CA Pub. Decisions

This case concerns the construction and application of the federal Clean Water Act (Clean Water Act; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act; Wat. Code, § 13000 et seq., unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Water Code).
The superior court entered a judgment issuing a writ of mandate that vacated a resolution by defendant California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board) after it completed a periodic review of its water quality control plan. The judgment further directed the Regional Board to either reopen the prior review proceeding or, during its next scheduled periodic review, conduct a public
hearing on the plan's water quality objectives applicable to storm water or urban

The juvenile court declared Sean A. a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and placed him on probation after Sean admitted to possessing a controlled substance for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378.
Sean appeals, contending that the juvenile court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search of his person by a public high school official premised on the fact that he left and returned to campus during the school day. Sean also challenges one of the conditions of his probation.
Court conclude that the search was lawful, and that Sean has waived any objection to his probation conditions by failing to object in the juvenile court.

Since 2001, this long running dispute has traveled back and forth between state and federal courts at the respective trial and appellate levels. We now have before us the trial court's appealable orders vacating certain judgments of dismissal of an action, in which plaintiff, respondent and cross-appellant, Bruce R. Talley (Talley) asserted tort claims (fraud and related theories), based upon the different roles of several sets of defendants in alleged securities fraud activities in the 1990's, that allegedly ruined his career by drawing him into the schemes, in the role of a salesman of worthless bonds to private clients, who then sued him and the others.

Since 2001, this long running dispute has traveled back and forth between state and federal courts at the respective trial and appellate levels. We now have before us the trial court's appealable orders vacating certain judgments of dismissal of an action, in which plaintiff, respondent and cross-appellant, Bruce R. Talley (Talley) asserted tort claims (fraud and related theories), based upon the different roles of several sets of defendants in alleged securities fraud activities in the 1990's, that allegedly ruined his career by drawing him into the schemes, in the role of a salesman of worthless bonds to private clients, who then sued him and the others.

A jury found defendant Larry Steven Smith guilty of rape of an intoxicated woman (count I), rape of an unconscious woman (count II), and misdemeanor sexual battery. The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for eight years (the upper term on count I, with the terms on the other two counts run concurrently and stayed under Penal Code section 654).
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court gave misleading and incomplete instructions on rape of an intoxicated woman that require reversal of both rape convictions; and (2) because there is no crime of sexual battery of an intoxicated or unconscious woman, his conviction for sexual battery must be reversed. Court reject these arguments; however, court conclude that only one of defendant's rape convictions can stand because both convictions are based on the same act of sexual intercourse. Accordingly, Court will modify the judgment to strike the second rape conviction.

Defendant, Vincent Woods, appeals from his convictions for cocaine possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor marijuana possession. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b).) In the published portion of this opinion, we address the issue of whether, when a defendant is placed on probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (a) (Proposition 36 probation), the following may be stayed: a Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a) court facility assessment; a Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) restitution fine; and a Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) court security fee. court conclude they may not be stayed. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we address other sentencing issues. Court affirm the judgment in all other respects.

In the underlying action, real parties in interest sought to recover civil penalties from petitioner Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Home Depot) under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ((PAGA); Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.).[1] The trial court overruled Home Depot's demurrer to the first amended complaint, which contains a claim under PAGA based on Home Depot's alleged failure to provide seating to its employees pursuant to section 1198 and Wage Order 7-2001 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070). Home Depot challenges this ruling by petition for writ of mandate or other relief. Court conclude that the complaint states a claim under PAGA, and thus deny the petition on its merits.

