CA Unpub Decisions

The Santa Clara County District Attorney (District Attorney) appeals an order granting Mike Joseph Guzman’s motion pursuant to Penal Code section 995 to dismiss the information charging him with one count of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and one count of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, 186.22, subd. (b)).
On appeal, the District Attorney argues there was sufficient evidence presented at the preliminary examination to support the necessary element of malice and therefore the trial court erred in dismissing these charges.
For the reasons explained below, we agree and will reverse the trial court’s order.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Procedural history
Following a lengthy preliminary examination, Guzman and two codefendants, Israel Arroyo and Juan Velazquez Tellez, were held to answer on charges of murder and attempted murder. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, 189, 186.22, subd. (b); counts 1 & 2.) They were also held to answer on the charge of active participation in

In an escalating dispute over governance of their alumni association, Jigang Jin sued Fuzu Li for defamation, based on the alleged falsity of Fuzu Li’s complaints to fellow alumni about Jin’s handling of the association’s incorporation and filing of its Internal Revenue Service (IRS) application for tax-exempt status. Fuzu Li then cross-complained, asserting various causes of action against Jin and Yaning Li, arising from their allegedly wrongful seizure of control of the association, including Jin’s filing of (1) the IRS application, (2) articles of incorporation and corporate statement of information with the California Secretary of State, and (3) a Franchise Tax Board application for state tax-exempt status. Jin and Yaning Li now appeal from the trial court’s denial of their special motions to strike Fuzu Li’s first amended cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court found Jin and Yaning Li failed to make a prima facie showing that their

This appeal arises out of the dissolution of appellant John G. Chen and respondent Jane J. Yang. In 2014, Chen moved to set aside the judgment of dissolution and marital settlement agreement. Chen appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Chen and Yang married in 1985. They effected a “physical separation in 2002,” but it was not until 2012 that Chen filed for divorce. He filed his first petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2012, withdrew the petition, and filed a new petition again in October 2012.
Following the separation, Yang founded a company, Culturelinks, Inc. In 2013, Yang earned a salary of approximately $692,000 from Culturelinks. Chen also worked for Culturelinks, earning roughly $2,000-3,000 per month. In May 2012, the parties executed a “quitclaim deed agreement” in which Chen disclaimed any interest in Culturelinks.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Isabel Apkarian, Judge. Affirmed.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearances for the Minor.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant C.L., a young mother, struggles with drug addiction. In early 2020, her one-year-old baby boy, J.J., was taken into protective custody over fears that C.L. and J.J.’s father, William J., were unable to properly care for the child due to their drug abuse and associated criminal history. C.L. was offered reunification services but did not fully engage in them. She continued to battle her addiction throughout the pendency of the case, all the while denying it posed any significant risk of harm to J.J. The juvenile court disagreed, terminated her parental rights, and chose adoption as J.J.’s permanent plan.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara, Sunil R. Kulkarni, Judge. Reversed.
McManis Faulkner, James McManis, Elizabeth Pipkin, Matthew Schechter, and Johanna Oh for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Wagstaffe, von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick, Michael von Loewenfeldt and Frank Busch for Defendant and Respondent.


This appeal concerns a single legal question: Can private parties validly contract for a method of service of process in a foreign country, when the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, November 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 (Hague Service Convention) provides for a different method of service.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John R. Zitny, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Tanya Dellaca and California Appellate Project, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Andres Gustavo Garcia appeals the judgment following his conviction on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol and providing false information to a police officer. He does not argue the convictions themselves should be overturned; instead, he challenges two of the conditions of mandatory supervision imposed by the court—one requiring that he “use no unauthorized drugs, narcotics, or controlled substances” and the other requiring that he “cooperate with your mandatory supervi

THE COURT:
It is hereby ordered that the nonpublished majority opinion filed on July 22, 2022, be modified as follows:
On page 20, the text of footnote 7 is deleted in its entirety and the following text is inserted in its place:
APS hearings and the hearing officer’s decision must comply with Vehicle Code sections 14100 through 14106. Pursuant to Vehicle Code section 14112, subdivision (a), all matters not covered by those sections shall be governed, as far as applicable, by chapter 5 (Gov. Code, §§ 11500–11529) of California’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA; Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq.). In turn, Government Code section 11501, subdivision (c) states that chapter 4.5 of the APA “applies to an adjudicative proceeding required to be conducted under this chapter, unless the statutes relating to the proceeding provide otherwise.” Based on the foregoing provisions, Isenberg contends the hearing officer’s decision is subject to Government Code section 11425.50, which require

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Eric Bradshaw, Judge.
LiMandri & Jonna, Charles S. LiMandri, Paul M. Jonna and Jeffrey M. Trissell for Defendants and Appellants.
The Law Office of Herb Fox, Herb Fox; Law Offices of Craig A. Edmonston, Craig Edmonston; and Kyle J. Humphrey for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo- 
Appellants Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc. and Stephen Brady (Brady) filed this appeal after the trial court denied their anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Raising several arguments, appellants contend the trial court should have struck the core allegations supporting the defamation claims brought against them by Craig Harrison (Harrison), a former Catholic priest.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael Imhoff, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
Claudia Silva, Acting County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Lisa Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
K.F. (Mother) appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her three-year-old son, V.M., and selecting a permanent plan of adoption for him pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by finding neither the beneficial parent-child relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) nor the sibling relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v)) applied to preclude termination of her parental rights. As explained below, we affirm the order.

Plaintiff Julie Vi-Geant filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against defendant James Reynolds. After a court trial, the trial court denied Vi-Geant’s request and ordered her to pay Reynolds’s attorney’s fees and costs. Vi-Geant appeals, arguing she was entitled to an order granting her request for a civil harassment restraining order and should not be required to pay Reynolds’s attorney’s fees and costs. Finding no error, we will affirm the trial court’s orders.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Vi-Geant filed the request for a civil harassment restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. She alleged a neighborhood dog was barking and Vi-Geant’s dog barked back from inside the house. Reynolds, who is a neighbor, yelled from the middle of the street, “You keep that damn dog quiet or I’ll . . . .” Apparently, the sentence was not finished.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Conditionally affirmed and remanded with directions.
Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
——————————
Father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights. On appeal, he contends the juvenile court erred in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Father argues the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to conduct an adequate inquiry of extended relatives to determine whether N.B. is or may be an Indian child. We conditionally affirm the juvenile court’s order and remand for further proceedings as to father’s family.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. Davis, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen Watson, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Andrea S. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her son, C.S. Mother contends the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to adequately investigate the possible Indian ancestry of alleged father Kenneth R. in the manner required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related state law. We find no error, and thus we will affirm.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge. Affirmed.
Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez and Idan Ivri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________

In 2008, a jury convicted appellant Timothy Pinckney of first degree murder under the felony murder doctrine, but found not true a rape-murder special circumstance allegation. In 2019, appellant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95), arguing he was not the actual killer and had not acted with intent to kill; he further argued that there was insufficient evidence he was a major participant in the crime who acted with reckless indifference to human life. (See generally People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Ba

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Petition denied.

Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

* * * * * *
Michelle A. (mother) petitions for extraordinary relief pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. She seeks review of the juvenile court’s order terminating her reunification services at the 18-month review hearing. She argues that the order is defective because the juvenile court did not comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1900 et seq.) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (b)). Although the juvenile court and Department may have committed error under ICWA, their noncompliance was harmless because there is no “reason to believe” that the further inquiry mother identifies would lead to a different result. (See In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.