CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs Pallco Enterprises, Inc. (dba Orion Outdoor Media), Pallco Outdoor LLC (both individually and collectively, Pallco), and David Shane (Shane) appeal from a judgment for a permanent injunction against them prohibiting the placement of off-site advertising on a pole sign on Shanes commercial real property located within the boundaries of defendant City of West Hollywood. Court affirm.

Asia O. appeals from an order of wardship pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 upon a finding that she committed a misdemeanor grand theft from a person. (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (c)). She was placed home on probation and claims the finding that she committed grand theft is not supported by the evidence. For reasons stated in the opinion, Court affirm the order of wardship.

The Robert Bosch Tool Corporation and the Robert Bosch Corporation challenge the inclusion of the Robert Bosch Tool Corporation in the judgment obtained by respondent Ralph Davis, on his complaint. Court resolved that issue in appellants' other appeal of the judgment, in Case No. B185408. For that reason, this appeal is dismissed.

Lisa B. (mother) appeals from an order denying her petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and an order terminating dependency jurisdiction over her two younger children, David O. and William O. She contends reversal is required due the failure of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to comply fully with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). She also contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition and in terminating jurisdiction over David and William. Court conditionally vacate the orders from which mother appeals and remand the case for compliance with ICWA.

Court review this case for the third time. In 2003, Phoneisha Folkes filed a paternity action against Arthur Bufford to determine custody, visitation and child support for their daughter Miyae Bufford, born in 2002. Our first opinion rejected Buffords appeal and affirmed May 5, 2004 orders denying his motions for modification of child support and reconsideration. (Folkes v. Bufford (Jan. 5, 2005, B175903) [non-pub. opn.], modified on denial of rehearing (Feb. 1, 2005) (Folkes I).)
Now, Bufford appeals from January 31 and February 10, 2006 interlocutory orders denying his motion for discovery, awarding Folkes sanctions and attorney fees, changing the temporary visitation and custody arrangements, and setting child support. No judgment has been entered in the case and all the challenged orders relate to interlocutory rulings. Court summarily denied Buffords supersedeas petition seeking a stay pending resolution of the appeal. (Folkes v. Bufford (Jan. 24, 2007, B190336.) Bufford contends the court abused its discretion in making the orders. Because the discovery, sanctions, and temporary custody orders are not appealable, Court dismiss Buffords purported appeals from those orders. As to the attorney fees and support modification orders, Court reject his contention and affirm the orders.

Paulette Hayes appeals from the trial courts order denying her petition for an order allowing her to file a late claim for damages with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Court affirm.

In December 2003, Joel R. Garcia was charged with two counts of spousal rape (Pen. Code, 262, subd. (a)(1)), two counts of sodomy by force (Pen. Code, 286, subd. (c)(2)), one count of criminal threats (Pen. Code, 422), and one count of sexual battery by restraint (Pen. Code, 243.4, subd. (a)), all allegedly committed on his wife. In January 2004, pursuant to a plea bargain, the prosecutor amended the information to add one count of assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, 220, subd. (a)), and Garcia pleaded no contest to that count and the previously charged count of making criminal threats. The remaining counts were dismissed, and Garcia was given a combined sentence of six years and eight months. That sentence was suspended and Garcia was placed on probation for five years.We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
The judgment is affirmed.

The juvenile court declared A.G. a dependent of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), after sustaining numerous allegations against her mother, Kim W., who is not a party to this appeal, and a single allegation against her father, appellant L.G. Appellant, with whom the court placed A., seeks reversal of the courts jurisdictional finding against him and that portion of the dispositional order requiring him to participate in a drug rehabilitation program, drug testing and parent education. Court reverse the challenged jurisdictional finding and dispositional order as to appellant but otherwise affirm.