The trial court was not justified in asserting dependency jurisdiction over the child in this case, who had never been abused or neglected by anyone. The child, V.M., came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services after her father asserted his right to custody of his daughter, seeking to gradually remove the child from the only home she had ever known where she lived with her maternal grandparents after her mother's death.
V.M. was seven years old when she twisted her ankle at school and stayed home for a week. Her father, wondering why his daughter was not in school (her grandparents having told him nothing about the injury) went to her school to inquire. The principal had known the family for years and recognized him as V.M.'s father. The principal told father how his daughter sprained her ankle and encouraged him to visit V.M., who was back in school. After that, father went to the grandparents' home to make arrangements to take custody of her; the grandparents did not cooperate; father called for police assistance; and soon thereafter, the grandparents hired a lawyer to file a probate case to have themselves declared V.M.'s legal guardians. They also made a report of child abuse to the Department.

Appellants appeal from a judgment based on, inter alia, a determination that they were judicially estopped from denying that they are bound by a settlement agreement. Court hold that even if the settlement agreement had not been binding, appellants were judicially estopped from denying the enforceability of that agreement because they represented to the trial court that the case had settled and the trial court discharged the jury in reliance on that representation.

Defendant and appellant Michael Nesbitt (defendant) was convicted on six felony counts based upon the sexual abuse of three of his children.[1] On appeal, defendant contends, inter alia, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate an order entered in the minutes dismissing counts 4 and 5. Court hold that the trial court had the inherent authority to reconsider its order dismissing counts 4 and 5 and therefore affirm the trial court's order vacating the dismissal of those counts and reinstating them, as well as the judgments of conviction on those counts. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, Court otherwise affirm the judgment, except as to matters regarding the sentence and reimbursement of attorney fees.

Defendant and appellant Michael Nesbitt (defendant) was convicted on six felony counts based upon the sexual abuse of three of his children.[1] On appeal, defendant contends, inter alia, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate an order entered in the minutes dismissing counts 4 and 5. Court hold that the trial court had the inherent authority to reconsider its order dismissing counts 4 and 5 and therefore affirm the trial court's order vacating the dismissal of those counts and reinstating them, as well as the judgments of conviction on those counts. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, Court otherwise affirm the judgment, except as to matters regarding the sentence and reimbursement of attorney fees.

Azusa Land Partners (ALP) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.) ALP seeks to vacate a determination by respondent Department of Industrial Relations (Department) that a planned community project is a â€

Azusa Land Partners (ALP) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.) ALP seeks to vacate a determination by respondent Department of Industrial Relations (Department) that a planned community project is a â€

This case involves a dispute among property owners in a general plan development of 68 homes in Los Angeles. The owners of one of the properties, Allan Ignatin and Janet Sobell (collectively, Ignatin),[1] want to build a house that other property owners believe would violate recorded restrictions (CC&Rs) governing the development. The owners of a neighboring property, Philip Schuman and Margaret McNulty (collectively, Schuman), filed a lawsuit against Ignatin, seeking to block the proposed construction. Ignatin cross-complained against Schuman and several other property owners, including Eric F. Edmunds, Jr. and Debora Edmunds (collectively, Edmunds), seeking a determination that the proposed house would not violate the CC&Rs. Edmunds, in turn, filed a cross-complaint against Ignatin, alleging that the proposed house would violate the CC&Rs, create a nuisance, and violate city codes and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
During a recess after the first day of a bench trial, Ignatin for the first time challenged the validity of a recorded amendment that purportedly extended the duration date set forth in the original CC&Rs, and asked the trial court to find that the CC&Rs expired on January 1, 1999, the original expiration date. The trial court made that finding, entered judgment in favor of Ignatin on Schuman's complaint, and dismissed Ignatin's and Edmunds's cross-complaints as moot. Schuman, Edmunds, and Ignatin all appeal: Schuman and Edmunds challenge, among other things, the trial court's finding that the CC&Rs expired, arguing that the applicable statute of limitations bars Ignatin's assertion that the amendment of the CC&Rs was invalid, and Ignatin challenges the dismissal of Ignatin's cross-complaint as moot. Court conclude that Ignatin's assertion of the invalidity of the amendment is time-barred. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment and remand the matter for retrial, at which Ignatin may present other asserted defenses against Schuman's and Edmunds's claims and seek the relief sought in Ignatin's cross-complaint.