CA Unpub Decisions

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts findings at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered monitored visitation with the father. Court affirm.

This appeal arises from a dispute between an insurer and its insured, a car dealership and garage. The issue is whether the insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify the insured for its liability arising from a car accident caused by an employee driving a rental car he rented from a related car rental business. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor the insurer. Court affirm on the basis that there is no coverage under the policy.

Plaintiff Brenda James worked at the Bank of America (Bank) for 25 years, until June 2004 when she resigned under threat of termination. The threat followed the Banks investigation of a complaint that plaintiff was mistreating the employees she supervised, which investigation included interviews with those employees. Plaintiff filed a seven count complaint, and the trial court granted the Bank summary adjudication of all counts, and thus summary judgment. Our review leads to the conclusion that the summary judgment was correct, and Court affirm.

Walter H. Eason, Jr., in propria persona, appeals the order denying his motion for leave to intervene in the action of the Karuk Tribe of California (Karuk Tribe) against the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Karuk Tribes action alleges violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) pertaining to the Departments issuance of suction dredge mining permits under Fish and Game Code sections 5653 and 5653.9 and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 228 et seq. Court affirm.

In these consolidated appeals, Ramiro Garcia Sanchez and Federico Garcia Sanchez (the Sanchezes) appeal from the trial courts order granting summary judgment in favor of Ben A. Begier Co. (Begier) and General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC). Begier appeals the denial of attorney fees. Court affirm the trial courts rulings with respect to both appeals.

Lynette Jones and her son, Joshua Lisenbe, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, John David Grainger, brought suit against several defendants, alleging injury as a result of exposure to mold in their unit of a new apartment building. They appeal from the trial courts ruling granting summary judgment to Los Gatos Construction Company, Inc. (Los Gatos), the framing subcontractor for the building. Court reverse.

Defendant Arthur Stewart, Jr., appeals after pleading guilty to a charge of possession of a controlled substance in a jail or prison. (Pen. Code,[1] 4573.6.) His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. There are no meritorious issues to be argued. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant Johnathan L. appeals from a dispositional order committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA) for a maximum confinement period of eight years. Appellant contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the CYA because the evidence does not establish that a CYA commitment would benefit him, or that less restrictive alternatives were inappropriate or unavailable. Court affirm.

Counsel for defendant Sontrail Copeland has filed an opening brief in which he 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. Counsel represents defendant has been apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant has not filed a brief. Court have conducted the review requested by counsel, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

Father, Michael K., and Mother, Dolly K., are the parents of T.K. In separate writ petitions, which we consider together in this opinion, they argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts conclusion that, by clear and convincing evidence, they fell within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), (b)(11), and (b)(13) and therefore, were not entitled to reunification services. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial courts order and deny the writ petition.

Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial of attempted kidnapping (Pen. Code, 207, 664), inflicting corporal injury ( 273.5, subd. (a)), assault ( 240), and assault with force ( 245, subd. (a)(1)). On March 20, 2007, petitioner was sentenced to five years in state prison.
According to petitioners trial counsel, petitioner asked her to file an appeal on his behalf on the day he was sentenced. Counsel states she filed a notice of appeal, but due to an error in calculating the due date, she filed the notice three days late, on May 24, 2007.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted.

In this reverse validation action (Code Civ. Proc., 860 et seq.), we are asked to invalidate contracts entered into in 2001 by the Castaic Lake Water Agency (the Agency), the Castaic Lake Water Agency Financing Corporation (Financing Corporation), U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee (Trustee), and Stone & Youngberg, the underwriter (together defendants). In the challenged transaction created by these contracts, defendants issued certificates of participation (certificates) through which the Agency raised funds for various projects. Appellants,[1] two local taxpayers, contend that the effect of this transaction was to sell all of the assets of the Agencys wholly-owned subsidiary, the Santa Clarita Water Company (the Water Company), a nonprofit public benefit corporation, in violation of portions of the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law (Corp. Code, 5110 et seq., 5410, 5913, & 6010). The trial court ruled that the contracts were valid and did not violate the Corporations Code provisions that appellants cited.
Court conclude that the trial court properly declined to invalidate the contracts. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.

This is an action for intentional, negligent, and reckless misrepresentation and concealment of material facts, breach of a security agreement, and conversion. Plaintiffs and appellants are labor-management multi-employer trusts created pursuant to declarations of trust between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12, and employer associations in the construction industry in Southern California and Southern Nevada (the Trusts).[1] Defendants and respondents are various contractors and related individuals who are alleged to be subject to the trust agreements (Defendants).[2] The Trusts appeal from a judgment of dismissal and award of sanctions, following a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendants. The Trusts contend judgment on the pleadings was improperly granted on res judicata grounds. The Trusts also argue their action was not barred by the statute of limitations, or other grounds asserted on appeal by Defendants. The Trusts further contend the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend and imposing sanctions for filing a frivolous action. Court hold that judgment on the pleadings was improperly granted and reverse the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Rick Jenkins appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury involving domestic violence. Defendant contends: (1) his federal constitutional rights were violated by the trial courts imposition of the upper term based on factors that were not determined by a jury; and (2) the trial court violated the dual use prohibition by using aggravating factors to impose the upper term that were also the basis of sentence enhancements. Court affirm.