CA Unpub Decisions

These consolidated appeals concern two competing lawsuits brought in the name of a nonprofit charitable organization, Disability Services Corporation (DSC). The cases arise from a struggle between two rival factions of DSC’s board of directors (board) to control the corporation. In each of the two actions, one rival faction engaged separate counsel to file suit against the other rival faction for malfeasance in the management of DSC’s assets. Neither action is a shareholder derivative suit; in both DSC sues one board or the other in its individual corporate capacity.

Defendant Keith Leland Henderson pled no contest to felony driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 or higher. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in calculating his presentence treatment credit at 50 days rather than 51 days. We affirm.

These consolidated appeals concern two competing lawsuits brought in the name of a nonprofit charitable organization, Disability Services Corporation (DSC). The cases arise from a struggle between two rival factions of DSC’s board of directors (board) to control the corporation. In each of the two actions, one rival faction engaged separate counsel to file suit against the other rival faction for malfeasance in the management of DSC’s assets. Neither action is a shareholder derivative suit; in both DSC sues one board or the other in its individual corporate capacity.

These consolidated appeals concern two competing lawsuits brought in the name of a nonprofit charitable organization, Disability Services Corporation (DSC). The cases arise from a struggle between two rival factions of DSC’s board of directors (board) to control the corporation. In each of the two actions, one rival faction engaged separate counsel to file suit against the other rival faction for malfeasance in the management of DSC’s assets. Neither action is a shareholder derivative suit; in both DSC sues one board or the other in its individual corporate capacity.

These consolidated appeals concern two competing lawsuits brought in the name of a nonprofit charitable organization, Disability Services Corporation (DSC). The cases arise from a struggle between two rival factions of DSC’s board of directors (board) to control the corporation. In each of the two actions, one rival faction engaged separate counsel to file suit against the other rival faction for malfeasance in the management of DSC’s assets. Neither action is a shareholder derivative suit; in both DSC sues one board or the other in its individual corporate capacity.

These consolidated appeals concern two competing lawsuits brought in the name of a nonprofit charitable organization, Disability Services Corporation (DSC). The cases arise from a struggle between two rival factions of DSC’s board of directors (board) to control the corporation. In each of the two actions, one rival faction engaged separate counsel to file suit against the other rival faction for malfeasance in the management of DSC’s assets. Neither action is a shareholder derivative suit; in both DSC sues one board or the other in its individual corporate capacity.

These consolidated appeals concern two competing lawsuits brought in the name of a nonprofit charitable organization, Disability Services Corporation (DSC). The cases arise from a struggle between two rival factions of DSC’s board of directors (board) to control the corporation. In each of the two actions, one rival faction engaged separate counsel to file suit against the other rival faction for malfeasance in the management of DSC’s assets. Neither action is a shareholder derivative suit; in both DSC sues one board or the other in its individual corporate capacity.

These consolidated appeals concern two competing lawsuits brought in the name of a nonprofit charitable organization, Disability Services Corporation (DSC). The cases arise from a struggle between two rival factions of DSC’s board of directors (board) to control the corporation. In each of the two actions, one rival faction engaged separate counsel to file suit against the other rival faction for malfeasance in the management of DSC’s assets. Neither action is a shareholder derivative suit; in both DSC sues one board or the other in its individual corporate capacity.

These consolidated appeals concern two competing lawsuits brought in the name of a nonprofit charitable organization, Disability Services Corporation (DSC). The cases arise from a struggle between two rival factions of DSC’s board of directors (board) to control the corporation. In each of the two actions, one rival faction engaged separate counsel to file suit against the other rival faction for malfeasance in the management of DSC’s assets. Neither action is a shareholder derivative suit; in both DSC sues one board or the other in its individual corporate capacity.

These consolidated appeals concern two competing lawsuits brought in the name of a nonprofit charitable organization, Disability Services Corporation (DSC). The cases arise from a struggle between two rival factions of DSC’s board of directors (board) to control the corporation. In each of the two actions, one rival faction engaged separate counsel to file suit against the other rival faction for malfeasance in the management of DSC’s assets. Neither action is a shareholder derivative suit; in both DSC sues one board or the other in its individual corporate capacity.

Defendant Raul Diaz Moreno sexually abused his adopted daughters, S.M. and B.M., over the course of many years. Eventually, S.M. moved out. When S.M. was 19 years old and B.M. was 17 years old, B.M. sent S.M. a message reporting that she was being sexually abused by defendant. S.M. went with her boyfriend, her newborn daughter, and two companions to retrieve B.M. from the family home. Eventually, B.M. exited the residence, followed by defendant. As S.M., B.M., and their companions walked toward their vehicles, defendant shot S.M. in the back of the head; shot S.M.’s boyfriend in the ribs, shoulder, and back; and shot B.M. in the leg. Defendant pointed the gun at S.M.’s other two companions and pulled the trigger, but the gun failed to fire. When law enforcement arrived, defendant fired an additional two to three shots from inside the residence. Defendant surrendered to law enforcement a few hours later. All victims survived the shooting.
A jury convicted defendant on three counts o

These consolidated appeals concern two competing lawsuits brought in the name of a nonprofit charitable organization, Disability Services Corporation (DSC). The cases arise from a struggle between two rival factions of DSC’s board of directors (board) to control the corporation. In each of the two actions, one rival faction engaged separate counsel to file suit against the other rival faction for malfeasance in the management of DSC’s assets. Neither action is a shareholder derivative suit; in both DSC sues one board or the other in its individual corporate capacity.

Burkley Neff and Renita Kay Griffin appeal an order denying their motion for attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 789.3, subdivision (d) (attorney fees to prevailing party in wrongful eviction action). We affirm the trial court’s order denying attorney fees.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy J. Hollenhorst, Judge. Affirmed.
Donald Lee McCurdy, in propria persona; and Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Donald Lee McCurdy appeals the trial judge’s decision to revoke his probation. His attorney filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S 738 (Anders) saying they were unable to identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent review of the record. McCurdy filed a personal supplemental brief arguing the trial judge erred by relying on unproven allegations and by preventing him from presenting evidence in his defense. We find no error and affirm.