CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants Fatemeh Anari and Reza Danayan appeal from a judgment against them in favor of plaintiff Sid Mirrafati. Anari and Danayan argue Mirrafati failed to provide substantial evidence in support of the specific allegations raised in his complaint. They also claim the trial court erred by admitting certain text messages into evidence and awarding prejudgment interest. For the reasons stated below, we disagree and affirm the judgment.
I
FACTS
A. Mirrafati’s Allegations
In May 2014, Mirrafati filed the operative first amended complaint (FAC) against his second cousin, Anari, Anari’s husband, Danayan, and Anari’s sister, Mojan Anari. Mirrafati alleged he “entered into a written broker agreement” with Anari and Danayan “whereby [Mirrafati] agreed to furnish . . . $130,000 in funding [as a] down payment to acquire real property in Toronto, Canada.” Mirrafati also alleged “[i]n exchange for locating an acceptable property and facilitating the purchase on [Mirraf

A group of seven appellants who have resided in the Palm Beach mobilehome park in San Clemente appeal from a single judgment in which each is held individually liable to the Palm Beach Park Association (PBPA) for unpaid rent on their spaces. Each appellant faces liability in varying amounts, ranging from $82,000 to about $160,000.
Regulations issued by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development require mobilehome park operators to assure that every unit in a mobilehome park is properly installed, as evidenced by (as the case may be) either a certificate of occupancy or a “Mobilehome Installation Acceptance.” (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, §§ 1102, 1366.) However, there is an exception for recreational vehicles (RV’s). (See Health & Saf. Code, § 18008, subd. (a) [RV’s not within definition of mobilehome]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, § 1320(d) [regulatory installation requirements do not include RV’s]. ) In this case, it is undisputed that there i

We face two issues in this companion to Chodosh v. Palm Beach Park Association (G053798) (Chodosh). One is procedural, the other substantive. The procedural issue is straightforward: Did the trial judge abuse his discretion in upholding a homeowners’ association’s election, in 2013, to ratify assessments of $200,000 levied equally on the association’s 126 members back in 2007? Our answer is that despite admitted irregularities in the election process – most notably the absence of safeguards to assure absolute secrecy – the trial judge’s decision was within the bounds of reason. It was reasonable to conclude the irregularities would not have made any difference.
The substantive issue is more problematic. The equal assessments of $200,000 against all members of the association were levied in order for the association to buy the land beneath a mobilehome park. But those equal assessments did not take into account wide disparities in the nature and value of the 126 ind

On September 27, 2018, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for the mother of now 13-year-old I.C., the subject of these writ proceedings, at an 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a)(1)) and set a section 366.26 hearing for January 3, 2019. Gregory C., biological father of I.C., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450, 8.452), directing the juvenile court to grant him custody of I.C. Gregory does not, however, comply with the rule by asserting juvenile court error. Consequently, we dismiss his petition as facially inadequate for review.

On September 12, 2018, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for Jerry G. (father) and Maryjane S. (mother), parents of now one-year-old Jerry G., Jr., (Jerry) and the subject of these writ proceedings, at a contested six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)(1)) and set a section 366.26 hearing for January 9, 2019. Father seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450, 8.452.), directing the juvenile court to grant him custody and continue reunification services. Father does not, however, comply with the rules by asserting juvenile court error. Consequently, we dismiss his petition as facially inadequate for review.

Appellant Johnny Gabriel Gutierrez was convicted in 2007 of two counts of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury, with great bodily injury and gang enhancements. He was sentenced to 27 years in prison.
In 2017, appellant filed a petition in the Superior Court of Tulare County for resentencing and argued the court improperly imposed the gang and great bodily injury enhancements pursuant to People v. Le (2015) 61 Cal.4th 416 (Le). The superior court denied his petition.
As we will explain, we remand the matter for resentencing pursuant to Le and Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (g), and correction of the abstract of judgment.

Appellant Kenneth Renaldo Garvin was convicted of committing multiple offenses against 14-year-old R.W. Garvin contends his pretrial statement to police was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) and the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement. We affirm.

The mother’s two oldest children, A.S. and K.S., were removed from her custody due to substance abuse. They ended up in the custody of their father.
In 2004, the mother tested positive for drugs while giving birth to S.E. In 2008, S.E. was “removed from the mother.” The record does not reflect any formal dependency proceeding regarding S.E., but it does state that the mother “failed to reunify with” her. The maternal grandmother (grandmother) became S.E.’s legal guardian.
Also in 2008, the mother tested positive for drugs while giving birth to N.A. N.A. and an older child, J.S., were removed from her custody. They were declared dependents, based in part on substance abuse and domestic violence. In 2011, the mother’s parental rights to them were terminated.

The parties stipulated that the police report contained a factual basis for the plea. The following factual summary is taken from the police report. Defendant was an approved San Bernardino County childcare provider since 2004. She stopped reporting her income from 2011 to 2016 and applied for and received cash aid and food stamp benefits that she was not entitled to. When asked why she stopped reporting her income, she said she had no valid reason for it. She said she just did not feel the need to report her income anymore.

Defendant and appellant Thomas Glenn Houghton pled guilty to five felonies after committing lewd acts on a 14-year-old girl. The court imposed but stayed a six-year sentence on the condition that defendant serve 365 days in jail and comply with probation conditions. We dismiss the appeal at defendant’s request.

Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Adam E. Ebright, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The mother of three girls, and the father of one of the three, appeal from an order adopting a permanent planned living arrangement as the girls’ permanent plan. They contend that there was a failure to inquire as to whether the father of the other two girls had Indian ancestry for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)

A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Antonio Villaneuva, of carrying a concealed dirk and dagger on January 19, 2016 (Pen. Code, § 21310; count 1) and of robbing an “asset protection” store employee, Jorge N. (Jorge), on December 3, 2014 (§ 211; count 2). The jury found not true an allegation that defendant personally used a firearm in count 2. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) The court found defendant was out on bail when he committed count 1 (§ 12022.1) and had two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior strike/prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subds. (a), (c), (e)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to 16 years four months in prison, including five years based on his prior serious felony conviction.

Lozano Smith, Mark W. Waterman and Mark K. Kitabayashi for Respondents, Appellants and Real Parties in Interest Southwestern Community College District Governing Board and Southwestern Community College District.
Southwestern Community College District (District) and its governing board (Board) (together Southwestern) demoted Arlie Ricasa from an academic administrator position to a faculty position on the grounds of moral turpitude, immoral conduct, and unfitness to serve in her then-current role. Ricasa filed two petitions for writs of administrative mandamus in the trial court seeking, among other things, to set aside the demotion and reinstate her as an academic administrator.

Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Conrad Kaelin asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
Officers Sheldon and Dominguez were on patrol when they saw a car that matched a vehicle suspected to have been involved in a recent shooting. Officer Dominguez recognized the driver, DeAndrew Jordan, one of the identified shooters. The officers stopped the vehicle because there was a $1,000,000 felony arrest warrant for Jordan. Defendant was a passenger in the vehicle, along with two other people. A search of the vehicle recovered a .40-caliber Hi-Point rifle and a .40-caliber Glock 22 loaded with a high capacity magazine. Defendant was on probation, and there was evidence that he was a member of the North Side Gangster Crip criminal street gang.