CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff and respondent Anaheim Hills Planned Community Association (Association) commenced litigation against defendants and appellants Kang-Shen Chen and Shu-Jen Chen in connection with a plethora of purported violations of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s) affecting their residential real property. An oral settlement was reached on the record, for the Chens to take certain actions to remediate the violations. The court subsequently entered a stipulated judgment encapsulating the terms of the settlement, ordering an injunction, finding that the Chens already were in default of the injunction, and providing that the Association was entitled to an expedited trial on damages. Before the trial took place, the Chens filed a notice of appeal, in case No. G046408 (First Appeal).

Angelina G. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders removing her eight-year-old daughter Sophia and seven-year-old son Daniel from her custody pursuant to a supplemental petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 387), terminating its dependency jurisdiction and granting the children’s father sole physical and legal custody. We affirm.

Appellant Malcolm McAlister was dismissed as a correctional officer after prison authorities reviewed a video depicting him shoving an inmate’s head into a door frame. McAlister challenges the superior court’s refusal to disturb the State Personnel Board’s decision sustaining the dismissal, and argues that there was insufficient evidence he intentionally injured the inmate. He also contends that reversal is warranted because seven pages of the administrative record are missing from the clerk’s transcript on appeal. We reject McAlister’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

On October 24, 2013, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Theodore Rios and co-defendant Michael Ramirez with violating Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (c)(3), willfully and unlawfully acquiring and possessing with an intent to defraud the personal identifying information of 10 or more other persons. The complaint also alleged a gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A). The complaint further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior strike under sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivision (b); a serious felony prior under section 667, subdivision (a)(1); and a one-year prison prior under section 667.5.
On December 12, 2013, defendant pled guilty to count 1 and admitted the one-year prison prior. The parties agreed that defendant would be sentenced to a total of four years, the upper term of three years on count 1 and one year for the prison prior to be served consecutively, with the remainder of the complaint to b

Appellants and minors Andrew M. (Andrew) and K. M. (K.) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights with regard to their younger siblings, Paige M. (Paige) and Jenna M. (Jenna). On appeal, Andrew and K. argue that the sibling relationship exception (Welf. and Instit. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v)) applied. The parents, C.M. (father) and A.Y. (mother), filed separate appellate briefs also arguing that the sibling relationship exception applied, and they join in Andrew’s and K.’s brief. Father also joins in mother’s brief. We affirm.

Appellants and minors Andrew M. (Andrew) and K. M. (K.) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights with regard to their younger siblings, Paige M. (Paige) and Jenna M. (Jenna). On appeal, Andrew and K. argue that the sibling relationship exception (Welf. and Instit. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v)) applied. The parents, C.M. (father) and A.Y. (mother), filed separate appellate briefs also arguing that the sibling relationship exception applied, and they join in Andrew’s and K.’s brief. Father also joins in mother’s brief. We affirm.

Plaintiffs and respondents Paul Early and Anne Schneider sued Owings for intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Owings demurred to these claims and concurrently filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the claims were brought to chill the exercise of his First Amendment rights. The trial court sustained Owings’s demurrer without leave to amend and denied his anti-SLAPP motion.
On appeal, Owings contends that the trial court erred in denying his anti-SLAPP motion and that he is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion and this appeal. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant D.G. (minor) admitted that she had committed felony child abuse (Pen. Code, § 237a, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242). In exchange, the remaining allegation was dismissed. Subsequently, minor was declared a ward of the court and placed on probation on various terms and conditions in the custody of her parents. On appeal, minor argues (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her deferred entry of judgment; (2) several of her probation conditions are vague and overbroad and must be modified; and (3) the juvenile court erred in failing to award her credits for the time she spent in custody in Los Angeles County.
We conclude several of minor’s probation conditions are unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad, and order the juvenile court to modify them. We also conclude minor is entitled to additional presentence custody credits, and direct the juvenile court to correct the dispositional m

Defendant LaVon Albert Myers was in an apartment with three other people. A woman (accompanied by a man) arrived and tried to confront one of the occupants. When defendant pulled out a gun, she tried to leave, but defendant started pistol-whipping her. The man accompanying her protested. Defendant shot him four times, killing him.
A jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), with an enhancement for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm, causing death (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)). An enhancement for personal firearm use (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)) was also found true but was stayed. Defendant was sentenced to 40 years to life in prison.

Defendant and appellant Dustin Paul Moore was charged by amended information with carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a), count 1), two counts of robbery (§ 211, counts 2 & 3), two counts of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1), counts 4 & 5), and two counts of false imprisonment by violence (§ 236, counts 6 & 7). As to each count, it was alleged that defendant knew a principal was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (d)), and that defendant personally used a knife during the commission of each offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). It was further alleged that he had three prior strike convictions. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) A jury found defendant guilty of carjacking (count 1), robbery (counts 2 & 3) and false imprisonment (counts 6 & 7). The jury also found all of the allegations true. The trial court dismissed the charges in counts 4 and 5 (kidnapping for robbery), pursuant to the People’

An amended petition alleged minor Michael J. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 because it alleged Michael attempted to steal personal property, by mean of force and fear, from Deyanira G. (in violation of Pen. Code, §§ 211/664), and assaulted her with force likely to cause great bodily injury (in violation of § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and assaulted another person with force likely to cause great bodily injury (in violation of § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Michael moved to suppress the evidence against him, alleging it was the fruit of an unlawful detention. After that motion was denied, the parties agreed to a disposition. Under the agreement, the prosecution filed an amended petition alleging only two counts—that Michael attempted to steal personal property, by mean of force and fear, from Deyanira G. (in violation of §§ 211/664), and Michael stole the property (in violation of § 487, subd. (c))—and Michael agreed to admit the count alleging vi

In this criminal case, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We gave defendant and appellant Marcus Marion Meloan an opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has done so. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error, as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.

Plaintiffs and appellants Earl B. Rideau and Marina Rideau (the Rideaus) entered into an agreement with condominium developer, Inmobiliaria BGJB de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (BGJB; not a party to this appeal), to purchase a unit to be constructed in Mexico. The Rideaus deposited funds toward the purchase price with an escrow company, defendant and respondent Stewart Title of California (Stewart Title). In the "Sale Escrow Instructions" (the Instructions), Stewart Title agreed to receive funds from the Rideaus, to be released at the seller's direction to a fund control company, as specified in the Instructions. The project failed and the Rideaus lost their deposit.
In the Rideaus' prior appeal, we reversed a defense judgment on the basis that the trial court erred in denying their contract claim that Stewart Title had breached the Instructions, when it released their $239,700 deposited funds to entities other than the one specified in the Instructions (California F

Plaintiff Melanie Welch successfully obtained a reversal of an unfavorable judgment in Welch v. State Teachers' Retirement System (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1 (Welch III), an opinion published by an appellate court. Defendant Shaun Martin, a professor of law employed by defendant University of San Diego who authors an internet blog devoted to reporting and commenting on recent published opinions, published an article about Welch III. In the article, he stated Welch III seemed "facially" correct, and perhaps "correct as a legal matter," but mused "maybe all of this is complete justice. But maybe not. Depends profoundly upon your point of view." Welch demanded a retraction of the article and, when Martin refused, filed the present action against Martin and others alleging defamation.
Defendants moved to dismiss Welch's complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly referred to as the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public