CA Unpub Decisions

This is an appeal from the jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders in a dependency matter involving minor, I.M. (minor). Minor’s father, Dennis M. (father), contends the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders lack the support of substantial evidence. Father also contends the juvenile court and respondent Alameda County Social Services Agency (agency) failed to fully comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). We affirm.

This is one of 19 appeals brought in this appellate district that arise from Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (Fireman’s Fund) successfully obtaining relief from default judgments against its insured, Associated Insulation of California, Inc. (Associated), in asbestos personal injury cases. All 19 appeals involve the same superior court judge, but each has its own record. In this particular case, Fireman’s Fund sought relief from a default judgment more than a year after it was entered, calling upon the trial court to exercise its equitable power in circumstances of extrinsic mistake. The issue before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering relief in this case. In light of the unusual procedural posture of this matter, we vacate the order and remand the matter for the trial court to provide a clearer explanation of its ruling.

Alex Hahn, Hahn Development, LLC, and Hahn & Kang Equity I, limited partnership appeal from a judgment entered in favor of cross defendants and respondents AMG & Associates, LLC, AMG Investment & Development Services, Inc., and Alexis Gevorgian. The dispute arose from AMG’s agreement to buy from Hahn two vacant lots which AMG wanted to develop into a mixed-use residential and retail complex. Lingering contamination on the property complicated the deal and made the development effort more onerous and expensive. As a result, the parties entered into a series of agreements modifying their original agreement. One addendum affirmed Hahn’s responsibility to address the contamination and made completing the environmental cleanup a condition precedent to AMG’s closing of escrow. Another addendum was contingent upon AMG loaning Hahn $60,500 secured by a deed of trust for the property. A subsequent addendum purported to extend the repayment deadline for the $60,500 loan.

Plaintiff Yvonne Lattimore brought a wrongful death action against defendant John R. Carlson, M.D. based on his care and treatment of her father, decedent Albert Lattimore (Lattimore). The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff contends: (1) the trial court erred in granting the motion, because there was a triable issue of material fact regarding causation; and (2) the trial court exhibited bias against her. We affirm the judgment.

This appeal concerns the entitlement to attorney fees in an action to enforce a stipulated judgment. The trial court awarded plaintiff and judgment creditor Kelleen Hails $824,455 in attorney fees as judgment enforcement costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040. The judgment debtor, Melissa Kelton Solnick, and her codefendants in the enforcement action contend that the fee award violates section 685.040, which allows a judgment creditor to recover the “reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment” including, in specified circumstances, an award of attorney fees. As we explain herein, we find that the underlying judgment in this case satisfied the statutory prerequisites for the fee award. We shall affirm.

S.A. (Mother) appeals from judgment terminating her parental rights to her son, J.L. Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the court failed in both its duty of inquiry and notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) concedes there was error and urges the court to remand only for compliance with ICWA. We agree there was error and remand the matter to the juvenile court for the sole purpose of ICWA compliance.

S.M. (father), the father of T.M., age 13; M.M., age 12; L.M., age 9; B.M., age 7; and W.M., age 4, appeals from an order denying him visitation with his children during the pendency of this juvenile dependency proceeding. The court concluded visitation with the father would be detrimental to the children following an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation (730 evaluation) ordered by the trial court at the dispositional hearing. The father contends the order must be reversed because that finding is unsupported by substantial evidence and also because it is inconsistent with the court’s earlier observation that it “see[s] a benefit to some sort of visitation.”

In 2009, a jury found petitioner Sid Landau to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) within the meaning of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) The trial court subsequently committed Landau to the custody of the State Department of State Hospitals (SDSH) for an indeterminate term. We have filed three prior opinions regarding these matters. Landau has filed a petition for unconditional discharge or conditional release (outpatient treatment), which is currently set for an evidentiary hearing in the trial court (essentially a retrial).

A jury convicted Stephen Joseph McElroy of battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d); all further statutory references are to this code, unless noted), and found several penalty enhancement allegations to be true, including that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of two years in state prison. Defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because the court admitted photographs of the victim’s injuries that were more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, § 352).

Appellant Mionte Darnell Minnieweather pled no contest to one count of violating Penal Code section 4573.5 and admitted a prior strike, in exchange for dismissal of another count and a stipulated 32-month sentence. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Minnieweather filed a notice of appeal and appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.

Ron Miller Enterprises, Inc. dba Fresno Commercial Lenders (plaintiff) provides short term loans to automobile dealers, also known as flooring loans. In the present case, plaintiff made such loans to two now-defunct dealerships in the Fresno area, Elizabeth Chavez dba King of Kars (King of Kars) and Carmen Zepeda dba Cars of Clovis (Cars of Clovis) (also referred to as the dealership(s)). Whenever plaintiff advanced a specific loan amount to either of the two dealerships, (i) the dealership in question signed a separate agreement identifying a particular vehicle as collateral (collateral agreement) and (ii) plaintiff took possession of that vehicle’s title certificate as security for the loan advance. These same vehicles were sold by King of Kars and Cars of Clovis to consumers under conditional sales contracts, and the conditional sales contracts were then sold and assigned by the dealerships to a finance company known as Lobel Financial Corporation, Inc. (defendant.

This is a petition for extraordinary writ challenging the findings and orders of the juvenile court in setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (§ 366.26, subd. (l ); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Petitioner B.A. (Mother) is the mother of one-year-old A.A., five-year-old I.A.-V. (I.), and seven-year-old Is.A.-V. (Is.). Mother has a history with child protective services due to ongoing domestic violence issues, resulting in the removal of her children from her care. This is Mother’s third dependency case. Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in bypassing her reunification services as to A.A. pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10). We find that the record supports the court’s findings and orders pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), and deny the petition.

Defendant and appellant, Luis Arturo Preciado, filed a motion to dismiss or strike one of his prior strike convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 1385, which the court denied. After defendant filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and identifying two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss or strike a prior conviction; and (2) whether the court’s order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss or strike a prior conviction was an appealable order.

N.K. (Mother) has a history of abusing controlled substances and a history with child protective services that led the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) to remove her daughters from her care and custody. After Mother was unable to reunify with her daughters, the juvenile court terminated parental rights and found it likely the children would be adopted. On appeal, Mother argues (1) the juvenile court failed to timely assess and consider the maternal grandparents for placement under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3; and (2) there was insufficient evidence the children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.