CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs and appellants Benjamin Andoh-Kesson and Emelia Andoh-Kesson (plaintiffs) appeal from a judgment awarding attorneys fees to defendant, San Juan Meadows Homeowners Association following plaintiffs’ dismissal of their first amended complaint on the eve of a demurrer hearing. Plaintiffs contend the lower court erred in determining (1) plaintiffs’ case was based on enforcing governing documents under Civil Code section 5975, subdivision (c) (all further undesignated statutory references are to this code); and (2) defendant is the prevailing party. In an undeveloped argument difficult to discern, plaintiffs also request we undertake a merits review. We deem this a request to review the trial court’s pre-dismissal grant of defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We find no error and accordingly affirm.

Erica A. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order. We agree that the trial court erred in finding jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g), and otherwise affirm.

Appellant, David G. Scott (David), appeals from an order denying his motion to modify spousal support. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law in denying his motion. David’s claim of legal error is not supported by the law. David also failed to support his claims with an adequate record on appeal. He has elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter’s transcript of the hearing in this matter. This is referred to as a “judgment roll” appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) Moreover, David has omitted several documents on which the trial court relied in reaching its decision. On the face of this record, no error has been established. Accordingly, we affirm.

Wachovia Bank originated a $6 million commercial loan to defendants Haim Revah and Revah Holdings, Inc. (defendants) in August 2008. Wachovia Bank merged into Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) in March 2010. Several months later, defendants entered into a loan modification agreement with Wells Fargo and signed a new promissory note in its favor. Defendants defaulted on the loan. In June 2014, Wells Fargo initiated this action. Upon Wells Fargo’s application, the superior court issued a right to attach order. The Wells Fargo/Revah documents contained arbitration provisions, and Wells Fargo moved under the CAA to compel “the parties to arbitrate the claims alleged in this action.” Although defendants acknowledged the arbitration agreements and asserted in the 24th affirmative defense that “the claims raised [in the complaint] are subject to a binding arbitration agreement,” they opposed the motion, arguing Wells Fargo waived the right to arbitrate by filing the compl

On September 29, 2010, the People filed a felony information alleging defendant had committed first degree burglary (count 1; Pen. Code, § 459) while a person other than an accomplice was present (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)), two counts of unlawfully driving or taking of a vehicle (counts 2-3; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) after having suffered a prior conviction for theft of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)), and attempted theft of a vehicle (count 4; Pen. Code, § 664; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The People additionally alleged defendant had suffered six prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) for the following convictions: (1) vehicle theft with a prior on November 5, 2003; (2) vehicle theft with a prior on November 4, 2002; (3) vehicle theft with a prior on June 30, 1998; (4) vehicle theft on September 9, 1993; (5) felon in possession of a firearm on April 3, 1992; and (6) receiving stolen property on June 2, 19

On the morning of March 15, 2015, defendant saw the homicide victim, Cass Edison, walking down the street; he offered her a ride. She told defendant that if he bought her a bottle of vodka, she would have sex with him. Defendant bought the vodka and took Edison to his trailer where they engaged in sexual intercourse and drank the entire bottle of vodka.
Edison then offered to have anal sex with defendant if he bought a second bottle of vodka. Defendant procured a second bottle, then he had anal sex with Edison, which caused her to “defecate all over the trailer.” This “caused the defendant to ‘snap.’ ” Defendant grabbed Edison and dragged her through the trailer, banging her head “against everything in the trailer that he could.”

A jury found Brian Michael Rodriguez guilty of 22 felonies and 3 misdemeanors arising out of his relentless and nearly fatal physical abuse of Vanessa Doe, his cohabitant and the mother of his two children. He was sentenced to a total term in state prison of 31 years and 8 months.

Defendants Marcus Logan and Gabriel McAlister were convicted by jury of murdering Timothy Schweiss. The prosecution’s theory was that Logan, McAlister, and another man, co-defendant Marlyn Stewart, lured Schweiss into an apartment complex to rob him; during the commission of that robbery, McAlister pulled out a handgun and shot Schweiss in the abdomen. Each defendant was charged with first-degree murder and attempted robbery. With respect to the murder count, it was alleged as a special circumstance that the murder was committed during an attempted robbery. With respect to each count, it was also alleged McAlister personally discharged a firearm causing

The plaintiffs in these consolidated appeals filed suit against the brokers who represented them in the sale of their homes and a group of companies that provided services in connection with those sales. Plaintiffs contend defendants violated their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose alleged kickbacks paid by the service providers to the brokers in connection with the sales.
Defendants filed motions to compel arbitration of these claims on the basis of three separate agreements, at least one of which was executed by each plaintiff. The trial court found the arbitration clauses in two of the agreements inapplicable, but it compelled the signatories of the third agreement to arbitrate with their brokers. Invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the court also required the signatories of the third agreement to arbitrate their claims against the service providers, who were not parties to the arbitration agreements. Defendants have appealed the court’s refusal to compel arbi

Petitioner Ja.S. (Mother), mother of eight-year-old J.S., seeks review by extraordinary writ, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, of the juvenile court’s order setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends (1) there was substantial evidence that setting a section 366.26 hearing to consider a plan of legal guardianship was not in the best interest of J.S., who was in long term foster care, and (2) the Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (Bureau) erroneously failed to file a petition under section 388, which was required to seek modification of the existing court order of long term foster care. We shall deny the petition for extraordinary writ.

Mother appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order removing the children from her custody and ordering mother to participate in services. Mother argues that the order is infected with structural error because the trial court denied mother’s right to substitute counsel at the dispositional hearing. We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion.

M.C. entered the juvenile dependency system when she was 19 months old after her mother, Hannah C. (Mother), was seen on hospital surveillance footage force-feeding and gagging M.C. After receiving more than two years of services, Mother failed to reunify with M.C. The juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights and selected adoption as M.C.'s permanent plan under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the court erred in finding there was not a beneficial parent-child relationship between her and M.C. that precluded termination of her parental rights. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We find no error and affirm.

Father of minor L.A. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating visitation with the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.1.) Finding no error, we affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Police officers found Haley G. (Haley), a two-year-old child, alone on a busy street, near a steep beach cliff, at midnight. Officers also located K.R. (Mother), who was intoxicated and had ingested methamphetamine. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) subsequently filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition based on Mother’s substance abuse. DCFS later added an allegation that marijuana use by Harley G. (Father) prevented him from regularly caring for Haley. Mother has not appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding. Father also does not challenge the court’s finding regarding Mother. However, Father contends that the court’s finding regarding his marijuana use was not supported by substantial evidence. He also challenges the court’s order that his visits with Haley be monitored.