CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs and appellants Larry Ballinger (Ballinger) and Carol Ballinger (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from an order granting defendant and respondent Lockheed Martin Corporations (Lockheed) motion to dismiss or stay for forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to Lockheeds motion until the afternoon before the motion was scheduled to be heard, and the trial court denied plaintiffs ex parte applications requesting a continuance and/or asking the court to consider the late-filed opposition. Finding Lockheeds motion unopposed, the trial court granted the motion on the ground that plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show that enforcement of a forum selection clause, in which Ballinger consented to jurisdiction in Maryland, would be inconvenient. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by denying their ex parte applications and that the contract and/or the provision Lockheed relied upon in its motion are not enforceable. Court affirm the order.

Appellants (mother) and (father) appeal from the dependency courts orders asserting jurisdiction over their children, Priscilla A. and Joseph A. Mother challenges the courts orders as to both children; father challenges the orders only as to Joseph. Court affirm.

Father appeals from the entry of a permanent restraining order requiring him to stay at least 100 yards away from the social worker and the dependent minors maternal grandmother, their residences, places of work, and vehicles, and to refrain from contacting them. He contends that the order was not supported by substantial evidence. Court reject his contention and affirm the order.

Orlando Fidel Gathrite (Gathrite) appeals the judgment (order revoking probation) entered following his plea of no contest to possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5). The trial court sentenced Gathrite to the low term of three years in state prison. Court affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Student Connection Center LLC (plaintiff) appeals the trial courts denial of prejudgment interest on a damage award following a court trial. Court find no error, and Court affirm.

Guadalupe A. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and contending the dependency court should have found that her children would benefit from the continuation of their relationship. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subds. (c)(1)(A), (h).) Court disagree and affirm the order.

Appellant Kathy R., the legal guardian of minors Jasmine R. and Angel R., appeals from a dispositional order of the juvenile court in a dependency case. Kathy challenges the juvenile courts denial of family reunification services, on the ground that she was entitled to the protections of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5 before reunification services could be denied because the guardianship was established by the probate court before the dependency matter commenced. She is correct. Accordingly, Court reverse the dispositional order and remand the matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings.

In this juvenile court dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300 et seq.),[1] Tamara S., the mother of the subject minor child, Savana R. (Mother and Savana, respectively), appeals from an order that terminated her parental rights to the minor. Savana (born July 8, 2005), was 15 months old when the termination order was made.
Mother raises several issues in this appeal. However, Court have no jurisdiction to entertain them because Mother did not comply with the statutory requirement that she raise those issues by means of a petition for extraordinary writ. ( 366.26, subd. (l).) Therefore, Court dismiss Mothers appeal.

Lisa G. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights to her son, Joseph A., and establishing adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) Appellant claims that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the trial judge, while sitting on a probate calendar, granted temporary guardianship to the maternal grandmother. Court affirm. The juvenile court order declaring Joseph a dependent of the court superseded the temporary guardianship order. ( 304; In re William T. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 790, 797.)

Evelia M. appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her son Gabriel M. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Finding no error, Court affirm.

Defendant was convicted by jury of burglary and attempted rape, each with use of a knife, and in a bifurcated court trial was found to have suffered two prior felony convictions, both of which qualified under the Three Strikes law. The case arose from an incident in which defendant entered a womans apartment with a knife, acted in a threatening manner, and later told police that he wanted to take the woman. On his appeal from the judgment, Court reversed one of the strike findings. (People v. Silas (March 22, 2006, B185226) [nonpub. opn.].) Court concluded that the finding, which arose from an Oklahoma conviction of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, did not qualify as a strike because the essential element of defendants personal use of the weapon was based on inadmissible hearsay.Court reversed the finding and the matter was remanded for resentencing. (Id. at pp. 67.)

Defendant appeals from the judgment following his plea of guilty to carjacking. (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a).) Pursuant to the written plea agreement, appellant agreed that he could be sentenced up to nine years state prison and acknowledged that "there's no commitment of probation, but it is still possible."
The trial court denied probation and sentenced appellant to the low term of three years state prison. Appellant was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45), and $700 restitution to the car dealership ( 1202.4, subd. (f)). Court have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

Deborah D. appeals a judgment of the juvenile court terminating its jurisdiction over her daughter Angelica, granting sole legal and physical custody of Angelica to her father, and awarding reasonable supervised visitation. Court affirm.

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300 et seq.), Esmeralda B., the mother of dependent minor children (Mother), has filed a petition for extraordinary writ, seeking relief from an order that set a section 366.26 hearing to determine a permanent plan for the children. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.600, 8.450, 8.452.) The hearing was set after it was determined by the trial court that the courts home of parent order (Mother), which was made 16 months after the children were declared dependent children and custody was taken from Mother, was no longer effective to protect or rehabilitate the children.
Mother contends (1) she did not receive a disposition hearing before the court set the section 366.26 hearing, (2) she was not given proper notice that reunification services might not be offered, or would be denied, (3) she was wrongfully denied reunification services, and (4) the trial court should not have sustained the allegations in the petition that form the basis of the courts decision to set the section 366.26 hearing.
Court's review of the lengthy record convinces us that none of Mothers contentions has merit. Therefore, Court deny her petition.