CA Unpub Decisions

The question presented is whether this court should decide an issue that has become moot since the notices of appeal were filed. Parents argue that the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings stigmatize them. Specifically, the juvenile court found that 16-year-old Alyssa’s parents failed to protect her from undisputed sexual abuse she suffered for at least six years at the hands of her older brother. Since the filing of the notices of appeal, the juvenile court has terminated jurisdiction and returned Alyssa to her parents’ custody. Parents nonetheless want this court to review and overturn the juvenile court’s findings and order. For the reasons set out below, we decline to do so and dismiss Mother’s and Father’s appeals as moot.

On November 12, 2015, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office charged defendant and appellant Nagi Alex Elhadary with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and vandalism over $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a); count 2). On January 7, 2016, pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pleaded no contest to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The trial court dismissed counts 1 and 2. It suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years.

In this appeal, F.C. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s denial of his petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 in which he sought further reunification services as well as unmonitored visitation with respect to S.C., A.C., and R.C. (collectively minors). In addition, father challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating his visitation.
We find no error and affirm.

In 2014, wife Shannon Paige Pike Harrell and husband Michael Burke Harrell obtained a divorce decree in Italy, where they were then residing due to husband’s work. The decree did not address the division of marital assets, as most of the parties’ assets were located in the United States, but awarded wife spousal support, and awarded husband and wife joint custody of their two children.

In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, defendant and appellant Tavares Londell McIntosh was charged with 12 counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; counts 2-3, 5-13, 15), one count of escape (§ 4532, subd. (b)(1); count 4), and one count of attempted robbery (§§ 211/664; count 14). As to all counts, it was alleged that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) It was further alleged that defendant had a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” Law (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)), as well as a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).

This appeal arises from a trust petition filed by respondent Nancy Silvi-Rodriguez regarding a trust established by her late father, Malcolm Barbour. Nancy alleged that her brother, Scott Barbour, engaged in elder abuse and stole millions of dollars from Malcolm and the trust. She also named several other respondents and amended the petition several times. In her fourth and fifth amended petitions, she included as a respondent an unnamed trustee, identified as Doe 1, of the BLT Living Trust (the BLT trust). Seven months after filing her fifth amended petition, Nancy amended the petition to substitute her other brother, appellant Todd Barbour, as Doe 1. Todd moved to disqualify Nancy’s counsel. He argued that her attorneys improperly elicited confidential information from him before naming him as a respondent to the trust petition, but without advising him of their adverse position or suggesting he retain his own counsel.

This case concerns adjustments made by the California Department of Health Care Services (Department) during its audit of four federally qualified health centers (FQHC’s) operated by the County of Ventura (County) for the fiscal year 2011 (FY 2011). According to the County, the audited per-visit rates for three of the FQHC’s are too low because the Department imposed a “productivity standard” that artificially inflated the number of visits for the clinics for FY 2011 that the Department used in the denominator of the calculation to establish the clinics’ “per-visit” rate going forward. For the fourth clinic, the County contends that the Department improperly disallowed its entire building expense for FY 2011, thereby reducing its per-visit rate.
The County appealed the audit findings. After an informal hearing and then a formal hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), a final decision was issued by the Department, upholding the audit adjustments.

In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, defendant and appellant Adekunle Olobayo-Aisony was charged with criminal threats, false imprisonment by violence, misdemeanor battery, dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, assault with intent to commit a felony (§ 220, subd. (a)(1); count 5), and attempted forcible rape. The jury found defendant guilty of counts 2 and 4. After waiving his right to trial on the prior felony conviction allegations, defendant admitted a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and the “Three Strikes” Law. Defendant was sentenced to nine years in state prison, calculated as follows: the two-year middle term for count 4, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus five years for the prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and stayed the sentence on count 2. Defendant received 748 days of presentence custody credit.

Plaintiff and appellant Wail Alhidir, a blind student enrolled at Los Angeles City College (LACC), a community college within the Los Angeles Community College District (respondent), filed a complaint against respondent alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Ac, and the Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51). His claims involved LACC’s alleged failure to accommodate his disability in three areas: auxiliary classroom aids, emergency plans, and physical barriers. The trial court bifurcated appellant’s equitable claim for injunctive relief from his request for damages. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that appellant’s evidence failed to prove a failure of accommodation under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Unruh Act, and entered judgment in favor of LACC.

We are asked to reverse a judgment without the benefit of a record or settled statement. We decline the invitation.
Daniel Blackburn and Karen Velie are reporters for an online news site, CalCoastNews/UncoveredSLO.com, LLC (CalCoastNews). Charles Tenborg is a licensed hazardous waste transporter. Blackburn and Velie falsely reported that Tenborg encouraged San Luis Obispo County to engage in illegal hazardous waste transportation activities.

A jury awarded Tenborg $1.1 million for libel, consisting of $300,000 in economic damages, $300,000 in presumed damages, and $500,000 in punitive damages (against Velie only). Blackburn and Velie appeal from the judgment.
They did not furnish an adequate record. We affirm.

Plaintiff Roxanne Seeman sued defendant Dr. Henry Kawamoto, Jr. for medical negligence, claiming he failed to meet the standard of care in performing a December 27, 2012 cosmetic surgery on her left eyelid, during which plaintiff suffered an unexplained injury. Following trial, the jury returned a special verdict in defendant’s favor, finding he was not negligent. Plaintiff appeals, arguing defendant’s counsel repeatedly violated the court’s in limine order excluding evidence of prior cosmetic surgeries, and that substantial evidence does not support the verdict. We affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant MELR, Inc. (plaintiff) appeals from an order striking its second amended complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (California’s anti-SLAPP statute). Among other things, plaintiff contends the anti-SLAPP motion brought by defendants and respondents San Fernando Road Property, LLC (San Fernando), Harout Broutian, and Mike Telalyan (collectively, defendants) was untimely.
We agree and reverse the order. A defendant must move to strike a cause of action within 60 days of service of the earliest complaint that contains that cause of action. Here, defendants filed their anti-SLAPP motion more than 15 months after the original complaint was served, and more than nine months after the first amended complaint was served. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants in the second amended complaint are identical to those asserted in the earlier-filed pleadings.

This case involves claims by appellants against respondent Double Rock Baptist Church of Compton California (Double Rock). Appellants appeal from a judgment of dismissal following an order sustaining demurrers to their individual complaints without leave to amend.
We find no error and affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Michelle McGuire (McGuire) alleges that in November 2014, she suffered personal injuries after she slipped and fell on a liquid substance on the premises of defendant and respondent Target Corporation (Target). Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Target. McGuire appeals, arguing: (1) The trial court abused its discretion by accepting Target’s untimely answer to the complaint; and (2) Substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that Target did not have knowledge of the liquid on its floor prior to her fall. We affirm.