CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found defendant Davis Nguyen guilty of possessing a controlled substance in prison. (Pen. Code, § 4573.6.) On appeal, defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred by: (1) failing to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity; (2) excluding the testimony of the prisoner defendant claimed supported his necessity defense; and (3) instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 361, the “failure to explain” instruction. We affirm the judgment.

R.K. petitions for extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency plan hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l)(1).) We deny the petition.

At the six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)), the juvenile court found that Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (the County) failed to provide R.K. with reasonable family reunification services. At the 12-month permanency hearing held just two weeks later (§ 366.21, subd. (f)), the court found that the County had provided R.K. with reasonable services. R.K. appeals from the latter finding, and requests an additional six months of services. Because he has now received those services, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

Ann Drobner Darsky (Drobner) and Aaron Darsky were married in 2005 and separated in 2010. They have two children, who were five and three years old when the couple separated. In December 2010, Drobner petitioned for dissolution of their marriage. Over three years of litigation in San Francisco County family court followed. On August 29, 2014, the court issued findings and an order regarding certain financial disputes between Drobner and Darsky, ruling mostly in Darsky’s favor.
Drobner appeals from these findings and order, contending the family court had previously and finally resolved certain issues in an August 1, 2011 order, and was barred by the doctrine of res judicata from modifying this previous order except prospectively and even then only by proper notice of motion or order to show cause. Drobner further argues that the parties agreed to bear their own attorney fees and costs as of the date of the August 1, 2011 order and the trial court lacked authority to award su

Appointed counsel for appellant, minor Robert G., asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case. Appellant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm the judgment.

Following a contested hearing, the Kern County Juvenile Court found proven allegations of attempted extortion (Pen. Code, § 524) and disorderly conduct (§ 647, subd. (j)(3)(A)) against then 16-year-old Cruz R. The court declared Cruz a ward of the court, placed him on probation not to extend past his 21st birthday, and committed him to the custody of Camp Erwin Owen for three years two months. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 602, 725, subd. (b).)
On appeal, Cruz challenges a probation condition barring him from using, accessing, viewing, or participating in any social networking websites. He contends the condition is unconstitutionally vague because the court did not define the term “social networking site” and because the condition does not contain an express knowledge requirement; it is unconstitutionally overbroad because the court did not narrowly tailor the condition to its purpose; and the condition is unreasonable because it has no relationship to the deterrence of future

Plaintiff and appellant Guadalupe Ramirez sued defendant and respondent Valley Kia (Kia) and others for (1) fraud; (2) “violation of Penal Code”; (3) misappropriation of identity; (4) rescission and restitution; and (5) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The trial court granted a motion for nonsuit on the misappropriation of identity cause of action. A jury found in favor of Ramirez on the fraud and debt collection causes of action. The jury awarded Ramirez $2,500 for noneconomic damages, and $58,000 in punitive damages. The trial court reduced the punitive damages to $8,400. The trial court granted Kia’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the fraud cause of action. As a result, punitive damages were eliminated, leaving Ramirez with $2,500 in noneconomic damages.

George and Perlita Newman appeal from an order of the superior court declining to consider their request for an injunction to prevent Quality Loan Service Corporation (Quality Loan) from foreclosing on their home. The Newmans contend that the superior court improperly considered written materials that Quality Loan submitted in opposition to their application and denied them opportunity to review or refute those materials, and that Quality Loan neither provided them with, nor recorded, a notice of default before noticing the sale of the property. On the record presented on appeal, we must affirm the order.

Plaintiff John Cobb, appearing in propria persona, appeals a judgment of dismissal following the trial court's sustaining, without leave to amend, demurrers filed by the County of San Diego, William D. Gore, Henry C. Coker, Nicole Ing, Dan Nguyen, and Jaraal Wallace (the County defendants) and the City of San Diego (the City).
Cobb has not met his burden as the appellant to demonstrate reversible error with respect to the trial court's sustaining of the demurrers as to the vast majority of the operative pleading. However, as to Cobb's allegations that defendant Nguyen unlawfully obtained Cobb's DNA through an unconsented taking of a buccal swab sample, it appears that Cobb has sufficiently demonstrated the possibility of curing the defects in the operative pleading. We therefore reverse the judgment only insofar as it dismisses defendant Nguyen and does not permit Cobb an opportunity to amend the complaint to allege a civil rights claim against Nguyen based on this

After disputes arose between defendant and appellant Janet Justin Caine and plaintiff and respondent Kaveh S. Farhoomand concerning a residential real estate transaction, Farhoomand obtained a judgment in part granting specific performance of a contract for transfer of the residence from Caine to Farhoomand and awarding Farhoomand attorney fees and costs as sanctions. Pending the first appeal in this case (Farhoomand v. Caine (Jun. 25, 2015, D064302) [nonpub. opn.]), the trial court ordered the promissory note on the property posted as an undertaking to stay enforcement of the judgment and set up a blocked account into which Farhoomand transferred funds received from the property's refinance. Following resolution of the appeal, the court granted Farhoomand's request to distribute proceeds from the home's sale from the account.

Respondents NPR Foundation, San Diego State University Research Foundation/KPBS, US Fund for Unicef, and Doctors Without Borders/Médicins Sans Frontières (MSF) (collectively "the Charities") are each a 25 percent beneficiary of a trust that decedent Siv H. Ljungwe (Siv) executed in 2004 (2004 Trust). The Charities brought this action against Siv's attorney, appellant Carl Dimeff, seeking to invalidate a trust instrument that Siv executed in 2008 (2008 Trust), which named Dimeff as the sole beneficiary. The Charities alleged that the 2008 Trust is invalid because: Siv lacked capacity to execute the 2008 Trust (first cause of action); Dimeff procured the execution of the 2008 Trust by means of undue influence (second cause of action); and Dimeff is statutorily disqualified from benefiting from the 2008 Trust because he helped draft it (former Prob. Code, § 21350, subd. (a)(1)) (third cause of action).

Appointed counsel for defendant Troy Michael McLaughlin has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist 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.
On March 7, 2014, defendant and his codefendant Lacey Renee Holmes entered Gary Hall’s home, uninvited, through an unlocked door. Inside the home, defendant stole several items including jewelry, silverware, a Skilsaw, a credit card, and a flat screen television.

This appeal arises out of a wrongful death medical malpractice action brought by Donna Chiesa against Dignity Health doing business as Mark Twain St. Joseph’s Hospital (the Hospital) on grounds the Hospital negligently caused the death of her mother, Sarah V. McDowell. The trial court granted the Hospital’s motion for summary judgment on grounds Chiesa filed her complaint after the one-year statute of limitations imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 (section 340.5) had elapsed.

S.G. appeals orders granting two petitions extending his involuntary commitment because he represents “a substantial danger of physical harm to others” because of a mental disorder (Pen. Code, §§ 1026, 1026.5), after having been found not guilty by reason of insanity for attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, 1026). We conclude, among other things, that: 1) the trial court properly sustained a March 3, 2014, petition to extend S.G.’s commitment (§ 1026.5), but 2) it erred by granting a December 4, 2015, petition (§ 1026.5) to extend the commitment to July 2, 2018, because it did not obtain S.G.’s personal waiver of his right to a jury trial on that petition. (People v. Tran (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1160, 1167, 1170.) We affirm in part and reverse in part.