CA Unpub Decisions

Defendant Kenneth Lloyd Thurman appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. Defendant robbed and shot a bicyclist on a Sacramento bicycle trail. He was charged with robbery, possession of a firearm by a felon, and allegations of discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury (GBI), and personally using a firearm. He was also charged with a prior serious felony conviction allegation and five prior prison commitment allegations. A jury found defendant guilty on all counts and found multiple firearm enhancement allegations true. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found the recidivist allegations to be true. The trial court sentenced defendant to 45 years to life in prison.

This appeal concerns the statutory interpretation of one of the public comment requirements of California’s open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950 et seq. Appellant Eric Preven exercised his opportunity to address a meeting of the Los Angeles City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM). He was then denied the opportunity to address the full city council when it held a special meeting the next day to discuss, among other things, the recommendation arrived at by the PLUM committee.

Anita Garcia appeals the denial of leave to bring a personal injury claim against the City of Glendale and Glendale Water and Power (collectively, “Glendale”) beyond the presumptive six-month time limit set forth in Government Code section 911.2, subdivision (a). The trial court found Garcia did not demonstrate reasonable diligence excusing her lateness in bringing the claim, and denied her leave to pursue it. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a lack of reasonable diligence, and affirm.

Law firm Yu Leseberg initiated arbitration proceedings to recover unpaid fees from client Rolan Feld. The parties disagreed about the scope of the fee agreement and related payments due; Feld also accused Yu Leseberg of unethical behavior. The arbitrator found largely in Yu Leseberg’s favor, and awarded the firm most of the attorney fees it requested. Yu Leseberg petitioned to have the arbitration award confirmed in the trial court, and Feld opposed the petition. The court confirmed the arbitration award, and Feld appealed.
We affirm. The parties had a full and fair opportunity to address all of their claims before the arbitrator, the arbitrator addressed each of those claims, and Feld has not established any basis under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 to vacate the arbitration award.

Petitioner Jennifer Y. (Mother), mother of 21-month-old Christopher Y., seeks review by extraordinary writ, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, of the juvenile court’s orders terminating reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that the Mendocino County Department of Health and Human Services, Family and Children’s Services (Department) provided her with reasonable services due to its (1) failure to assist her with obtaining timely mental health services, and (2) suspension of visitation for six weeks before filing a section 388 petition for modification requesting termination of visits. We shall deny the petition for extraordinary writ.

After preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) and holding public hearings, the City and County of San Francisco (City) approved a mixed-use business and residential project proposed by real parties in interest Forest City California Residential Development, Inc. and Hearst Communications, Inc. (collectively Forest City) in the area bounded by Mission, Fifth, Howard, and Sixth Streets in San Francisco. In approving the project, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors also voted to amend the San Francisco general plan to establish a Fifth and Mission Special Use District and approve the development agreement. South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN), Save Our SoMa (SOS), and Friends of Boeddeker Park (collectively plaintiffs) challenged the environmental review by filing a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court. The trial court denied relief. We affirm.

These three consolidated appeals arise out of a dispute between factions within San Francisco’s Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (CCBA) over displaying the flag of the Republic of China (RoC). At their core, they address the propriety of the court’s rulings after trial that (1) granted declaratory relief as to the validity of a vote by CCBA’s board of directors to remove the RoC flag from display; (2) dismissed derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) sealed and prohibited disclosure of several Taiwanese officials’ inadvertently disclosed email addresses. We dismiss the appeal from the protective order as moot and affirm the judgment.

Lee Quillar, a pro se California inmate, appeals from the trial court’s orders granting defendant Anderson’s motion to set aside a default and denying Quillar’s motion for entry of default against all other defendants. Because neither of these orders is appealable, we dismiss the appeal.

On April 1, 2016, defendant Raymond Anthony Garbin pleaded no contest to 10 counts of felony identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)) after the enactment of Proposition 47, which reclassified certain felony drug and theft related offenses as misdemeanors. (Prop. 47, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), eff. Nov. 5, 2014.) The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated sentence of six years eight months, and defendant appealed from the judgment. Defendant’s appellate counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised and asked this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After defendant was notified that an independent Wende review was requested, he submitted a letter brief arguing that Proposition 47 reduced his felonies to misdemeanors, among other claims.

Third party Jefferies Mortgage Finance Inc. (Jeffries) appeals several discovery orders entered against it in the trial court. While the appeal was pending, the underlying litigation was settled and dismissed rendering the discovery orders and this appeal moot. Instead of dismissing its appeal, Jefferies asks us to vacate the orders. Respondents Monterey Bay Military Housing LLC and Monterey Bay Land LLC (respondents) do not oppose the motion. We will treat the motion as one for stipulated reversal and grant it.

Nicholas W. Emmerling sued the City of Mountain View (City) after the Mountain View Police Department (Department) terminated him from his position as a probationary police officer. Emmerling alleged employment discrimination, retaliation, and related causes of action. He appeals a judgment entered in favor of the City following the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The primary issue on summary judgment concerned the Department’s motive for terminating Emmerling’s employment. Emmerling, a reservist in the California Army National Guard, contends that he was fired because he requested and took time off for protected military and family leave. The City counters that Emmerling was fired because he failed to engage in an acceptable level of “self-initiated activity” in the form of self-initiated arrests after his supervisors advised him to increase such activities.

A jury found appellant was gravely disabled. The trial court entered an order appointing a conservator of her person and estate pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). The order also imposed certain legal disabilities on appellant. Appellant challenges these disabilities, raising claims of procedural error and insufficiency of the evidence. She also contends that if the procedural errors are deemed forfeited or waived, the disabilities must be stricken because they were entered as the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Appellant, Seaview Insurance Company, posted bail for a criminal defendant (“defendant”). Defendant, a 91-year-old male, suffered from several medical conditions relating to a major stroke and worsening dementia. After defendant failed to appear, the court forfeited the bail bond. Appellant timely moved to reinstate the bail bond under Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (a), or, alternatively, to exonerate or toll the forfeiture period based on permanent or temporary disability of defendant under subdivisions (d) and (e). The court denied the motion and a motion for reconsideration presenting additional evidence of defendant’s infirmities. On appeal, we reverse and remand to allow the trial court to determine whether appellant had presented sufficient evidence of defendant’s disability to provide relief from forfeiture of the bail bond.

K.M., the noncustodial father (Father) of J.M. and A.M., appeals from orders of the juvenile court finding it would be detrimental to place the children with him after removing them from the custody of their mother (Mother). He contends the orders must be reversed because the juvenile court failed to provide an adequate explanation for its finding that it would be detrimental to place the children in his care, as required by the applicable statute, Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2 . We conclude the juvenile court did state some reasoning for its finding, substantial evidence supports further implied findings, and any failure by the court to adequately express its reasoning on the record was harmless. We therefore affirm the orders.