CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Behzad Nayeri (Behzad) challenges a protective order (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.03; all further undesignated statutory references are to this code), which prohibits him from abusing or contacting his elderly mother, and requires him to stay away from her residence. We perceive no error and affirm.

Casey Nachtrieb sued the County of Orange (County) and four of its social workers, Brigitt Walpus, Minda Herman, Laura Henry, and Mark Lottman, claiming they violated her constitutional right to familial association by causing her to lose custody of her young daughter, E.P., when they repeatedly fabricated, suppressed, and misrepresented evidence in the juvenile dependency court to make it appear Nachtrieb had caused E.P. to falsely accuse her father of sexually abusing her on multiple occasions. Nachtrieb alleged three federal civil rights claims against Defendants under Title 42 United States Code sections 1983, 1985, and 1986, and also a claim under Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of City of N.Y. (1978) 436 U.S. 658 (Monell), claiming the County’s policies, practices, and customs caused the violations of Nachtrieb’s constitutional rights. Finally, Nachtrieb alleged a claim for declaratory relief against all Defendants.

Whitney G. appeals the entry of a three-year civil harassment restraining order entered against her in favor of N.A. Because Whitney G. failed to provide an adequate appellate record to allow for proper review of her claims, we affirm.

After contested hearings on jurisdiction and disposition, the juvenile court declared the eight-year-old minor, S.L., a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d), and removed her from the custody of her mother, appellant M.L. (mother). The court then awarded full legal and physical custody to the minor’s father, with supervised visitation to mother, and dismissed the dependency. Mother appeals, contending that insufficient evidence supported both the jurisdictional findings and the dispositional order. We find no error in either ruling and therefore must affirm the order of disposition.

At a disposition hearing on two sustained juvenile wardship petitions, counsel for minor Raquel A. requested that the matter be set for a contested hearing. The juvenile court granted the request but also stated it “would like Raquel to go into the Girls in Motion program and to get started forthwith.” It thus ordered her remanded pending the contested hearing. At the contested hearing two weeks later, the court heard evidence and argument, after which it ordered Raquel to complete the Girls in Motion program. On appeal, Raquel contends the court deprived her of due process by predetermining her disposition before hearing evidence at the contested disposition hearing. While the court committed error by remanding Raquel prior to the contested hearing, her constitutional right to due process was not violated and she did not suffer prejudice. We thus affirm.

In August 2016, the family came to the attention of plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) after defendant and appellant J.R. (mother) and her youngest child, H.R., tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of H.R.’s birth. The family consisted of mother, A.R. (father), and seven children: H.R. (female, born Aug. 2016), E.R. (male, born Dec. 2014), N.R. (male, born Aug. 2013), T.R. (male, born Sept. 2010), A.R. (female, born Dec. 2006), P.R. (male, born Aug. 2005) and J.E. (male, born Aug. 2002) (collectively, the children).

Minor F.J. appeals from final dispositional orders requiring him to serve up to 300 days in juvenile hall, with probation terminating upon his release. As required under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note counsel for appellant has filed a Wende brief raising no arguable issues, counsel apprised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief, and appellant did not file such a brief. Upon review of the record for potential error, we find no arguable issues warranting reversal. However, we modify the judgment to correct an error in the calculation of custody credits and affirm the judgment as modified.

Minor E.N. appeals from the denial of his suppression motion. He was detained and found with a concealed knife after a citizen informant told police someone in a group, consisting of minor and three other teens, had threatened her husband because of her husband’s red hat. Minor contends the citizen informant’s report to the officer did not give rise to reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity and thus did not justify minor’s detention.
We affirm.

Steven Stroble appeals from the superior court’s order granting a petition filed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Department). The petition challenged the decision by the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (Commission) that a 30-day suspension without pay or benefits was the appropriate discipline for Stroble, a sheriff’s deputy who committed misconduct while on duty. The original discipline imposed by the Department was discharge from employment. The superior court held that the Commission abused its discretion in reducing Stroble’s discipline to a 30-day suspension without pay, and that the only appropriate discipline was his discharge. Stroble contends the Commission did not abuse its discretion. In the alternative, Stroble contends that even if the Commission abused its discretion, the superior court has no authority to decide Stroble’s discipline. We hold that the Commission abused its discretion in reducing Stroble’s discipline.

Defendant Barbara Landesman (Mother) appeals from a custody order awarding joint legal custody to both parents and sole physical custody to plaintiff Paul Kwon (Father) as long as Mother continues to reside in Toronto, Canada.

Jiu Zhou Group (HK) Holding Limited (JZHK) asserted claims against respondents M. Brothers, Inc. (MB) and Rodney Lo for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and appellants cross-complained against JZHK for breach of contract. Following a bench trial, the court ruled against JZHK on its claims and in favor of respondents on their breach of contract cross-claim, concluding that although MB and Lo failed to establish actual damages, they were entitled to $1,000,000 in liquidated damages.

M. Donnell Snipes (Snipes) represented petitioner at trial. On June 16, 2016, petitioner pled no contest to violations of Penal Code section 459 (burglary) and Health and Safety Code section 11377 (possession of a controlled substance). Petitioner also admitted priors pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b) and (d).
On August 17, 2016, petitioner was scheduled to return for sentencing, but failed to appear. On September 12, 2016, petitioner was sentenced to four years in prison. On September 29, 2016, petitioner contacted Snipes and requested the matter be placed back on calendar so he could withdraw his plea and file an appeal. On October 1, 2016, Snipes submitted the request to place the matter on calendar, and the court calendared the matter for October 27, 2016. On October 27, 2016, petitioner was not present in court and the matter was dropped. Snipes did not file a notice of appeal at that time.

This is an appeal from the juvenile court’s dispositional order after minor K.I. entered a no contest plea to misdemeanor assault in violation of Penal Code section 240. Pursuant to this order, K.I. was placed on probation subject to various terms and conditions, including that she submit to warrantless searches of her electronic devices “[f]or the limited purpose of searching for posting of nude photographs of the minor”; that she successfully complete “all motions of the program, follow all treatment requirements and obey all rules and regulations” of the Girls in Motion program at juvenile hall; and that she maintain “[p]eaceful contact” with the victim (to wit, her mother). On appeal, K.I. challenges these conditions of probation as unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad. For reasons set forth below, we reject her challenges and affirm the order.

Minor D.R. appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders, issued in a wardship proceeding conducted under Welfare and Institutions Code section 600 et seq. Minor argues the juvenile court punished her twice for indivisible conduct committed with a single objective in violation of Penal Code section 654 and that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding true the allegation that she committed felony vandalism that caused in excess of $400 of damage to a police car. We disagree with her first argument and agree with her second. Therefore, we affirm the orders appealed from, except we reverse the court’s finding that minor committed felony vandalism and remand this matter to the juvenile court with the instruction that it sustain the allegation as misdemeanor vandalism.