CA Unpub Decisions

Mother appeals after the juvenile court ordered her daughter, removed from her home.Appellant contends that: The juvenile court used the wrong standard of proof in evaluating the evidence; the court should not have taken judicial notice of the juvenile court file of respondent's brother; Appellant did not receive effective assistance of counsel; and the evidence does not support the court's findings and determinations. Court affirm.

A criminal law decision regarding possession of methamphetamine.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment dismissing his action against defendants Golden State Station Services, Inc. (GSSS), and unnamed "Doe" defendants (collectively Defendants) based on appellant's delay in prosecuting that action. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Appellant appeals the judgment declaring his daughter a dependent of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d) and removing her from his custody pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c)(1) and (c)(4). Appellant contends that the court's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Court affirm the judgment.

A criminal law decision regarding possessing methamphetamine

Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to unlawfully causing a fire that caused great bodily injury. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Lindberg on probation for four years, including various probation conditions. Among those conditions were several relating to alcohol and drug abuse treatment, to which Appellant objected.
On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing drug and alcohol counseling and treatment probation conditions as his conviction was not a drug-related offense, he has no history of committing drug offenses and does not have a drug problem. Court conclude Appellant's argument lacks merit and, accordingly, affirm.

Plaintiff entered a contract to perform rehabilitation work on a home owned by appellant pursuant to a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program administered by City of Oceanside (City) as the "local entity." Under the contract, Plaintiff was entitled to progress payments after City approved the work for which payment was sought. Plaintiff applied for payment for the first segment of work he performed, but neither Owners nor City approved the work and Owners declined to pay him. Plaintiff then ceased further work and filed this action. The matter was tried to a jury, which found in favor of Plaintiff.
Owners moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or alternatively for a new trial. The court denied the JNOV motion but granted the motion for a new trial. Plaintiff appeals from the new trial order, and Owners cross appeal from the JNOV order.

A modification decision.

Appellant filed an appeal from a judgment entered after his plea of nolo contendere. Appellant's counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Appellant filed a four cause of action complaint against defendants, in a dispute over control of appellant company. Defendants' motion to strike the complaint under the anti SLAPP statute was granted as to two, and denied as to two, of the causes of action. Defendants argue here that the motion should have been granted in full. Court agree with the trial court that the disputed causes of action did not arise from activity protected by the statute. Accordingly, court affirm the order on the motion.

After their application for a permit for an on site sewage disposal system was denied, appellants brought an action for damages against respondent County of Mendocino and three employees of its Department of Public Health. The trial court granted summary adjudication or judgment on the pleadings to the county and its employees on each of seven causes of action. Appellants appeal the subsequent judgment, contending inter alia that the trial court erroneously required them to exhaust judicial remedies by filing a timely petition for mandate before bringing their tort causes of action for damages. They also argue in the alternative that if the time for filing a petition for mandate began to run when the original permit was rejected, the doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply to extend the time for filing the mandamus action.Court affirm the judgment.

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. Petitioner challenges the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services. Appellant contends that the juvenile court lacked substantial evidence that his daughter would be at risk in his care. Alternatively, he contends that he did not receive reasonable reunification services and should have been granted additional services and that the court abused its discretion in failing to require more frequent visitation. Court deny the writ petition.

Following a contested probation revocation hearing, the trial court found appellant in violation of his probation and sentenced him to two years in state prison. Appellant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation, that he did not willfully violate the terms of his probation because he was never informed of them, and that a federal immigration removal order vitiated his obligations with regard to his probation. Court reverse.

A criminal law decision regarding sexual harassment of students or employees.