CA Unpub Decisions

G.M. (father) and J.L. (mother) appeal from an order finding dependency jurisdiction under Welfare & Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), over their 18-month-old daughter (the minor). Father also challenges the order removing the minor from his custody.

Krystal B. (mother) appeals the findings and orders entered at a six-month review hearing held under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21. Because it is undisputed that the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.), mother contends that the orders must be conditionally reversed and remanded. We remand for compliance with ICWA but conditionally affirm the findings and orders of the juvenile court in all other respects.

Antonio E., Sr. (Father), appeals from the final custody order entered by the juvenile court when it terminated jurisdiction over 15-year-old twins Antonio E., Jr. (Antonio), and Manuel E. at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 364 status review hearing. Father contends the court violated his due process rights in entering the custody order granting Lorena H. (Mother) sole legal and physical custody of the children without providing him actual notice of the hearing and abused its discretion in limiting Father’s visitation to one monitored visit per year. We affirm.

Michael T. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders as to his infant daughter, Leeann T. Father contends the juvenile court erred by (1) finding that father’s conduct created a risk of harm to Leeann, (2) removing Leeann from father’s custody, and (3) ordering father to drug test. We find no error, and thus we affirm.

This is a dispute over the trial court’s award of attorney fees to defendant Indian Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., as the prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717. The fee award followed this court’s reversal of the trial court’s earlier judgment in favor of plaintiffs Ranch at the Falls LLC and April Hart. (Ranch at the Falls LLC v. O’Neal (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 155 [finding plaintiffs had no enforceable easement over certain private streets in Indian Springs].)

The juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction over infant Elena M. (born 2020) and removed her from the custody of her parents. Both parents appeal: S.P. (mother) argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that her mental illness places Elena at risk; S.M. (father) argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering that mother have six hours of monitored visitation each week, while he only gets four hours. These arguments lack merit, so we affirm.

Heather W., the former foster parent of Abigail L., appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her request for de facto parent status. Because the juvenile court erred in ruling Heather’s request was moot, we reverse the order and direct the juvenile court to enter a new order granting the request.

Emilio Carrillo Badillo (defendant) argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. There was no prejudicial error, so we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Linda Schermer (Schermer) appeals an order denying her motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), to vacate a default judgment obtained by plaintiff and respondent HFL Law Group, APC (HFL).

Plaintiff/appellant Eli Tamanaha (plaintiff) appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of defendants/respondents Daniel Burton (Burton) and DroneBase Inc. (DroneBase; collectively, defendants). Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in entering judgment on the arbitration award because his claims were not covered by the parties’ arbitration agreement, the arbitration agreement was substantively and procedurally unconscionable, and the arbitrator exceeded his authority by excluding plaintiff from portions of the arbitration hearing. We conclude that while the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable, it was not procedurally unconscionable, and its broad language encompassed plaintiff’s claims. We further conclude that plaintiff’s exclusion from a small portion of the hearing, even if erroneous, was not prejudicial. We therefore will affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Hiram Ash appeals an order awarding defendant Harold Pick his appellate costs as directed in our opinion affirming the underlying judgment. Plaintiff contends

Joan Garnica (Garnica) and Rene Salas (Salas) (collectively, defendants) appeal their convictions for murder, attempted murder and other crimes arising out of several incidents of gang-related violence. Specifically, they argue that the trial court erred (1) in admitting certain evidence against Garnica, (2) in denying their motions to sever the joint trial of the charged incidents into several different trials, one for each defendant as to each incident, (3) in not granting a mistrial after the prosecutor elicited an in-court identification he knew to be false, and, potentially, (4) in its review of discovery sought by the defense. We conclude there was no individual or cumulative error, and affirm defendants’ convictions. After this matter was initially set for argument, the parties provided supplemental briefing on whether the gang enhancements and other sentencing enhancements premised on gang activity must be vacated in light of the recently enacted Assembly Bill No. 333 (Stats.

Plaintiff and appellant Susan Abusamra-Pixler (Appellant or Mrs. Pixler) appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of defendant and respondent U-Haul International, Inc. (UHI).

Plaintiff and appellant Shahrouz Jahanshahi (Jahanshahi), in propria persona, appeals an order granting a special motion to strike or anti-SLAPP motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) filed by defendant and respondent Benjamin Tarn Rosenfeld (Rosenfeld or Attorney Rosenfeld). Jahanshahi also appeals a subsequent order that granted Rosenfeld’s motion for attorney fees as the prevailing defendant on the anti-SLAPP motion. In addition, Jahanshahi purports to appeal an order denying his motion to set an order to show cause (OSC) to hold Rosenfeld and his attorney in contempt.