CA Unpub Decisions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rafael A. Ongkeko, Judge. Affirmed.
Haney & Shah, Steven H. Haney and Kenneth W. Baisch for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Peterson, Bradford, Burkwitz, Avi Burkwitz, Gil Y. Burkwitz, and Jennie Raphelt for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and appellant Felipe Marcial has been a firefighter for the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACOFD) since 1996. In November 2017, while on a medical leave of absence for a shoulder injury, Marcial filed a complaint against the County of Los Angeles (the County) asserting several causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), including harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Judge. Reversed.
Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Scott Marcus, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Blithe S. Bock, Managing Assistant City Attorney, and Jonathan H. Eisenman, Deputy City Attorney, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Ingber & Associates and Kenneth S. Ingber for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Los Angeles (City), a nonparty to this lawsuit, challenges the judgment entered against it. We conclude the judgment is void and reverse.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Douglas Sortino, Judge. Affirmed.
Valerie G. Wass for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Blythe J. Leszkay and Yun K. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________

During the trial of Walter Jones for murder, multiple discovery violations committed by either the prosecution or investigating agencies came to light, resulting in the trial court instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 306 regarding late discovery but denying defense motions for dismissal and mistrial. The jury convicted Jones of murder with gun and gang enhancements.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. Bowick, Judge. Affirmed; dismissed as moot.
C.L. Brookshire, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION
Faced with a motion to have him declared a vexatious litigant, appellant C.L. Brookshire voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice. The trial court proceeded to hear and grant the motion, declaring Brookshire a vexatious litigant on three independent grounds, and issuing a prefiling order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. Brookshire did not appeal the prefiling order. Instead, he filed a series of repetitive motions challenging the order, including three motions to vacate the order under section 473, subdivision (d).

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert J. Perry, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded.
Gail Harper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, David E. Madeo, Acting Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

APPEAL from a Judgment of the Superior Court of California. Ricardo R. Ocampo, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
David D. Carico, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
Matthew Rodriguez, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
A jury convicted Defendant and Appellant Miguel Rivera of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code , §§ 187, subd. (a), 29800, subd. (a)(1)), with true findings he personally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), the murders were committed for the benefit of a street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), and a special circumstance of multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). Rivera’s theory at trial was he committed the shootings in self-defense.

S.S. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in concluding the beneficial-parental relationship exception to termination did not apply because it did not consider the exception in conformance with the principles articulated in In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.).
We conclude the juvenile court did not err and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Proceedings Before Section 366.26 Hearing
The juvenile court took jurisdiction of then-one-year-old G.S. (minor) and removed her from mother’s care, after mother admitted, and the court sustained, allegations that minor was at a substantial risk of harm and neglect in that “there have been multiple instances of domestic violence . . . between the mother . . . and [father], in the presence of the children” and that “mother has allowed [father] to continue to reside in the home, despite [an] active restraining order, placing the chi

Joseph A. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition order concerning Michaela H. Father contends the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). We agree. However, we conditionally affirm the juvenile court’s disposition order and remand only for compliance with ICWA and related California law.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert Gerard, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Motion to take additional evidence, augment the record on appeal, and dismiss the appeal as moot. Granted in part and denied in part.
Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearances for the Minors.
* * *
INTRODUCTION
J.N. (Father) is the presumed Father of now six year old N.M., two-year-old M.N., and one-year-old V.N. (collectively, the children). The children were taken into protective custody in December 2019. Father appealed following the six month review hearing. On appeal, he solely contends the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to discharge its inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) because it failed to inquire of Father

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lance Jensen, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley, Alan L. Amann and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * 
In 1999, a jury convicted defendant Manuel De Jesus Prado of felony murder as an aider and abettor. The jury found true a felony-murder special-circumstance allegation (a murder during a robbery). The court imposed a life sentence.
The California Supreme Court subsequently filed two opinions providing substantial guidance on factors that must be considered by a jury in felony-murder special-circumstance sentencing enhancements. (People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks); People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark).)

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sandy N. Leal, Judge. Affirmed. Motion to augment granted in part and denied in part.
The Law Offices of Patrick A. McCall and Patrick A. McCall for Appellant.
Law Offices of Lisa R. McCall, Lisa R. McCall, and Erica M. Baca for Respondent.
* * *

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant Nancy Burger and respondent Robert K. Burger were married for approximately 26 years before separating in 2013. Respondent is an airline pilot, while appellant stayed at home with their five children. The parties’ divorce became final in 2015. At that time, two of the five children were still minors. Respondent began paying child and spousal support to appellant in the amounts of $2,328 per month for child support and $2,000 per month for spousal support, respectively.

THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Central California Appellate Program and Bradley A. Bristow, for Petitioner.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner seeks permission to file a belated notice of appeal under the doctrine of constructive filing. (In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72, 81–82.) The Attorney General was provided the opportunity to respond and was notified that “[t]he failure to file a response shall be deemed agreement that petitioner should be granted, without further proceedings, a belated appeal.” The time to respond has elapsed, and the Attorney General did not provide a response. Petitioner, in his declaration, provided his statements under the penalty of perjury regarding his conversations near the time of sentencing during which counsel agreed to file a notice of appeal.
Accordingly, we conclude petitioner is entitled to relief.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Nathan D. Ide, Judge.
Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
Jennifer M. Flores, County Counsel, John A. Rozum, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Jason Chu, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-

In conservatorship proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (the LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.), the trial court found appellant, J.D., to be “gravely disabled” due to a mental disorder, whereupon the court granted the petition to continue appellant’s conservatorship and reappoint respondent Tulare County Public Guardian (respondent or county) as the conservator of appellant’s person. J.D. argues that (1) the trial court’s finding that he was gravely disabled was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the trial court erred in authorizing the county to consent to psychiatric treatment, including administration of medication,

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Stephen D. Schuett, Judge.
William Edwards Law and William Edwards for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Wild, Carter & Tipton and Patrick J. Gorman for Defendants and Respondents.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and appellant Randeep S. Dhillon (Dhillon) appeals from an order granting judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend (subject order), in favor of defendants and respondents Margaret Kent (Kent) and R&M Kent Family Ltd. Partnership, a Texas limited partnership (R&M) (collectively, defendants Kent). Pursuant to the subject order, defendants Kent were dismissed from the litigation. For reasons discussed herein, we conclude Dhillon’s appeal is limited to challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant him leave to amend his complaint. We affirm the subject order.