CA Unpub Decisions

In the underlying lawsuit, the City of Carson (Carson) sought to force the defendants, City of La Mirada, City Council of the City of La Mirada, and the La Mirada Redevelopment Agency (together La Mirada), to comply with the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 33426.7 and Government Code section 53084, commonly known as Assembly Bill No. 178 (Assem. Bill No. 178 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) 3 & 2, respectively (A.B. No. 178), Stats. 1999, ch. 462). A.B. No. 178 was designed to prevent competition between municipalities for big box retailers, by requiring the city to which the retailer moves to share tax revenues with the city that it leaves. We reversed the trial courts ruling that denied Carsons petition for writ of mandate. In a published opinion (City of Carson v. City of La Mirada (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 532 (Carson v. La Mirada) we held that Corporate Express, which had been lured away from Carson by La Mirada, was a big box retailer as defined by A.B. No. 178 with the result that La Mirada had to comply with the revenue sharing provisions of A.B. No. 178.
Carson now appeals from the subsequent order of the trial court that denied its attorney fees under the private attorney general fee doctrine (Code Civ. Proc., 1021.5). Court affirm.

Appellant (mother) is the mother of nine children who have been in the dependency system. In this appeal, she challenges the juvenile courts May 5, 2006, order denying her a hearing on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition.[1] In the petition, mother had sought custody of her three youngest children, or in the alternative, reunification services and liberalized visitation with them. Court find unpersuasive mothers contention that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her petition without an evidentiary hearing. Court affirm.

Defendant was convicted of escaping from jail, residential burglary, and kidnapping, with true findings on allegations that he had suffered three prior strikes and two prior serious felony convictions, and had served two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 4532, subd. (b)(1), 459, 207, subd. (a), 667, subds. (a) (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 62 years to life. Taylor appeals, (I) challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the kidnapping count and claiming there were (II) instructional and (III) sentencing errors. Court modify Taylors sentence to strike a concurrent term and, as modified, affirm.

Defendant and appellant V. Georges Hufnagel created a website that looked like the website of plaintiff and respondent Tirso Del Junco, Jr., M.D. Hufnagels website libeled Dr. Del Junco. Hufnagel appeals from the default judgment entered in favor of Dr. Del Junco. Court find unpersuasive all contentions raised by Hufnagel except for the argument that the punitive damage award cannot stand. Reversal of the judgment would ordinarily be necessary because it includes an award of $200,000 in punitive damages despite the fact that Dr. Del Junco never introduced evidence of Hufnagels financial condition. However, Court are rendering a conditional appellate judgment providing Dr. Del Junco with a choice between accepting the judgment as modified or returning to the trial court to present to the trial court evidence on the issue of punitive damages.

Following remand for recalculation of restitution owed, the trial court ordered as a condition of probation that Danasiri Ratnaweera (Ratnaweera) pay a total of $59,589.74 in restitution. Ratnaweera appeals from the trial courts order.
After examination of the record, Ratnaweeras appellate counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

Court have examined the entire record submitted by Ratnaweera and are satisfied that Ratnaweeras appellate counsel has complied fully with counsels responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284 [145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)

Appellant (father) is the presumed father of Francisco, born in August 2001. Father appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders establishing dependency jurisdiction over Francisco and removing Francisco from his custody. Father contends the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings that Francisco was at risk of continuing harm because of sexual abuse by a paternal uncle and domestic violence between his parents. Father further contends the juvenile court failed to consider less drastic alternatives to removing Francisco from his custody, and that the courts visitation order is unclear.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts jurisdictional findings, as well as the courts decision to remove Francisco from fathers custody. The visitation orders are clear, according father twice weekly unmonitored day visits and unmonitored overnight weekend visits after three day visits. Court therefore affirm the orders.

A mother appeals from a juvenile court order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition, and from an order terminating the mothers parental rights. We conclude that because the mother did not show new evidence or changed circumstances and did not provide evidence that modification of the prior orders would be in her childs best interests, summary denial of the mothers section 388 petition without a hearing was not an abuse of discretion. Court also conclude that the mother has not shown error in the juvenile courts finding that the beneficial parent child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply. Court affirm the orders.

Cornelius Francis (Francis) appeals the judgment (order revoking probation) entered following his plea of no contest to willfully inflicting corporal injury on his spouse, the mother of his child. (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced Francis to the upper term of four years in prison. Court affirm the judgment.

A modification decision.

Nearly two years after the judgment dividing the parties community property, Robert Morris Sherman sought to modify a portion of that judgment to increase the sum he would receive for his interest in the former family home. The trial court granted his motion, increasing Roberts share from $80,000 (less half the cost of necessary repairs) to $120,000.
The first contention has merit. Court modify the courts order that Diana promptly pay [a] $120,000 equalizing payment to Robert by requiring Diana to pay him $50,000.

Plaintiff Kenneth DeYoung sued his former employer, defendant Carmichael Recreation & Parks District (the district), for wrongful termination, retaliation, and defamation. The trial court dismissed the action as untimely under the Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, 810 et seq.). Finding no error or abuse of discretion, Court affirm the judgment of dismissal.

Following a bench trial, the court found Edward Garner guilty of selling cocaine base and possessing cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a), 11351.5.) Garner also admitted one prior strike conviction and eight prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12, 667.5, subd. (b).) Garner moved to dismiss the prior strike, but the court denied the motion. The court imposed a nine-year sentence, consisting of the low three-year term on the cocaine sale count, doubled to six years based on the prior strike, plus one year each for the sixth, seventh, and eighth prison priors. The court struck each of the one year terms for the first five prison priors, and stayed the sentence for the cocaine possession count under Penal Code section 654.
Garner's sole contention on appeal is that the court abused its discretion in failing to strike his prior strike conviction. Court determine this contention is without merit and affirm.

Tiffany B. appeals a judgment of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her minor children Gabriel B., Charles G. and Anthony G. (collectively the minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Tiffany contends the court erred by summarily denying her section 388 petition for modification. She also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude terminating her parental rights. Court affirm the judgment.

The juvenile court declared Michael D. a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602), after entering a true finding he committed felony vandalism (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)). The court placed him on probation, including a condition he pay $780.61 in victim restitution.