CA Unpub Decisions

A.B., mother of minors J.B. and I.B., appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26 & 395.) Mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Mother further contends the juvenile court failed to consider the wishes of the minors, specifically their feelings about her and their relationship with her, as required by section 366.26, subdivision (h)(1).We conclude the juvenile court properly considered the minors’ wishes prior to terminating parental rights, but did not make the necessary findings to determine whether the beneficial parental relationship exception applied. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings

James Douglas appeals from the denial of a petition for recall of sentence and resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, also known as Proposition 36. Douglas claims the trial court erred by finding him unsuitable for relief on grounds that his release from prison would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. We affirm.

On May 5, 2015, personnel with plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS), received a referral regarding Mother for general neglect and emotional abuse of Minor; it was reported Mother would leave Minor for days at a time with the maternal grandparents (MGPs). Mother, who was living with the MGPs, would also apparently leave intermittently with Minor; one time she left and returned with him a week later, during which time Minor lost 10 pounds.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jesus Alejandro Delamora 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 no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
On June 13, 2013, defendant was driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol and methamphetamine when he failed to yield to oncoming traffic at a stop sign and collided with another vehicle. The collision resulted in physical injuries to the driver and passenger of the other vehicle, as well as damage to both vehicles. Defendant had three prior DUI-related convictions.

Susan and Laurie are sisters. In 1991, their parents (hereafter, Mother and Father) established a trust, which they amended and replaced in its entirety in 1999. The parties refer to the 1999 amendment as the “First Amendment”; for clarity and because the 1991 trust is not at issue in this case, we will refer to the 1999 amendment as the “1999 Trust.” The 1999 Trust provided Mother and Father were co-trustees until the death or incapacity of one of them, at which point the other would serve as the sole trustee and “shall have the absolute right to amend or revoke [the 1999 Trust], in whole or in part, at any time except as to any part which is made [i]rrevocable.” Upon the death or incapacity of the surviving trustor, Laurie and Susan would serve as successor co-trustees.

Appellant Jaime Miguel Cordero, Jr., appeals the trial court’s denial of his ex parte motion to modify his restitution fine, which he filed over one year after he was sentenced in this matter. On June 13, 2016, Cordero’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in this matter indicating that she found no issues for appeal and asking this court to independently review the record in this matter pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having done so, we conclude that Cordero’s appeal is not cognizable because the order denying his motion was not an appealable order and we will dismiss the appeal.

In November 2010, Majestic Conversion, Inc. (Majestic) filed a complaint against James Kim and Sukjin Lee (defendants) for defaulting on a loan. As of the date the complaint was filed, defendants had not repaid $422,595 of the debt.

Lemus used to work for Sallas, who was doing business as New West Hardwood Floors, installing and refinishing hardwood floors. Sallas began his hardwood floor business in 1995. It is undisputed that, when Lemus worked for Sallas and his company, New West Hardwood Floors was not incorporated. In June or July 2013, Sallas terminated Lemus from his job. Sallas incorporated New West in either October or November 2013. Sallas explained he is the sole owner, president, manager, and operator of New West, which he incorporated in order “to organize the company better.”

A jury convicted defendant Benjiman Warren Christ of two counts, including assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) On appeal, defendant raises two contentions: (1) his conduct did not constitute a violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) because that subdivision applies only to inherently dangerous or deadly per se weapons; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of simple assault. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

A petition filed December 30, 2015, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleged that the minor I.G. possessed methamphetamine, a misdemeanor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count one), and possessed hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count two). After the minor’s motion to suppress the evidence (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1) was denied, he entered a negotiated admission to count one and count two was dismissed in the interests of justice. The minor was placed on probation for six months subject to certain conditions including 21 days of community service with a maximum confinement term of one year.

On February 3, 2016, Simon Fernandez was overseeing the transfer of items into storage. The items were located in a workshop adjacent to his office, and were being transferred to a nearby building. As part of his work, Fernandez walked back and forth between the two buildings. During these trips, he left his laptop, cell phone and bag on the conference table in the office.
At around 11:20 a.m., Fernandez was walking toward the storage building when he noticed appellant John Bryant near the door to his office. When Fernandez walked back to the office building, he saw appellant coming out of the office. Appellant told Fernandez he was looking for work. Fernandez told appellant to come back inside and talk to the office manager. As Fernandez was escorting appellant, he saw appellant pull out a laptop from under his sweatshirt and place it on a nearby cement ledge.

Father Christopher J. (father) and mother T.B. (mother) appeal from a finding of jurisdiction over their two children, newborn E.J. and two-year-old H.J., under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, subdivision (b). Parents argue that their daily marijuana use did not pose a substantial risk to the children. E.J. tested positive for marijuana at birth. Both parents admitted to marijuana use throughout each day and evening while caring for the children, who were of tender years. The court’s order asserting jurisdiction over the children was supported by substantial evidence, and is therefore affirmed.

In the underlying action, appellant Gisele Johnson asserted claims against respondents Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Hospitals) and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Health Plan) for retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in respondents’ favor on the claims, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over them under the preemption doctrine enunciated in San Diego Bldg. Trades Council et al. v. Garmon (1959) 359 U.S. 236 (Garmon). Johnson challenges that ruling, contending that her claims are not subject to Garmon preemption, that the prior overruling of a demurrer asserting Garmon preemption barred the grant of summary judgment, and that the judgment, as entered, improperly prohibits her from litigating her claims before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). We affirm the judgment.

Appellants Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC (NHOM), Paul Copenbarger, and Izamar Perez appeal from an order denying their motion to strike the second amended complaint of respondent High Seas Yacht Charters, LLC (High Seas), under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. High Seas sued appellants alleging a variety of wrongful acts, including filing notices to quit and unlawful detainer actions.
After the court