500 matching results for "abundy":
From CA Unpub Decisions
In this writ proceeding, mother Karrie H. challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services as to her daughter, A.C., and setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. We find no error and deny the petition.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
In this dependency case, mother T.B. appeals from the order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to reinstate family reunification services and terminating parental rights as to her son A.R. We affirm the order.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
After pseudonymous Internet commenters posted on social media that Jeff Nelson practices “bestiality and paedophilia [sic] and incest,” has “mouth sores,” and sells food that causes “mouth herpes,” he and his company VegSource Interactive (collectively, Nelson) sued for defamation. To discover the identity of the commenters, one of whom posted under the pseudonym Chantelle Robin, Nelson served subpoenas on Google, Tumblr, YouTube, and Twitter, requesting potentially identifying information, including the commenters’ IP addresses. Before those companies responded to the subpoenas, however, they notified Robin, who filed a motion to quash the subpoenas. The trial court granted the motion to quash.
Nelson filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion to quash and to enter a new order denying the motion. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant Oyuki Acosta appeals from the court’s revocation of her probation. The court found defendant in violation of her probation for failing to report to her probation officer and ordered her to serve her previously-suspended sentence. Defendant argues that the court abused its discretion by revoking probation based on a technical violation and ignoring defendant’s circumstances. We affirm.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
A jury convicted Carlos Monge of attempted murder in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a) (count 1), and of shooting from a motor vehicle in violation of section 26100, subdivision (c) (count 2). The jury found the attempted murder to be premeditated and also found true a criminal street gang enhancement allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and a personal firearm enhancement allegation (§ 12022.53, subds. (b) (e)). After finding true prior conviction allegations under sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), the court sentenced Monge to an aggregate term of 39 years to life. Monge filed a timely notice of appeal.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Mother, Gillian P., appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her then two–year–old daughter, Juliana P. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Mother contends the trial court erred in prematurely setting a selection and implementation hearing, and in summarily denying her section 388 petition seeking reunification services because, although her whereabouts were unknown at the start of the dependency process and at the time the selection and implementation hearing was set, she appeared in court on the date set for that hearing. Mother claims the court erred, as a matter of law, in prematurely setting the section 366.26 hearing, and abused its discretion by failing later to correct that legal error.
We conclude that the juvenile court erred, and that the order terminating parental rights must be reversed. We will remand the matter to the juvenile court with options as to how the court may proceed. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Juan Carlos Delgado (defendant) appeals following a resentencing hearing held by the trial court on February 8, 2017. The hearing occurred after this Court affirmed defendant’s 2014 conviction but struck the true finding on a Penal Code section 186.22 gang enhancement allegation and remanded the matter for resentencing. Defendant’s counsel on appeal contends that because this case is not yet not final, the case must be remanded to permit the trial court to exercise the discretion provided by changes to the firearm enhancement statute effective January 1, 2018. Respondent agrees that the changes in the law apply retroactively to cases that are not yet final on January 1, 2018, but opposes remand on the ground that the record demonstrates that on remand, the trial court would not exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancement. The record does not demonstrate that remand would serve no purpose.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
RDO Equipment Co. (RDO) appeals from a judgment awarding The Altman Law Group (ALG) certain funds that had been interpleaded by a third party. The judgment is based on the court’s determination that ALG’s engagement agreements with its clients created a lien against the interpleaded funds superior to RDO’s claim to the same funds. We review the court’s interpretation of the agreements independently and come to the same conclusion. We therefore affirm the judgment.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in interpreting defendant 13359 Corp.’s offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (998 offer) to pay a “total sum” of $12,500 “exclusive of reasonable costs and attorney[ ] fees, if any” as preserving plaintiff’s right to seek attorney fees and costs in a subsequent motion. The subject of the 998 offer was plaintiff Timed Out LLC’s statutory and common law misappropriation claims; plaintiff’s statutory claim sought an award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party under Civil Code section 3344, subdivision (a). The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in interpreting defendant 13359 Corp.’s offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (998 offer) to pay a “total sum” of $12,500 “exclusive of reasonable costs and attorney[ ] fees, if any” as preserving plaintiff’s right to seek attorney fees and costs in a subsequent motion.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Azariah Ellington, one of Ethel Ellington’s sons, challenges the trial court order invalidating the Ethel Ellington Living Trust, imposing a constructive trust on the assets appellant marshaled and collected on behalf of the trust, and directing appellant to deliver these assets to the personal representative of the Estate of Ethel Ellington. Appellant raises several issues which are not pertinent to this appeal, but instead involve other cases in the probate court. He also argues, and we agree, that there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s order invalidating the trust. For that reason, we reverse the order.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant was charged by information with fleeing a police chase while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2). It was further alleged she had suffered two prior prison sentences (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subds. (b), (e)(1)) that also were felony convictions under Penal Code section 1203. On August 6, 2015, a jury convicted appellant as charged. The People declined to proceed with a court trial on the two prison priors, and the parties agreed that appellant would be sentenced to a midterm of two years to be served concurrent with prison sentences in two other cases. The court sentenced appellant in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
|
From CA Unpub Decisions
Defendant William James Secrest, Jr., pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Per the parties’ agreement, the trial court imposed an aggregate term of eight years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We conclude the totality of the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that defendant was armed, and the brief, limited patdown search was justified. We affirm the judgment. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Plaintiff and Appellant Jonathan Arvizu sued the City of Pasadena after he fell over a retaining wall located beside a recreational trail in the City’s Arroyo Seco Natural Park, resulting in devastating personal injuries. Arvizu had entered the Park in the dark, pre-dawn hours, while it was closed, in order to go “ghost hunting” with a group of friends. While taking a shortcut to reach the trail, he lost his footing, careened across the trail, and fell over the wall.
He appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. |
From CA Unpub Decisions
Appellant Kenneth Roberts (Roberts) appeals from an order granting the motion of respondent Oliver Wolfgang Ruehr (Ruehr) to set aside, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473, subdivision (b) and 473.5, a default and a default judgment entered against Ruehr. After a hearing, the trial court found service was defective and granted the motion. The hearing was unreported and the trial court denied Roberts’s motion for a settled statement. Roberts failed to challenge the denial of his motion by means of a writ petition. He thus has not provided us with a record adequate for our review. Because we must presume that the court’s findings, both express and implied, support its ruling, we affirm the order.
|