CA Unpub Decisions

Hector M., Sr. (father) appeals from the order denying his petition to change court orders under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, and the findings and order terminating his parental rights under section 366.26. Father contends the court committed prejudicial error by denying his section 388 petition. He further contends the court erred in finding inapplicable the parental or sibling relationship exceptions to termination of parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) and (v). We affirm.

Ricardo G. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights over his daughter Xiomara A. and placing her with a nonrelative prospective adoptive family. Ricardo G. argues the court erred by failing to apply the relative placement preference under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3 and the parent-child relationship exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). Ricardo, however, lacks standing to appeal Xiomara’s placement and forfeited these arguments by failing to raise them in the juvenile court. Moreover, the relative placement preference did not apply to Xiomara’s placement because the court had already declared adoption as the permanent plan. Finally, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ruling the parent-child relationship exception did not apply. Therefore, we affirm.

On February 25, 2005, defendant and appellant Peter Thomas Kimmick picked up victim Jennifer A. to go to dinner. He began driving in the opposite direction from the restaurant and, when asked by Jennifer where he was going, Kimmick said he wanted to stop by his apartment. At the apartment, Jennifer felt something strike her head and she lost consciousness. When she awoke, Kimmick was kissing her neck and rubbing her breasts outside her clothing. Kimmick threw Jennifer on to her stomach, removed her pants and underpants, and put his penis into her vagina. Jennifer was eventually able to push herself up and away from Kimmick. Kimmick told Jennifer he would drive her home. While in his car, Kimmick drove to a dark street, pulled over to the curb, pushed her out into the street, and drove off. Jennifer and her parents called the police, who advised her to go to a rape treatment center, where Jennifer had a sexual assault examination.

The jury found defendant and appellant Angel Ray Alcala guilty of residential robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 [count 1]) and first degree burglary (§ 459 [count 2]). It also found true the allegations that there was a person present during the commission of the offenses (§ 667.5, subd. (c)), and the victim was 65 years old or older (§ 667.9, subd. (a)) in counts 1 and 2. The jury was unable to reach a verdict with respect to a second count of burglary (§ 211 [count 3]) and the allegations that Alcala had personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim in counts 1 and 2 (§ 12022.7, subd. (c)). Alcala subsequently pleaded guilty in count 3, and the great bodily injury enhancements in counts 1 and 2 were dismissed.

T.J. appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order declaring her five-year-old daughter, Breanna J., a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and removing Breanna from T.J. T.J. contends substantial evidence did not support the court’s finding Breanna was at substantial risk of serious physical harm within the meaning of subdivision (b)(1) or the court’s removal order. T.J. also contends the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice and inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We agree with the latter contention, remand to allow the Department and the juvenile court to remedy those failures, and otherwise conditionally affirm the jurisdiction findings and disposition order.

Appellant and defendant Kenyaun Knox received a life sentence for aggravated mayhem (Pen. Code, § 205) for attacking a man with a metal pipe and causing serious injuries to his head and arms. Knox contends that his conviction must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to prove that his victim suffered permanent disability or disfigurement, or that he acted with the specific intent to inflict such an injury. We affirm.

The juvenile court declared K.D. a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, after finding K.D. committed vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)). The court made a finding the offense was a felony, and ordered K.D. home on probation.
K.D. contends the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession made after his arrest. K.D. argues the circumstances surrounding his confession rendered it involuntary. We affirm.

Alexis Igor Kutyba appeals from an order granting a request for a domestic violence restraining order in favor of Mohammed Amouchal. We reverse

Defendants Hu & Associates and John D. Hu (collectively Hu) appeal from an order denying their anti-SLAPP motion. We affirm.

In 2011, A. Kevin Schine (Schine) filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles, California, in which he alleged that Property Solutions International, Inc. (PSI) fraudulently induced him to enter into a release agreement. The agreement contained a mandatory Utah forum selection clause. Consequently, PSI filed a motion to dismiss or stay on the basis of forum non conveniens. The trial court granted the motion. Schine appealed and we affirmed, holding that Schine’s claims arose under the release agreement, and that the Utah forum selection clause therefore applied. On remand, the trial court imposed a stay of proceedings. Rather than refile his lawsuit in Utah, Schine filed a motion to lift the stay and amend his complaint, alleging that the Utah forum selection clause no longer applied because the parties had subsequently entered into a settlement agreement which contained a California forum selection clause.

Real party in interest Michael Sourapas applied for a zoning adjustment from defendant and appellant the City of Los Angeles (the City) to allow him to expand his home beyond the maximum size allowed under the City’s zoning laws. The City granted the adjustment, and plaintiffs and respondents Donald and Marlene Kottler, who live next door to Sourapas, filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) to block the expansion.
The trial court issued the writ of mandate on the ground that the zoning administrator acted improperly by granting Sourapas the zoning adjustment without applying the more stringent requirements for a zoning variance established in the Los Angeles Charter. The Kottlers also contended below, as they do here, that there was no substantial evidence to support the zoning administrator’s finding even under the less stringent requirements in the Los Angeles Municipal Code for a zoning adjustment.

Appellant Geoffrey S. Bueno appeals from the judgment of conviction of two counts of second degree robbery and one count of possession of a controlled substance. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting one of the robbery convictions and the exclusion of evidence that one of the victims had a prior domestic violence conviction. He also complains that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s misstatement of the law during closing arguments. Finally, appellant asserts his sentence is unauthorized because the trial court imposed a penalty assessment in conjunction with the Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 laboratory fee.

Defendants and cross-complainants EGB Group, Inc. (EGB) and Sandra Valentine, Trustee of the Sandra Lee Valentine 1998 Revocable Living Trust, (Valentine) appeal from a judgment of dismissal based on an order granting codefendant and cross-defendant Family Mortgage Options, LLC’s (Family Mortgage) motion for a good faith settlement determination and request for dismissal of EGB’s remaining cross-claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 (section 877.6).
Plaintiff Brigid O’Brien, an elder, alleged that she sold her Manhattan Beach home to Family Mortgage based on Family Mortgage’s representations that it could help her avoid foreclosure. She further alleged Family Mortgage designed the transaction so that O’Brien would default on her obligations to Family Mortgage, thereby permitting Family Mortgage to resell the property for a quick profit.

Allen Beaudin and Mika Beaudin Tanioka (the Beaudins) appeal the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Stewart Title Guaranty Company (STGC) and Stewart Title of California Company (STCA) (collectively, the Stewart Title Entities). The Beaudins claimed the Stewart Title Entities failed to disclose the true nature of an easement over their property in Santa Rosa, California. The trial court granted the Stewart Title Entities’ motion for summary judgment determining the preliminary report and the policy of title insurance excluded coverage for any loss resulting from the easement. We affirm.