CA Unpub Decisions

Petitioner is the father of two-year-old D.H. The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction of the child upon a sustained allegation that father committed domestic violence against D.H.’s mother. On February 7, 2017, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father filed a petition for extraordinary relief, in which he argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain the juvenile court’s finding that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) provided reasonable reunification services. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s finding and deny the petition.

X.M. was the subject of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, alleging he had committed robbery. The juvenile court found the allegation true. X.M. contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain the true finding. We disagree and affirm.

Defendants and appellants, M.H. (mother), M.H., Sr. (father), and M.N. (maternal grandmother), appeal from the juvenile court’s judgment terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)) and designating the foster parents as the prospective adoptive parents for the children, A.H. and M.H., Jr. The parents join in maternal grandmother’s arguments but do not independently raise any contentions. Maternal grandmother argues solely that the court erred in designating the foster parents as the prospective adoptive parents. DPSS contends none of the parties have standing to appeal and we must dismiss the appeal. We assume without deciding that maternal grandmother has standing and consider the merits of her appeal. We find no error and affirm the judgment. We conclude the parents have no standing to appeal and dismiss their appeals.

C.A., the mother of the minors L.A. and S.M., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying her petition for modification and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 388, 395.) She contends the juvenile court committed reversible errors in denying her petition for modification, failing to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception, and denying her request for a bonding study. Mother also argues that having both minors being represented by the same counsel created an actual conflict of interest requiring reversal. We shall affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

Appellants Michael M. (father) and Robin B. (mother) appeal from the juvenile court’s orders terminating their parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 as to their two minor sons, two-year-old Evan and one-year-old Jacob. Appellants contend the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the exception to adoption set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) (“beneficial relationship exception”). We affirm.

Defendants and appellants R.C. (father) and C.T. (mother) appeal from an order terminating the parental rights to their daughter, Ca.T. On appeal, they challenge the adequacy of notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Separately, mother contends the juvenile court should have found applicable the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights, codified at Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). We affirm.

Defendant and appellant, B.A. (Minor), completed a program of informal supervision under Welfare and Institutions Code section 654 after the People alleged Minor had committed misdemeanor vandalism. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)(1); ¶ 1.) After the court dismissed the petition and ordered Minor’s records sealed, Minor’s counsel requested the court seal Minor’s middle school records as well; the court declined to do so. On appeal, Minor contends the court deprived him of due process by not affording him a hearing on the issue and abused its discretion by summarily denying the request without evidentiary justification. We affirm.

This is a petition for an extraordinary writ, as authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. The petitioner is Edward S., the presumed father of Benjamin S., a dependent of respondent court. Petitioner seeks to overturn the April 19, 2017 order of respondent court setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 at which his parental rights may be terminated.

In a dispute concerning a residential backyard and swimming pool/spa renovation project, general building contractor Catersolar, Inc. (plaintiff or Catersolar) was awarded damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including attorney fees, against former clients Luis and Michaela Cadiz (defendants). Defendants took nothing on their cross-complaint. On appeal, defendants argue the damages award was not supported by substantial evidence and, in any event, the claims were barred because plaintiff’s general building contractor license did not permit it to work on the swimming pool and spa. We affirm.

Petitioner Jack Baker, a diesel mechanic employed by respondent Sierra Pacific Fleet Services (Sierra Pacific) and insured by respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Compensation), injured his knee, neck, and shoulder in the course of his employment in February 2010. In March 2014 Baker’s treating physician recommended certain prescription drugs, which a utilization review (UR) recommended be denied. Baker appealed the denial by requesting an independent medical review (IMR) on March 19, 2014. The Administrative Director (director) issued an IMR determination upholding the denial on July 21, 2014.

Appellant United Grand Corporation appeals from the trial court’s order vacating a default judgment against respondent Marcie Stollof, and the trial court’s denial of a motion to vacate that order. We affirm.

Arvind Shankar (plaintiff), in propria persona, appeals from an order denying his ex parte application to vacate the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of his first amended complaint against Samuel Wu, Susan Su-Chun Wu, Sakiko Ogura, Sakiko Senga, Kensuke Ogura, S.C. Enterprise and George Kassabian. The limited record on appeal establishes that plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with defendants, which he signed, that required him to execute a request for dismissal of this action with prejudice and send it to defendants’ counsel for filing after certain conditions were met. Although plaintiff’s counsel provided defense counsel with a request for dismissal pursuant to the settlement agreement, defense counsel did not file it until months later, by which time plaintiff was no longer represented by the attorney who executed the request for dismissal.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by exposure to mold in an office building, Regina Schueneman appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment to the defense on statute of limitations grounds. Resolving the statute of limitations issue in this case turns on whether sinusitis and/or other illnesses Schueneman suffered from the mold exposure in 2011 are "separate and distinct" and "qualitatively different" from a lung disorder—allergic pulmonary aspergillosis—her physician first definitively diagnosed in November 2014. (See Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 788 (Pooshs).)

Latasha Windham-Orebaugh appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found her guilty of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).) She contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, because there was no substantial evidence that she possessed the property. We will affirm the judgment.