CA Unpub Decisions

V.S. (Mother) challenges the juvenile court's denial of reunification services
related to A.A. (Minor 1) based on the prior termination of reunification services for a
half sibling of Minor 1 and Mother's failure to make a reasonable effort to treat the
problems that led to removal of the half sibling. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd.
(b)(10).)1 We conclude there was substantial evidence to support the court's finding
Mother did not make a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of
Minor 1's half sibling. We further conclude the court did not abuse its discretion or
violate Mother's substantive due process rights by denying her reunification services but
granting services to Minor 1's biological father. We affirm the judgment.2

Mother appeals from a judgment declaring her then two-year-old daughter, K.D., a dependent child as described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). Mother came to the attention of child protective services after she was arrested attempting to smuggle methamphetamine into a state prison while K.D. was present. Notwithstanding this incident, the undisputed evidence showed mother had no criminal history, no child welfare history, and no substance abuse history prior to the offense. She admitted the offense, committed herself not to repeat it, was gainfully employed, and had stable housing. On this record, we conclude the evidence of mother’s one-time offense was insufficient to find a current substantial risk of serious physical harm to K.D. at the time of the adjudication hearing. We reverse.

Plaintiff, Satish Shetty, purports to appeal from an order dismissing his appeal which challenged the foreclosure on and the securitization of a loan. Defendant, Standard Pacific Mortgage formerly known as Family Lending Services, Inc., has moved to dismiss the appeal. We agree that plaintiff’s notice of appeal was not timely filed as to defendant.
On August 26, 2015, defendant’s demurrer to the complaint was sustained without leave to amend and the case dismissed in a written order executed by the trial court. On August 31, 2015, the notice of entry of the judgment was filed as to the August 26, 2015 dismissal. There were codefendants who also challenged plaintiff’s complaint. On April 8, 2016, judgment on the pleadings was entered in the codefendants’ favor. The notice of appeal as to defendant was filed on May 13, 2016.

Defendants and appellants Suzann Chatman and Rogers Butler were homeless and
occasional guests of the victim, Michael Burt, who, although he had been homeless, had a
small apartment. Apparently because they believed Burt had provided Chatman with a
date rape drug and then sexually assaulted her, late one evening Chatman and Butler
entered Burt's apartment and began attacking him. According to Burt, at one point, while
Butler held Burt down, Butler told Chatman to find him a knife because, "I'm going to
scalp this fucking Indian." Chatman found a knife, and, while Butler and Chatman held
Burt down, Butler began cutting the front of Burt's scalp; when Burt began bleeding
profusely, Chatman and Butler fled. Burt survived the attack, but, according to one of the
physicians who treated him, he had a laceration on his head that was eight centimeters
long and approximately three-eighths of an inch deep; the physician stated that the
laceration reached Burt's

Plaintiff, Timothy Crayton, appeals from the dismissal of his mandate petition. Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff filed a mandate petition against defendant, John A. Clarke. Defendant is erroneously sued as the Clerk of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiff wanted copies of his documents filed in two older cases sent to him at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff and defendant subsequently entered into a settlement of the mandate petition on June 2, 2015. Plaintiff agreed to pay $150 and defendant agreed to mail copies of all documents contained within the two prior cases. The trial court issued an order to show cause regarding dismissal of the action after the settlement. Plaintiff challenged the order to show cause. Plaintiff contended he had not received all the documents. An order to show cause hearing was held on September 24, 2015. The trial court continued the order to show cause hearing to Octo