Terry T. and the minor S.T. appeal the orders declaring S.T. and his younger adopted brother Christian T. dependents of the juvenile court, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), and (j) and the findings under section 361 that substantial danger existed to the physical and emotional well-being of the minors, and no reasonable means existed to protect them without their removal from Terry T.s custody. Appellants claim sufficient evidence did not support the courts jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders. Terry T. also claims the juvenile dependency court erred in making findings under section 366.21, subdivision (e) immediately after the disposition hearing. Appellants claims lack merit. The court did not err in concluding Terry T. had inappropriately disciplined the minors and had sexually abused the minors older adopted brother Kenneth B. In addition, the court did not err removing the minors from Terry T. under section 361. Sufficient evidence existed to support the courts finding Terry T. still posed a substantial risk of harm to the minors because he had yet to address the sexual abuse alleged in the petitions. Finally, Terry T. has not shown he suffered any prejudice from the court making findings under section 366.21, subdivision (e) at the conclusion of the disposition hearing. Consequently, Court affirm.

The evidence at the adjudication hearing established that on January 6, 2006, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Los Angeles Police Officer Mario Cardona and his partner were on patrol in the area of 80th Street and Avalon Boulevard in Los Angeles when they observed appellant and other juveniles walking. Appellant was wearing a backpack, and when the patrol vehicle slowed, appellant and one of the other individuals ran. The officers got out of the vehicle and chased appellant. During the chase, Officer Cardona saw appellant make a motion, like in a dunking a basketball motion over a tall fence and could hear [something] going through the branches over the fence. The officers took custody of appellant and retrieved the backpack which contained marijuana plants. It was stipulated that the plant material recovered was 247 grams of marijuana. It was Officer Cardonas opinion that the marijuana was possessed for purposes of sale.
Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the order entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
The order of wardship is affirmed.

In this case, the trial court denied the Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition of Kristina B. (mother) and Bradley B. (father) with respect to their daughter Jazmin, and terminated their parental rights. The parents appeal the denial of the section 388 petitions. Finding no error, Court affirm.

These are actions under the California Environmental Quality Act (hereafter, CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) and planning and zoning law. Several environmental groups and the Town of Loomis (Loomis) sued Placer County (County) and the developers of a large residential development in the southwestern part of the county, claiming that Countys approval of the project was based on an inadequate environmental impact report (EIR) and was inconsistent with Countys General Plan. The trial court upheld the Countys certification of the projects EIR but invalidated the Countys approval of the projects corresponding specific plan because the record did not contain an identifiable plan.
Most of the issues have been settled while on appeal. We decide those that remain as follows: (1) we disagree with the developers and the County and find the trial court properly granted one of the environmental groups a citizens group attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, but we agree the amount of fees awarded is excessive and we remand on this issue; and (2) we reject the premise underlying the developers cross-appeal regarding the trial courts invalidation of the specific plans approval. Accordingly, Court affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Villanova Insurance Company provided workers compensation insurance to defendant and cross-complainant Precision Framing, Inc. from October 1999 to October 2001. Villanova was later placed into involuntary liquidation in California and Pennsylvania. Plaintiff and cross defendant M. Diane Koken, in her capacity as the insurance commissioner of Pennsylvania and liquidator of Villanova, filed a lawsuit to recover $150,190 from Precision in unpaid workers compensation insurance premiums. Precision alleged as an affirmative defense a setoff for the entire amount, which it explained at trial was based on Villanovas unclean hands that caused Precisions insurance costs to another insurance company to increase. The jury awarded Koken $18,190, and the trial court entered a judgment of $19,360.80 in her favor. Koken contends the judgment must be reversed because there was no right to a setoff, there was insufficient evidence Villanova had unclean hands, and the jury instruction on unclean hands was incorrect. Court agree with Koken and reverse the judgment.

A jury convicted defendant Juan D. Chavez of attempted first degree murder (Pen. Code, 664/187) and assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2)) and found true allegations that defendant personally discharged a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (d)), inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (a)), and personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison for attempted murder, added a consecutive 25 year to life term for the Penal Code section 12022.53 enhancement, and stayed the remaining terms.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution to amend the information to add the word premeditated to the attempted murder count, (2) erroneously denied his motion for substitute counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, and (3) should have dismissed the assault with a firearm count as a lesser included offense of attempted premeditated murder. Court reject the contentions and affirm the judgment.