CA Unpub Decisions

In this consolidated writ proceeding, Monica S. (mother) and Matthew M. (father) seek extraordinary relief from the juvenile court order bypassing both parents for reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing for the couple’s young sons, Eric M. (born January 2014) and Eli M. (born March 2012). Specifically, the parents argue that the juvenile court erred by denying them reunification services pursuant to subdivision (b)(13) of section 361.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (subdivision (b)(13)) based on their extensive histories of substance abuse. Finding denial of reunification services to be warranted under the circumstances of this case, we deny the petitions.

Father appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders, arguing that the Indian Child Welfare Act’s (ICWA) inquiry and notice provisions were not satisfied. Father does not challenge any other aspect of the jurisdictional findings or disposition order. We affirm because ICWA notice requirements were not triggered by these dependency proceedings, where the children remained in mother’s care.

Plaintiffs and appellants Casey S. Clayton and Ryan R. Gavlik (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against defendant and respondent Ford Motor Company (Ford) regarding a 2004 Ford F-250 pickup truck with a defective engine (vehicle). The parties reached a settlement. Ford agreed to repurchase the vehicle and Plaintiffs would submit a motion for attorney’s fees and costs (Motion). Plaintiffs filed the Motion seeking a “lodestar” amount of $177,840 based on 444.6 hours of work at an hourly rate of $400. In addition, they sought a 2.0 multiplier of the lodestar amount. Plaintiffs sought costs in the amount of $4,903.64. Ford filed opposition and the trial court conducted a hearing. After the hearing, the trial court awarded Plaintiffs $54,727.75 in attorney’s fees and $1,864.75 in costs.

Defendant and Appellant Tina Mithaiwala (Tina) challenges the trial court’s order for (1) nonrestitutionary disgorgement of profits from investments she made with $8.25 million wrongfully taken from a corporation formerly controlled by her spouse, his daughter, and the daughter’s husband and (2) the sale of her family home (Braewood Court). The court-appointed receiver for the corporation obtained the order to pay approved creditor claims.
Tina contends the $8.25 million was an interest-free loan to her; she was not a “conscious wrongdoer” who may be deprived of profits realized from her successful investment strategies; and the receiver failed to establish the necessity to apply the funds, including equity in Braewood Court, to defray creditor claims. We affirm on the merits as to the first two contentions and find Tina forfeited the third for failing to raise it in the trial court.

As one part of a complex business transaction, defendant Cremolose, LLC (Cremolose) agreed to sell its assets to plaintiff C&N Holdings, LLC (C&N) and its principal, Michael Kelly (Kelly). The assets consisted of a liquor license and restaurant equipment already in place in a building owned by an entity controlled by the principals of Cremolose, John and Frank Russo. In conjunction with the purchase, C&N also leased the commercial space with the belief they were purchasing a complete, "turnkey" restaurant. As the jury found, however, the Russos misrepresented and concealed serious problems with the air conditioning for the space, which was incapable of handling the crowds of a busy saloon.

Nick Baggarly (father) appeals the trial court’s order finding Alabama, the state of residence of his daughter, to be a more convenient forum for child custody proceedings. We conclude there was no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Ramirez has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.

Defendant Justin Morley Pullman was convicted of manufacturing a form of concentrated cannabis known as butane honey oil. He challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence and quash a search warrant, and he claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to produce evidence of the seized property at the suppression hearing. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgment.

Defendant Antoine Deshon Miller pleaded no contest to multiple firearm and drug charges. On appeal, he contends the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his apartment, including firearms, ammunition, and cash. Police obtained consent for the search from Nizarae Robinson, who was in defendant’s apartment with him at the time of his arrest on a warrant. (RT 26, 58) Defendant claims it was not reasonable for the police to believe that Robinson had authority to consent to the search.

Defendant Desmond A. Henry was convicted of six offenses related to the late-night robbery and beating of a shop owner. On appeal, defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence he acted for a sadistic purpose; that there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s conclusion defendant was competent to stand trial; and that we must strike his conviction for battery with serious bodily injury (count 8) because it is a lesser-included offense of simple mayhem (count 9). Defendant also asks us to review the in camera proceedings conducted by the trial court pursuant to his motion for production of documents under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) and to review the restitution proceedings under the procedures in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

In 2015, defendant and appellant Starlon Christian went to a 99 Cent Store, stuffed her bag with items from the store and walked out without paying for them. The alarm on the store sounded and the store owner and another employee chased after defendant. The owner grabbed the strap of defendant’s bag trying to wrestle it away from her. Defendant pulled a knife on the owner and the employee. Defendant was found guilty of two counts of robbery with the use of a deadly and dangerous weapon. In 2014, defendant took liquor bottles from a Stater Bros. Supermarket without paying for them, was confronted by an employee and threw one of the bottles at the employee while displaying a box cutter. She was placed on probation but that probation was revoked when she was convicted in this case.

A jury found defendants Francisco Castillo, Eduardo Aguayo, and Daniel Espinosa guilty of armed robbery for the benefit of the Sureño criminal street gang. The jury also found Espinosa guilty of evading a peace officer and willful obstruction. In a bifurcated trial, the court found Espinosa had a prior strike conviction, three prior serious felony convictions, and had served multiple prior prison terms.
In this consolidated appeal, all three defendants challenge the jury’s true finding of their gang enhancement on two grounds--first, the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to support the gang enhancement; and second, the court erroneously admitted case-specific hearsay evidence concerning defendants’ gang membership in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665.

Defendant and respondent Steven Edward Boyd pled guilty to one felony count of second degree commercial burglary for entering a bank and cashing a stolen check. (Pen. Code , § 459.) He subsequently filed a petition to redesignate his felony conviction as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18), which the trial court granted.
The People appeal the order granting the petition and contend that: (1) defendant failed to meet his burden to prove eligibility for resentencing; (2) he did not enter a commercial establishment within the meaning of section 459.5; and (3) he entered a bank with the intent to commit identity theft and/or conspiracy. We affirm.

A trial court entered a default judgment for a plaintiff on two of his claims against the people he sued after they never responded to his lawsuit. The court awarded damages. Plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in not awarding judgment and damages on two of his other claims. We conclude there was no error, and affirm.