CA Unpub Decisions

K.C. (Mother) appeals orders of the juvenile court terminating parental rights to her sons A.C. and E.C. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 and placing them for adoption. She contends the court erred by concluding it had subject matter jurisdiction over her children's cases under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA, Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.). The parties agree that Mexico is her children's home state. Although the court sent two e-mails to Mexico courts inquiring whether they declined to exercise jurisdiction over the children's cases in favor of California's assumption of jurisdiction, Mother argues on appeal that the court erred by not verifying and authenticating on the record that those e-mails were sent to the correct e-mail addresses and appropriate judicial authorities in Mexico and that those e-mails were actually received by those authorities.

Nicholas Harris, who is appearing in pro. per., appeals a three-year restraining order prohibiting him from harassing his ex-girlfriend and housemate, Linda Ann Fuller. (Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA); Fam. Code, §6200 et seq.) Unfamiliar with the principles of law governing the trial court’s ruling and the limited scope of appellate review, Harris lodges 18 arguments, some only marginally coherent, expressing his frustration with his ex-girlfriend and the trial court and his apparent belief he has been misunderstood and mistreated throughout proceedings he characterizes as unfair. We have attempted to synthesize his arguments into cogent and cognizable legal issues to the extent possible. We conclude the arguments are without merit, and affirm.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Board of Rights (Board) found LAPD Officer Betty Dove guilty of one count of inappropriately accessing an LAPD computer system and two counts of making false statements to internal affairs investigators. After the Board recommended that Dove be removed from the LAPD, the chief of police terminated Dove’s employment.
Dove petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate to set aside the decision to terminate her employment. The court denied the petition and Dove appealed. She contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the Board’s findings and that a statute of limitation bars the LAPD’s claims. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment.

Defendants Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC (Management) and Douglas Cavanaugh (collectively, Defendants) challenge the trial court’s order disqualifying the law firm of Kohut & Kohut LLP (Kohut) from continuing to represent Defendants in the underlying matter. Plaintiffs Douglas L. Salisbury, as trustee of the DLS Living Trust, Philip de Carion, and Gina de Carion (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought this derivative lawsuit on behalf of Beachcomber at Crystal Cove, LLC (Company) to challenge various actions Defendants took as the sole managing member of the Company.

Defendant and appellant Omar Alejandro Aguirre challenges his conviction for resisting an executive officer in the performance of his duty. He contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that voluntary intoxication was not a defense. We affirm.

The juvenile court found J.T. (Minor) was generally and specifically adoptable. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendant and appellant J.L. (Mother). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) Mother contends the juvenile court erred by finding Minor is generally and specifically adoptable. We affirm the judgment.

A jury found defendant and appellant Andre Merritt guilty of two counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The jury found true the allegations that defendant personally used a firearm during both robberies. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for a term of 19 years four months. Defendant raised two issues on appeal.
Our Supreme Court resolved the first issue in this case. (People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819.) The first issue was whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the crime of robbery—the whole instruction was omitted. (CALCRIM No. 1600.) The Supreme Court concluded the error was harmless. (Merritt, at p. 832.)

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, defendant Scott Nelson Hackler pleaded guilty to five narcotics trafficking felonies and a misdemeanor and admitted to being personally armed with a firearm during the commission of a narcotics trafficking felony. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 3 years eight months.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress.

Following the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence and to discover police personnel files, defendant Jose Campos-Barajas pleaded no contest to transportation of cocaine for sale and admitted an allegation that he possessed greater than one kilogram of cocaine. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in the search of his car following a traffic stop because the arresting officer prolonged the detention beyond what was reasonably necessary to address the traffic infraction, and by denying his motion to discover police personnel files because he satisfied the low threshold showing of good cause by contesting the basis of his traffic violation. We will affirm the judgment.

Appointed counsel for defendant Dale Wayne Burns 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).) Finding an error in the calculation of presentence credits, we shall modify the award of credits and affirm the judgment as modified.

This appeal concerns the proper location to adjudicate insurance coverage issues arising from the fatal crash of a business jet in Egelsbach, Germany in March 2012. Plaintiff and appellant Asia Today, Ltd. (Asia Today), a Hong Kong company, purchased the policy from defendant and respondent Global Aerospace Underwriting Managers (Global). Rainer Schultz, a German citizen who owned Asia Today, was piloting the plane and Jon Felipe DeLeon Jose (Jose) was the copilot. Both were killed.
The policy is written in German and states that it is governed by German law. The policy contains a forum selection clause identifying London, England (where Global is headquartered) or Cologne, Germany (where the policy was issued) as the locations with jurisdiction over actions arising from the policy. The trial court dismissed the action, finding that the forum selection clause was mandatory, not permissive, and that Appellants therefore must pursue their claims in England or Germany.

Donald Solsby appeals from a judgment following the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Plaza Bank (the Bank)—Solsby’s former employer—on a claim for breach of the Bank’s obligation to pay him a bonus.
Solsby originally sued the Bank, which is insured by the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and is thus subject to its regulation, alleging it had breached the terms of his severance agreement in two ways: first, when the Bank failed to pay him $165,000 owed in connection with the Bank’s “change in control;” and second, when it failed to pay him an additional $165,000 owed as a consequence of the termination of his employment. However, in a prior opinion, we affirmed the trial court’s summary adjudication of Solsby’s claim for the latter payment, which qualified as a prohibited “golden parachute” under title 12 United States Code section 1828(k). (Solsby v. Plaza Bank (Feb. 17, 2015, G049272) [nonpub. opn.] (Solsby I).

Plaintiff and Appellant RFG-SJG, LLC (RFG) appeals an order denying its application for a preliminary injunction, which sought to prevent the sale of real property located on University Avenue in San Diego (subject property) by its owner, defendant and respondent R.S. Bills, Inc. (Bills), to codefendant and co-respondent Cypress Development, Inc. (Cypress). The court denied RFG's application after finding the issue of whether RFG could exercise a right of first refusal (ROFR) to buy the subject property had been litigated and resolved against RFG in a related unlawful detainer action brought by Bills, which judgment RFG has appealed to the appellate division of the superior court.

A trial court may consider criminal conduct in a probation revocation hearing even after an acquittal of the same criminal conduct. (In re Coughlin (1976) 16 Cal.3d 52, 59.) Here, the trial court held a probation revocation hearing prior to defendant’s acquittal, and another judge supplemented the evidence after defendant’s acquittal. Both judges concluded that defendant’s probation should be revoked.
On appeal, defendant Tival Karon Wright requests a new probation revocation hearing, arguing that the procedures employed were improper and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction when it imposed judgment. We find no error and affirm.