In 2014, California Cartage Company, Inc. (California Cartage) brought an inverse condemnation action against the City of Los Angeles, Port of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles Harbor Department (collectively, the City) after the City, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreements, terminated California Cartage’s lease. In 2015, the trial court sustained the City’s demurrer to the second amended complaint (SAC) without leave to amend on the principal ground that California Cartage had failed to plead facts giving rise to a taking.
On appeal, California Cartage contends that the trial court erred by failing to recognize that a taking could occur when a contractual tenancy was terminated in order to implement a public use—in this case, the City’s development of the Southern California international gateway project (the Project). We reject California Cartage’s contention and, accordingly affirm.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In
accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124, we briefly recount
the facts and procedural history. At approximately 12:45 a.m. on April 11, 2015, defendant Victor Ray Castro,
armed with a semiautomatic firearm, approached two minors in West Sacramento, put the
gun to one of the victim’s heads, and then pointed it at the other one, demanding their
2 belongings and shoes. Defendant struck one of the victims in the forehead with the gun.
Defendant took their wallets and cell phones and, as he fled the scene, threatened to burn
their houses down if they reported anything. The victims called police. Defendant was
caught and a loaded semiautomatic handgun was found nearby.

Ramon Velasquez Salas was sentenced to two three strike terms of 25 years to life after he was convicted of committing two felonies in 1994. The sentence on one felony was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. In 2014, Salas filed a petition pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act. The trial court denied the petition concluding Salas was not eligible for resentencing.
The issue presented is whether the trial court’s eligibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. For the reasons explained below, we conclude it is not and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

The People appeal from the trial court’s order granting defendant Telly Watts’s petition for habeas corpus. The People assert the court erred in striking one of his prior prison term enhancements on the ground the felony underlying the enhancement had been reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to the resentencing provision of Proposition 47, Penal Code section 1170.18. We agree and reverse the order.

Plaintiff Brandy Cheatham filed a petition for a writ of mandate that sought to
overturn a decision of defendant State Personnel Board (Board), which had sustained her
dismissal from employment with real party in interest Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (Department). The trial court denied the petition.On appeal, plaintiff contends she did not have any notice that the “discourteous”
treatment of a coworker or member of the public could be the basis for dismissal; the
Board improperly considered uncharged conduct in rendering its decision; and dismissal
was excessive punishment for her misconduct. We shall affirm the judgment.

Aaron Daniel Benson (defendant) drove his truck through the side of an elderly woman’s house, killing her. A jury convicted him of second degree murder and gross vehicular manslaughter. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defenses of imminent peril and necessity after he testified that he drove while drunk to get away from another man who had grabbed his buttocks. Because defendant had other options available for removing himself from the situation, but opted not to pursue them because he did not “want to be rude,” the court did not err in declining to instruct on those defenses. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.

Appellant Big Casey’s, Inc. (Big Casey’s) brought an action for malicious prosecution against respondents Octalion, LLC (Octalion), Simkin & Associates, Inc., and attorney Michael J. Simkin. Respondents filed a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 -- the law designed to curtail the filing of strategic lawsuits against public participation -- often called the “anti-SLAPP law.” The trial court granted the motion, and Big Casey’s timely appealed. We affirm.

Mario Hernandez appeals a postjudgment orderdenying his Proposition 47 applications to reclassify his seconddegree
burglary convictions (Pen. Code, § 459)1
as misdemeanorconvictions. (§ 1170.18, subd. (f).) The trial court found that
appellant’s use of stolen and altered credit cards to make
purchases in the amount of $950 or less at a commercial
establishment during regular business hours did not meet the
statutory definition of misdemeanor shoplifting as set forth in section 459.5, subdivision (a). We reverse. (People v. Gonzales
(2017) 2 Cal.5th 858, 862.)

This case illustrates the wisdom of the Croatian proverb: “Better a bad harvest than a bad neighbor.” The next door neighbors in this case have been engaged in a cycle of harassment and litigation for nearly 15 years. The latest bout was mediated to settlement, but one of the neighbors who agreed to the short-form settlement terms refused to sign the finalized longer-form settlement. The other neighbors brought a motion to enforce the short-form settlement agreement and for sanctions. The trial court granted both motions, and the first neighbor appeals. We construe the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate, and deny the petition, thereby affirming the trial court’s grant of other motions.