CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff United Walnut Taxpayers, a non-profit public benefit corporation, appeals from an order denying its motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff sued defendants, Mt. San Antonio Community College District (Mt. SAC) and William Scroggins, in his official capacity as president and chief executive officer of Mt. SAC, for declaratory and injunctive relief for misuse of bond funds authorized by measure pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a and Education Code section 15284.
Plaintiff moved for preliminary injunction, asserting that a project to build a new athletic stadium was not identified as a project in the measure, as required by the California Constitution and the Education Code. The trial court denied the motion, finding plaintiff had not shown a reasonable likelihood of success and had failed to demonstrate that interim harm balanced in its favor. On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court abused its discretion. We affirm.

Brenda S. (mother) and Tony M. (father) appeal from the findings and order terminating their parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the court erred in finding inapplicable the parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). Father contends the court did not fulfill its continuing duty under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.), and sections 224 et seq. to inquire into a minor’s status as an Indian child. Mother joins father’s ICWA argument.

The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over Joshua B. after finding his mother, M.M. (Mother), had an unresolved history of substance abuse. Mother challenges the court’s subsequent dispositional order requiring that she undergo an Evidence Code section 730 mental health evaluation. She also contends the juvenile court erred in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) does not apply to this case and by failing to ensure the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) complied with ICWA’s inquiry and notice requirements. We affirm the dispositional order and remand the matter for the juvenile court and DCFS to comply with ICWA.

Defendants Amber Heard (Heard) and Under the Black Sky, Inc., appeal the award of $6,850 in discovery sanctions following the trial court’s grant of plaintiff Nicola Six Limited’s motion to compel the deposition of Amber Heard. We affirm.

M.R. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s order exercising jurisdiction over his son A.V.. He contends the court’s sustained factual allegations against him for (1) failing to protect his son from the risk of serious physical harm, and (2) being an abuser of marijuana, should be stricken because they are not supported by substantial evidence. Since the filing of father’s appeal, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over the matter, arguably rendering this appeal moot. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) moved to dismiss the appeal, but otherwise did not object to father’s request. We denied DCFS’s motion. Because the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings could detrimentally affect father in the future, we considered the merits of father’s appeal. We agree with father and reverse the juvenile court’s findings against him. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

In this disability discrimination action, plaintiff and appellant Miguel Alvarez (Alvarez) appeals the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment of defendant and respondent Tuttle Family Enterprises, Inc. dba Peerless Building Maintenance Inc. (Peerless). Finding no error, we affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant George Carr, by and through his guardian ad litem Denise Klein, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Chicago Title Company, Chicago Title Insurance Company, and Tony Taranto (collectively, Chicago). The court entered judgment after sustaining Chicago’s demurrer without leave to amend.

In the 1980s, plaintiff Robert James (James) and defendant Howard Keck, Jr. (Keck) both owned land in Riverside County. When the local water district proposed building a sewage plant nearby, James rallied Keck and other neighbors to form a property owners’ association that litigated and lobbied against the project, and the plant was ultimately built elsewhere. Decades later, James filed a lawsuit claiming Keck was unjustly enriched by James’s efforts to relocate the sewage plant. Keck responded by filing an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike James’s complaint, and we consider whether, as the trial court found in denying the anti-SLAPP motion, James’s lawsuit did not arise from Keck’s participation in the campaign against the sewage plant.

Respondent David B. (David) petitioned the family court to reduce child support payments he made to appellant Megan C. (Megan) for the benefit of their daughter. After a convoluted series of hearings over the course of a year, the family court—orally during a hearing—granted David’s request to reduce his child support payments. A minute order and Order After Hearing subsequently issued by the family court, however, indicated the family court denied David’s child support modification request. David later asked the family court to correct the written orders it issued as the product of clerical error, and the family court agreed. Megan now appeals, and we consider whether the orders were properly corrected on clerical error grounds, whether Megan was entitled to a statement of decision upon correction of the errors, and if so, whether the family court’s refusal to prepare a statement of decision warrants reversal.

A jury convicted appellant David Cruz Alvarado of transportation for sale of a controlled substance, possession for sale of a controlled substance, first degree residential burglary, and felony unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of 44 years and four months to life in state prison.

Plaintiffs and appellants Carlos and Olga Garau (the Garaus) appeal a judgment of dismissal following the grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants and respondents Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar); HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, MANA Series 2007-OAR5 (HSBC); and Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss LLP (Barrett) (collectively, Defendants).
In this appeal arising from an action by the Garaus to prevent Defendants from proceeding with a nonjudicial foreclosure, we conclude the trial court properly determined the Garaus failed to state a cause of action for declaratory relief and therefore affirm the judgment.

Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester; Sevan Gobel and Ladell Hulet Muhlestein; for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff and appellant David P. Bueno (plaintiff) was injured while working security at a football game when fans of defendant and appellant University of Southern California (USC) stormed the field after USC eked out a victory over Stanford University (Stanford) in the game’s final seconds. Plaintiff sued USC on a negligence theory, and the trial court granted summary judgment for USC after this court issued an alternative writ so suggesting. We consider whether plaintiff has raised any issues of material fact meriting a jury trial.

Defendant and appellant Champion Chrysler Jeep Dodge (Dealer) appeals from a judgment following a bench trial. Plaintiff and respondent Bank of the West (Bank) sued Dealer for various causes of action related to an automobile sale contract between Dealer and a third party, which Dealer in turn sold to Bank, pursuant to a Master Sale Agreement between Dealer and Bank. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Bank. Dealer contends that the trial court erred in rendering its verdict because uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that Bank had waived its right to sue Dealer for beach of the Master Sale Agreement, and Bank failed to mitigate its damages. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Arvind Shankar appeals from an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought by defendant Chicago Title Insurance Company and joined by defendants C. Edward Chu (personally and as trustee), Yoon Young Chu (personally and as trustee), and Jeffrey D. Chu (personally and as trustee). Plaintiff contends that the allegations of his first amended complaint adequately state causes of action against these defendants for fraudulent transfer of assets and an accounting. Specifically, plaintiff contends that by acting as a trustee of a deed of trust in a real property transaction, Chicago Title Insurance Company conspired with the other defendants and assisted in transferring real property to shield those assets from potential liability defendant Jeffrey D. Chu could incur in his other ongoing litigation with plaintiff.