CA Unpub Decisions

Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Tahra Broderson, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
M.P. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for her daughter, H.R. Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by terminating parental rights after finding that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption did not apply. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) She also challenges the juvenile court’s actions to satisfy its duty of inquiry under the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). We conclude that the juvenile court did not err in making these rulings and therefore affirm.

In this dependency proceeding, the court removed Jn.B. (age 13) and her brother, Ji.B. (age 11) (together, the children), from J.B. (Father) due to his physical abuse. K.H. (Mother), who lives in New Mexico, requested custody of the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.2.) Mother appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order denying her request for placement. Because there is substantial evidence that respondent San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) met its burden to show clear and convincing evidence that placement with Mother would be detrimental to the children, we affirm.

Alden V. Holmes, Jr. (Alden Jr.) was the trustee of his parents’ trust. In June 2019, his sister, Laura V. Holmes (Laura), filed a petition for an order instructing Alden Jr. to reimburse her for certain expenses she allegedly incurred on her parents’ behalf in or before February 2015. The trial court granted Alden Jr.’s demurrer to Laura’s petition, finding the petition failed to state a cause of action and was time barred. We affirm.

Plaintiff Evaristo Ramos appeals from a judgment after the trial court sustained a demurrer by defendant National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) in his action for wrongful termination based on age discrimination in violation of public policy. On appeal, Ramos contends that the court erred in finding that the doctrine of equitable tolling could not apply to toll the applicable statutes of limitations based on the factual allegations in his second amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand with directions that the court vacate its order sustaining the demurrer and issue a new order overruling the demurrer.

Minor J.F. appeals from a juvenile court dispositional order declaring a maximum confinement time by aggregating prior petitions sustained against the minor. Because the minor did not have notice that the maximum confinement time would be aggregated, we will remand the matter to the juvenile court for redetermination of the maximum permissible term of physical confinement by means of procedures which give fair notice to the minor and an opportunity to be heard.

A trial court denied defendant Marce Bushey’s request to strike firearm enhancements under Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 12022.53. Defendant appeals that denial, arguing the court did not fully understand the scope of its discretion when it made its decision. We will affirm the judgment.

Defendants Kyren Nicodemus Nicholson and Bobby Sherell Miller went to the parking lot of an apartment complex where Miller fired a shotgun into Rashode Matthews’s car. Matthews, who was visiting a friend, left the friend’s apartment shortly thereafter to pick up his wife from her job. He encountered both defendants in the parking lot, where Nicholson shot him with a handgun four times, killing him.

Plaintiff and appellant Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition on behalf of Bishop E. (Bishop, born July 2008) and Violet J. (Violet, born May 2013), pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (j). At the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained the subdivision (b) count and dismissed the counts pursuant to subdivisions (a), (c), and (j). It declared the children dependents of the court and issued a home of parent order, placing them with their father, James E. (father).

In 2018, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Oscar Medina of four counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), and four counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 62 years to life in prison. We affirmed the convictions but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to strike one 5-year prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), to consider whether to strike other serious felony and firearm enhancements in light of new laws enacted after the sentencing hearing, and to stay rather than impose concurrent sentences for assault with a firearm. (See People v. Medina (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 146, 157 (Medina).)

In this breach of contract action, plaintiffs Kingston Healthcare Center, LLC and BFCAP Investments, LLC contracted to purchase licenses to operate a skilled nursing facility and lease its parcel of property from defendants Lifehouse Parkview Operations, LLC (OpCo) and Lifehouse Parkview Properties, LLC (PropCo). The parties entered into a series of agreements relating to the purchase; one issue the agreements addressed was which party would be responsible for paying quality assurance fees (QAFs), state-imposed licensing fees on skilled nursing facilities. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached the parties’ contracts because defendants were required to pay all outstanding QAFs due prior to the close of the sale, and they did not.

Appellant Augustin Vidana pled no contest to one count of felony vandalism. He contends his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue of his mental health at sentencing and to request mental health diversion. He seeks remand for resentencing on that basis. We conclude that appellant has failed to establish that his counsel was ineffective and therefore affirm.

The November 2017 holographic will of decedent Edward Sherman (the “Contested Will”) left his entire estate to appellant Barbara Garrison. In August 2019, the probate court invalidated the Contested Will, finding Edward lacked testamentary capacity to draft it, and that it was procured through undue influence. Barbara asks us to reverse the court’s findings, contending both that the court used the wrong legal standard in judging Edward’s testamentary capacity, and that substantial evidence supports neither the finding of lack of capacity, nor the finding of undue influence.

Defendant Kohl Building Maintenance, Inc. (Kohl) appeals from the trial court’s June 27, 2019, order awarding $141,165 in attorney fees in a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) matter to plaintiff and prevailing party Gilberto Velez. Kohl raises two challenges to the fee award on appeal. First, Kohl argues that Velez should have filed his complaint as a limited civil matter. Because he did not do so, Kohl contends the trial court should have declined to award any attorney fees to Velez pursuant to Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970 (Chavez). Second, Kohl argues the amount of the fee award is inflated.

Appellant William Franklin Hughes fatally strangled repairperson Lyndi Fisher when, for a second time, she visited his house to repair his refrigerator. Charged with Fisher’s premeditated murder, he entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, resulting in the bifurcation of his trial into guilt and sanity phases. At the guilt phase, over appellant’s objection, the trial court admitted evidence of an incident in which, several weeks before Fisher’s killing, appellant made sexual advances to a fellow college student at their school.