CA Unpub Decisions

D.W. (Mother) and J.H. (Father) have a history of abusing drugs that led to the San Bernardino County Department of Children and Family Services (CFS) removing their three children from their home. The parents’ reunification services were terminated as to their two older children, M.H. and S.H., in 2015. The two older children reside with their legal guardians and nonrelative extended family members (NREFM), M.G. and T.S. Subsequently, both parents were denied reunification services as to their youngest child, J.H., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10), (b)(12), and (b)(13). About four months later, the parents each filed section 388 petitions as to J.H., which were summarily denied. The parents appealed from the juvenile court’s orders denying their section 388 petitions, and this court affirmed the juvenile court’s orders in case No. E066695.

Daniel C. (father) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights for his two daughters, Delilah C. and Sage C. (sometimes, minors). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Father contends the juvenile court erred in failing to find the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption applied. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Father also contends the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice procedures of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). As we explain, we disagree with both contentions and thus affirm the order of the juvenile court.

Mother appeals from a jurisdictional finding declaring her one-year-old daughter D.L. a dependent child based on mother’s alleged marijuana abuse. (Wel. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) Mother contends the evidence was insufficient to support the finding, and argues the finding served as the basis for an unreasonable disposition order requiring her to complete a full drug rehabilitation program. In view of the child’s tender years, and mother’s admitted inability to cease using marijuana without intervention, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the drug abuse finding and disposition order. We affirm.

Father P.M. appeals the juvenile court’s order denying his request for a contested Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his son, A.M. This is father’s second appeal concerning now five-year-old A.M., who has been a dependent of the court since his birth. (In re A.M. (Nov. 21, 2014, B254164) [nonpub. opn.].) In this appeal, father contends his due process rights were violated when the court denied his request to present evidence of the “beneficial parent-child relationship” exception to the termination of parental rights after hearing his offer of proof. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Finding no merit in this contention, we affirm the order.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained an allegation of felony second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), and declared appellant A.J. a ward of the court subject to various probation conditions. Appellant filed the instant appeal in which he challenged an electronic search condition, a condition prohibiting him from possessing weapons, as well as a condition requiring him to stay away and have no contact with the victims and his minor confederates. During the pendency of this appeal, appellate counsel informed us that appellant has been committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and is, therefore, no longer subject to the challenged conditions. Given the current status of this case, we will dismiss the appeal as moot.

We are familiar with this dependency proceeding, having issued a prior opinion in the matter. (In re Mathias H. (Nov. 16, 2016, A145624 & A146233) [nonpub. op.].) Beatrice L. (mother) now appeals from the order terminating her parental rights with respect to the three children at issue—A.H. (born October 2010), I.R.L. (born May 2013), and Mathias H. (born September 2014)—and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) We appointed counsel to represent mother on appeal.
On June 6, 2017, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, finding no arguable issues. By accompanying declaration, counsel reported that she had advised mother of the pendency of these proceedings, that a “No Issues Statement” would be filed, and that mother might be permitted to file a letter with this court suggesting any errors she believes were made in the proceedings below. No response has been received from mother.

Minors A.B., M.A., and J.H. appeal from the judgments entered after the juvenile court sustained juvenile wardship petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) for two counts of second degree robbery (counts 1 and 3; Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c)) and two counts of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (counts 2 and 4; § 245, subd. (a)(4)) with criminal street gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)). The trial court declared the robberies felonies, reduced the assaults to misdemeanors and found they were subject to a section 654 stay, and placed appellants in a community camp program for five to seven months. The trial court removed appellants from the physical custody of their parents and set the maximum term of physical confinement at 26 years eight months. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (d)(1).) We modify the disposition orders to reflect that the aggregate maximum term of physical confinement is 20 years for each appellant and affirm the judgment

The trial court found appellants Petite Pumps and Heels, LLC (Petite Pumps) and Dennis and Laurie McCabe in contempt for violating a judgment in favor of respondent Cinderella of Boston (Cinderella), which judgment included an injunction prohibiting appellants from soliciting Cinderella’s customers. The court fined appellants a total of $6,000 for 12 acts of contempt.
A judgment of contempt is not an appealable order; it can be reviewed only by a petition for a writ or, if the contemnor is in jail, by a petition for habeas corpus. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Appellants Gamage Holdings, LLC (Gamage) and P. David Cienfuegos (Cienfuegos) appeal from the judgment entered on the trial court’s order enforcing a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The judgment requires appellants to pay respondent Christiana Trust (Christiana) $160,000 in settlement of their competing claims to a residential property in Granada Hills (the Property). We affirm.

Appellants Donald K. Brandt and Tzipora Brandt challenge an order finding them to be vexatious litigants under Code of Civil Procedure section 391. We conclude substantial evidence supports the order and affirm.

Weststar Partnership (Weststar) is engaged in the business of transporting pipe and related materials to various locations in California.
Guy Beaudoin, a former employee of Weststar, brought a class action alleging illegal employment practices resulting in the violation of various Labor Code sections and corresponding wage and hour regulations and for unfair business practices.
Weststar moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. The motion was based on arbitration agreements Weststar required employees to sign as a condition of employment.

Plaintiff Pamela Wolffe (Wolffe) and her daughter, plaintiff Jzenica Pierson (Pierson), were in two automobile accidents. Defendant Martha Guzman (Guzman) rear-ended Wolffe and Pierson (collectively, plaintiffs) in the first. In the second, defendant Timothy Benedict (Benedict) broadsided plaintiffs while they were driving together two months later. Plaintiffs sued both defendants, and by the time of trial, both defendants had admitted the accidents were their fault; defendants, however, disputed the accidents caused the full range of injuries plaintiffs claimed to have suffered. The trial court barred plaintiffs’ neuropsychologist expert witness from opining traumatic brain injury allegedly suffered by Wolffe was caused by the accidents because plaintiffs did not give adequate notice the expert would offer such an opinion and because the expert was in any event incompetent to offer such an opinion.

Defendant South Brockton Partners, L.P. (SBP) appeals from a January 19, 2016 judgment following the trial court’s denial of SBP’s motion to vacate an arbitration award making it jointly and severally liable with codefendants Hollywood Realty, Inc. (HRI), and Blue Jay Group (BJG) to Scott Weil and John Kline (Respondents), and granting Respondents’ motion to confirm that award. We conditionally reverse the judgment.

Defendant, cross-complainant, and appellant Colonnade Wilshire Corporation (Colonnade) appeals from a June 29, 2016 postjudgment order and a July 22, 2016 amended judgment awarding plaintiff, cross-defendant, and respondent The Redbean House Corporation (Redbean) $418,730.75 in attorney fees and $16,260.79 in costs as the prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 in an underlying action for rescission of a commercial lease. We affirm the order and the judgment.