CA Unpub Decisions

Anshul Jain filed a complaint against this former employer, RJT Compuquest, Inc. (RJT), alleging that he was wrongfully terminated due to his mental disability, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 129000 et seq.). After settling his action for $75,000 following a one-day mediation, he filed a motion seeking over $620,000 in attorney fees and costs. The superior court found he was entitled to attorney fees and costs, but awarded a reduced amount. On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the requested hourly rates and reasonable time expended, and denying a positive fee enhancement. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Michelle T. (mother) appeals from the jurisdictional findings and dispositional order declaring her child, T.A., a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). Mother contends the jurisdictional findings were erroneous because there was insufficient evidence her drug use placed the child at risk of suffering serious harm. In the same vein, she argues the dispositional order must be reversed because it was based on the juvenile court’s improper jurisdictional findings.
On March 30, 2017 (after mother’s opening brief on appeal was filed), the juvenile court entered orders terminating jurisdiction and granting mother legal and physical custody of T.A. On April 17, 2017, the Department of Children and Family Services filed two motions: for judicial notice of the juvenile court’s March orders; and to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order terminating jurisdiction rendered the appeal moot. Mother filed an opposition to the

C.C. (father) appeals an order terminating his parental rights and finding his daughter and her younger half sister (who is not his daughter) likely to be adopted. He argues the adoptability finding must be reversed because the record contains insufficient evidence about his daughter’s medical condition (Marfan syndrome) and whether the prospective adoptive parents were able to meet her unique needs. We conclude substantial evidence supports the adoptability finding, and affirm.

B.A. (mother) appeals from the dependency court’s October 31, 2016 order terminating her parental rights over K.A., age seven. She contends the trial court erroneously found the beneficial parental relationship exception under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 inapplicable. We affirm.

S.P. (Mother), mother of eight-year-old Amelia H. and seven-year-old Lawrence H., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights and ordering adoption as the permanent plan, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends these orders must be reversed because the court erred when it found she had failed to establish the applicability of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption. We shall affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

In this juvenile dependency case, defendant and appellant A.R. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s August 26, 2016 dispositional order removing her five children from her custody. Mother argues substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s order. We conclude Mother has waived her argument on appeal and, therefore, affirm the order.

Following a bench trial, the trial court found that plaintiffs, cross defendants, and respondents Firouzeh Gharaee and Ruth Cea (together, Respondents) made a loan to defendant Jose Luis Ramirez, Sr., and his business entities and the loan was secured by a deed of trust on real property. The court found that the loan was memorialized by a writing that satisfied the statute of frauds. The judgment awarded money damages of $393,000 based on claims the loan was not repaid and included a decree of judicial foreclosure of the deed of trust.
Appellants are Jose Luis Ramirez, Sr., Ramirez Family Trust, the Olimpia Family Revocable Trust, Dated October 13, 2014 (the Olimpia Trust), and Rosalva Ramirez (collectively, Appellants).

Fannie Mae filed a complaint against Gianfranco A. Marchesiello after he failed to comply with various agreements requiring him to pay default interest on an outstanding real property loan. Gianfranco cross-complained against Fannie Mae, alleging the default interest provisions constituted an unenforceable penalty. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined the interest provisions were valid and enforceable and entered judgment for Fannie Mae.

Michael Chavez filed this action against respondents CIT Bank, N.A. et al. (CIT Bank) and OWB REO, LLC (OWB). Chavez's complaint included claims styled as "set aside and invalidate foreclosure sale," quiet title, and fraud. (Boldface & capitalization omitted.) Chavez alleged that OWB purported to be the holder of title to Chavez's real property, but that Chavez is the true and proper owner of the property. Chavez supported this allegation by contending that OWB's claim to title was premised on a trustee's deed issued after a nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to a void deed of trust (Deed of Trust) that had been assigned to OneWest Bank. Chavez claimed that the Deed of Trust was "void" for two reasons.

Defendants and appellants Naseem Akhtar, Mahmood Arif, Singh Variyam, and Ghulam Sarwar (defendants) filed a motion to vacate the default and judgment entered against them by plaintiff and respondent Victor Ramirez Acevedo. The trial court denied defendants’ motion. Defendants contend the trial court erred because (1) their motion was timely; (2) they presented sufficient evidence of fraud or mistake; and (3) the complaint failed to provide sufficient notice due to three names being incorrect on the complaint. We affirm the judgment.

Defendants Ivan Vargas and Destiny Martinez were convicted by a jury of several offenses including assault, burglary and vandalism in connection with an altercation at an apartment complex. The two victims, who witnessed an associate of Vargas and Martinez steal a box of strawberries from a traveling vendor’s cart, confronted defendants about that theft, precipitating the attack.

Timothy Bernard Hayden appeals from a judgment entered following his negotiated plea of no contest to two counts of armed robbery. Hayden’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. After independently examining the record, we affirm.

Defendant Sean Alden Gardner was charged with misdemeanor elder abuse (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1)). After the trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, the People appealed the order to the appellate division of the superior court (appellate division). The appellate division affirmed the order and denied the People’s application for certification. This court granted the People’s petition to transfer. We conclude that the officers’ entry into defendant’s home was justified by the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement. Thus, the order is reversed.

Defendant and appellant Louis Charles Borgen was convicted of burglary of an inhabited dwelling while another person was present (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). He was sentenced to a term of six years, to be served concurrently with a term imposed on a separate burglary conviction and given credit for time he was in custody.
Borgen's only contention on appeal is that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. In particular, Borgen argues the fingerprint examiner who concluded a fingerprint left at the scene of the burglary matched a known print provided by Borgen, did not base his opinion on objective facts but on the examiner's own subjective analysis. However, the examiner's methodology has been considered and approved by a number of courts.