CA Unpub Decisions

This case was brought by the homeowners’ association for the Mayfaire residential community in Bakersfield against an individual homeowner, Simranjit Deol. The homeowners’ association (Mayfaire) was governed by a board of directors (Board). Deol’s house within the Mayfaire community burned down on account of arson. A dispute arose between Mayfaire’s Board and Deol over Deol’s alleged failure to maintain and landscape his lot, or timely rebuild his home, in the years following the fire. Mayfaire filed the instant action to enforce the community’s governing declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). The matter eventually proceeded to a bench trial, in which Mayfaire prevailed. The trial court granted injunctive and declaratory relief to Mayfaire.

This is the first of two appeals in the ongoing patent and licensing dispute between appellant Mike Murphy’s Enterprises, Inc. (Murphy) and respondents Fineline Industries, Inc. and Fineline Industries, LLC (collectively Fineline). In this appeal, Murphy raises several issues with the trial court’s judgment following a trial over payments owed under the license agreement between Murphy and Fineline. Although Murphy succeeded in proving a breach of contract, the trial court rejected the majority of Murphy’s claims and theories, made legal rulings and reached factual findings that limited Murphy’s damages case, and eventually entered a judgment that only awarded Murphy limited damages on its claims. The trial court then denied Murphy’s postjudgment motions to vacate the judgment and for a new trial.

A jury found defendant and appellant Mario Adam Molina guilty of stalking in violation of a restraining order (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b), count 1) and found true the allegation that he was subject to a temporary restraining order. The jury also found him guilty of violating a protective order. (§ 273.6, subd. (a), count 2.) A trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years on count 1, plus a concurrent term of one year on count 2.
On appeal, defendant initially contended: (1) the evidence was insufficient to show he stalked the victim while a restraining order was in effect; (2) the concurrent term on count 2 must be stayed pursuant to section 654; and (3) the matter should be remanded for resentencing because the court mistakenly believed it did not have the discretion to grant probation, and it relied on improper and unsupported factors to impose the upper term on count 1. We filed an opinion addressing these contentions.

In 1995, defendant and appellant Ricarda Gomez pled guilty to one count of possession for sale of cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, former § 11351.5, count 1.) A trial court placed her on formal probation for a period of three years, with 180 days in county jail. On January 1, 2017, Penal Code section 1473.7 went into effect. (Stats. 2016, ch. 739, § 1.) It permits a defendant to challenge a conviction based on a guilty plea where prejudicial error affected the defendant’s ability to understand the immigration consequences of the plea. (Pen. Code, § 1473.7.) In 2018, defendant filed a motion to vacate her conviction under Penal Code sections 1016.5 and 1473.7. The court denied the motion.
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying her motion to vacate her conviction. We affirm.

M.M. (Mother) appeals dispositional orders entered in juvenile dependency proceedings declaring her daughter, J.G., a dependent pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (d) and ordering family maintenance services. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) initiated the proceedings when J.G. was seven years old after her parents discovered she was being sexually abused by their roommate.
On appeal, Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering her to participate in a nonprotective parent group. We disagree and affirm the orders.

J.W. (Mother) appeals an order declining to extend her reunification services for minor A.W., who was under three years old at the time of detention, after the six-month review period. Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in declining to extend her services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e)(3). Alternatively, Mother contends she was denied due process and was not given sufficient notice because minor’s counsel did not file a section 388 petition to terminate her services and the court did not make certain findings under section 361.5, subdivision (a)(2)(A)–(C). She also contends the court abused its discretion in denying her attorney’s request to continue the contested hearing due to her absence.
We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that Mother made no substantial progress in her case plan and the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to extend Mother’s services

In 2016, a jury convicted Ian Patrick Guthrie and a codefendant of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found Guthrie had suffered a strike prior conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found true an enhancement allegation that a principal discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53). Guthrie was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life in prison due to the strike prior.
Guthrie appealed and this court affirmed the conviction in People v. Johnson et al. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 26. In 2020, Guthrie filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel and received briefing. At one point the court issued an order to show cause (OSC), but later reconsidered the decision and withdrew it and denied the petition by written order.
Guthrie filed a timely notice of appeal.

This case involves a real property dispute between two landowners in rural Butte County. Plaintiffs David R. and Elizabeth G. Giordano, as trustees of the D & E Giordano Revocable Family Trust (collectively, plaintiffs), filed an action to quiet title to a prescriptive easement to use a dirt road/trail that traverses defendant Merle Knuthson-Loomis’s (defendant’s) property. Plaintiffs claimed that they had used the road openly, notoriously, adversely, and continuously for many years, as it was the only practical means for them to access their own adjoining properties. Defendant opposed their request for a prescriptive easement, arguing that because the public uses the road for recreational purposes, Civil Code section 1009 prevents plaintiffs’ use of the road from ripening into a private prescriptive easement. Defendant also cross-complained for trespass damages and to quiet title to a disputed boundary line.

Daniel Schafer, a teacher at a high school in the Anderson Union High School District (District), had a sexual relationship with one of his students, plaintiff Jane Doe, which included sexual activities in his classroom. Doe sued the District, principal Carol Germano, and superintendent Tim Azevedo for negligent hiring and negligent supervision. We refer to the defendants collectively as the District, except when being more specific is necessary to the discussion. The trial court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the District, finding that there was no evidence the District knew or should have known that Schafer posed a risk of harm to students.
Doe now contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because the District had a duty to supervise and monitor Schafer and Doe and whether the District breached its duty to Doe is a question of fact for the jury.

Brittany V.M. (mother) appeals from the October 4, 2021 order terminating parental rights to her minor children, H.P. and E.V.M. (children), pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Counsel for mother, the children, and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) have filed a joint application and stipulation seeking a limited reversal and remand with directions to the Department and the juvenile court to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.).
Finding that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), are satisfied, we accept the stipulation, conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights, and remand to the juvenile court to permit the parties to comply with the terms of their stipulation and to determine ICWA compliance.

In June 2019, the trial court imposed a six-year sentence, suspended execution of the sentence, and ordered defendant Marie Bennett to serve three years of probation. In April 2021, the trial court summarily revoked defendant’s probation and, after a contested hearing, the court sentenced defendant to state prison.
Defendant mounts two challenges to the revocation of her probation and her resulting prison sentence. First, she contends the trial court did not have jurisdiction to revoke probation because of recent legislation that reduced her probation period to two years, which two-year period expired before the trial court revoked her probation. She arrives at this conclusion by applying her presentence incarceration, which the trial court later included as a condition of her probation, to reduce the new two year probationary period.

The presumed father (Eduardo F.) appeals from the juvenile dependency court’s July 8, 2021 order denying Eduardo’s request for custody of Christopher F., his 16-year-old son. We affirm.

Defendant Rachel Covarrubias appeals from the judgment following her no contest plea to assault with a deadly weapon and criminal threats. Because she did not receive a certificate of probable cause, her appeal is limited to matters occurring after entry of her plea which do not affect the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3).) Her counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We have conducted an independent examination of the entire record and conclude no arguable issues exist. We therefore affirm.

The facts are not disputed. In September 2019, appellant Jeremy Victor Ortiz was charged with nine counts of second degree burglary of storage units and three counts of receiving stolen property. On February 19, 2020, Ortiz pled no contest to two counts of second degree burglary and the remaining counts were dismissed. Ortiz was sentenced to two years eight months, to be served in the Los Angeles County jail. At a subsequent restitution hearing, Ortiz was ordered to make payments to three victims: $145,000 to Jason Yasment, $7,628.25 to David Williams, and $21,654.00 to Kenneth Krown. This appeal is from the restitution orders. We affirm.