CA Unpub Decisions

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) and 11-month-old Ivan M. appeal the order dismissing the Department’s petition to declare Ivan a dependent child of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The Department and Ivan contend the evidence presented at the jurisdiction hearing compelled a finding that Ivan was subject to dependency jurisdiction based on his mother’s unresolved history of substance abuse. We reverse and remand for the court to conduct a disposition hearing based on Ivan and his mother’s current circumstances.

V.C. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders made after the juvenile court adjudged her children E.A. (born in 2010) and M.A. (born in 2013) dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Mother contends that the evidence did not support the jurisdictional findings or the disposition orders. We disagree. As we shall explain, sufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that a substantial risk of harm existed to the children because of Mother’s abuse of drugs and alcohol and that the children would not be protected without their removal from her custody. Accordingly, we affirm.

Appellants Griselda G. (mother) and Hector S. (father) separately appeal from the juvenile court’s termination of their parental rights over daughters Abigail S. (Abigail) (born July 2013) and Andrea S. (Andrea) (born Aug. 2014). Additionally, mother appeals from the court’s denial of her petition for modification pursuant to section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. We find no error and affirm.

John Freitas, proceeding in propria persona, attempts to challenge a judgment dismissing, with prejudice, his first amended complaint (FAC) against Bank of America, N.A. Freitas contends the trial court erred in sustaining Bank of America’s demurrer without leave to amend. On the record before us, we must affirm.

Again before us is the prolonged dispute involving the eight children of James DeMartini, Sr., and Thelma, and their respective spouses, who received bequests of real property in equal shares of James, Sr.’s and Thelma’s fairly extensive real property holdings located in San Anselmo and in Nevada County. The parties are cross-complainants and respondents Michael and his wife Renate along with James C. and his wife Ruth, and cross-defendants and appellants Timothy and his wife Margie along with Daniel and his wife Linda, David and his wife Nancy, Mark and his wife Laurie, Jon and his wife Lynne, and Sally Humphreys and her husband Newell (the Timothy Group or Group). This is the third appeal filed in this matter following an interlocutory judgment of partition issued in 2011. In this appeal, the Timothy Group argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting in part and denying in part their motion for an award of attorney fees and costs. We find no abuse of discret

Petitioner and appellant County of Los Angeles (County) petitioned for writ of administrative mandamus to overturn a decision by the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (the Commission). Real party in interest Daniel Genao (Genao) filed a demurrer, contending the petition was untimely. After granting County leave to amend once, the trial court sustained Genao’s demurrer to the first amended petition without leave to amend. We affirm.

Appointed counsel for defendant Pedro Lopez, Jr., has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Bart Enterprises International, Ltd. appeals from a summary judgment. Defendants AIS Gallagher, also known as Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. (AIS Gallagher), and R-T Specialty LLC are insurance brokers. Defendants procured insurance for plaintiff to transport via truck a video tape library from Miami, Florida, to Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff was also transporting a substantial amount of wine with the video tapes and informed defendants of this fact in an e-mail dated May 12, 2011. Defendants told plaintiff they did not believe the concurrent wine shipment would be an issue as to coverage for the video tape library, but they did not inform the insurer about the wine. The truck carrying the video tape library and the wine was stolen on May 17, 2011.

Defendant Christopher Dewayne Warsaw appeals from the judgment following a trial at which the jury convicted him of nine counts of attempted murder of a peace officer (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664; counts 1-8, 10); nine counts of assault on a peace officer with a semiautomatic weapon (§ 245, subd. (d)(2); counts 11-18, 20); two counts of false imprisonment of hostage (§ 210.5; counts 23-24); and one count each of kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count 21); possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 25); and forcible rape of a child 14 years or older (§ 261, subd. (a)(2); count 27). The jury also found true the attendant sentencing allegations.

A jury found defendant and appellant Alejandro Pineda (Pineda) guilty of first degree residential robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 2); assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); count 3); murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 4); and first degree burglary (§ 459; count 8). A separate jury found defendant and appellant Jaime Augustin Negrete (Negrete) guilty of murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 5); possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 6); and first degree burglary (§ 459; count 8). The juries also found true that Negrete personally used a handgun within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) through (d), that the murder was committed while defendants were engaged in the commission of a burglary, pursuant to section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17), that the crimes were committed to further the activities of a criminal street gang, pursuant to section 190.2, subdivision (a)(22), that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang,

This appeal involves the convictions of three appellants -- Yabao Lai, Sinh Van Pham, and Pham’s wife, Lixia Ban -- for unlawfully growing large amounts of marijuana in four homes in Elk Grove and Sacramento. Specifically, a jury found appellants guilty of possession of marijuana for sale, conspiracy to cultivate marijuana, and unlawful cultivation of marijuana. At trial, the case involved more defendants who are not part of this appeal, including Guanmao Chen, Shunyi Chen, Mu Yang Li, Ivan Tu, and Fa Yin Xian.

Over the course of two jury trials, defendant Christopher Dargen was found guilty of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and misdemeanor possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (c)). A jury also found true the allegations that a person other than an accomplice was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)), and that defendant personally used a deadly weapon, i.e., a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of eight years six months in prison.

Defendant John Lynn Bolen was charged by amended information with willful, deliberate and premediated attempted murder of a peace officer (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) (count 1) and assault on a peace officer with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (d)(2)) (count 2). The amended information further alleged enhancements to both counts for personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and personal discharge of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). Defendant pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (§ 1026).

Eugene Allen was convicted of four counts of second degree robbery arising from a single incident involving four victims. Three of the victims testified but the fourth, K.K., did not. Allen contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he took property from K.K.’s person or immediate presence or that he did so by means of force or fear. Sufficient evidence supports the verdicts, so we affirm.