CA Unpub Decisions

In 2012, Ramin Shahidi sued Perfint Healthcare Corporation USA, Perfint Healthcare PVT. LTD. (a foreign company), and Nandakumar Subburaman (the companies’ chief executive officer) to recover approximately $150,000 in unpaid consulting fees for work performed advising defendants on how to develop a surgical software and robotics company. The complaint contained causes of action for reasonable value of services rendered, open book account, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, and also sought punitive damages. The parties appeared through counsel at a trial setting conference in October 2018. Jury trial was set to begin on April 2, 2019, with a settlement conference scheduled for March 27, 2019. Plaintiff served defendants on March 13, 2019 with a notice to appear at trial with documents, including “[a]ll annual financial statements, ledgers, [and] tax returns for each individual, and all Perfint entities.”

Dependency proceedings were initiated in June 2021 after mother tested positive for amphetamine while being admitted to the hospital to deliver her youngest child. Mother has a history of methamphetamine and opiate use dating back to 2001. In March 2001, she tested positive for methamphetamine while giving birth to a daughter. The child was detained and mother was denied reunification services. In December 2001, mother’s parental rights were terminated and the child was freed for adoption.
The department filed a dependency petition on the children’s behalf, alleging mother’s substance abuse problem placed them at a substantial risk of harm and that they were at risk of suffering the same neglect suffered by their half sibling. (§ 300, subds. (b)(1) & (j).) The petition identified Anthony M. (father) as the children’s alleged father. The older children were initially placed together in foster care while the baby remained hospitalized.

On March 23, 2021, the agency filed a petition on behalf of E.V. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging he was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness due to the parents’ substance abuse problems. Eliseo V. (father) was listed as E.V.’s presumed father. The petition included an Indian Child Inquiry Attachment (ICWA-010(A)) form indicating the social worker asked mother and father about Indian ancestry and they gave him no reason to believe E.V. was or could be an Indian child. The parents also completed Parental Notification of Indian Status (ICWA 020) forms indicating they did not have Indian ancestry.
The detention report stated ICWA may not apply as both parents reported they did not have Indian ancestry.
On March 24, 2021, at the detention hearing, the juvenile court stated it received the parents’ ICWA-020 forms and found ICWA did not apply.

While playing hide-and-seek with J.M., a six-year-old, minor, then 14 years old, asked to see J.M.’s necklace. J.M. allowed him to unclasp it. Minor removed it from J.M.’s neck by undoing the clasp, then ran away with it. J.M. chased after minor but could not find him.
In court, J.M. testified that minor did not say or do anything to him when taking his necklace, aside from asking to see it and undoing the clasp. He testified that minor did not push him. J.M. testified that E.C., minor’s friend and J.M.’s neighbor, also a teenager, saw minor take his necklace.
E.C. testified that he remembered playing hide-and-seek with minor and J.M., but denied seeing minor take J.M.’s necklace, and denied that he told the police that he had. However, E.C. testified that he did see J.M. crying, after which E.C. tried to find minor. He testified that he failed to find minor. He testified that later that day, he told J.M.’s mother that he did not know who had taken J.M.’s necklace.

On November 12, 2019, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) received a referral alleging the conditions of mother’s home were hazardous to
nine-year-old J.W. and eight-year-old D.T. An agency social worker responded to mother’s home with Merced County Sheriff’s Deputy Ochoa. Mother’s home was found to be “in disarray with trash, debris, old food, clothing, wet clothing in the bathroom, an over-filled cat box, standing bucket of water under the kitchen sink, broken items, and various other hazards.” Mother was using the gas oven to heat the house in the morning, and she was unaware of the risk posed if the oven’s flame went out. Several knives were in reach of the children and empty glass alcohol bottles were on the porch and driveway. The home had a strong smell of mildew and urine from the cat and J.W.’s enuresis. Ochoa’s eyes began burning, and he had to leave the home to catch his breath.

The department filed a juvenile dependency petition in December 2020 on behalf of T.L. and S.L. and the children were ultimately removed from mother and father’s home. The dependency petition alleged mother had a substance abuse problem that negatively affected her ability to care for her children. It noted mother had 10 children previously removed from her care in the past due to her ongoing substance abuse problem, and mother had failed to reunify with any of her children. It further alleged father had failed to provide T.L. and S.L. with “adequate care, supervision and protection” despite father having received family reunification services in the past, including but not limited to, parenting, substance abuse and mental health services.

In July 2021, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office filed an amended wardship petition alleging three counts against 15-year-old A.R.—domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The petition alleged all three counts were felonies.
The incident occurred on April 4, 2021. A.R. and his girlfriend, who had been dating for about a year, got into an argument at the girlfriend’s mother’s house. A.R. left, but returned later to retrieve his belongings, which the girlfriend had set out on the porch. Against the girlfriend’s wishes, A.R. came back inside the house, and their argument escalated.
The girlfriend testified that A.R. began punching her in the face and arms, and when she fell to the floor, he bit her and kicked her in the stomach.

Defendant and real party in interest, Sanjay Bagai (defendant), was charged in a felony complaint with violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). At his preliminary hearing, defendant moved to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b)(5). The magistrate orally denied defendant’s request, pronounced that he would hold defendant to answer, and set a subsequent hearing to permit defendant to bring a motion for reconsideration. At the subsequent hearing, the magistrate granted defendant’s request to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor offense, purportedly pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b)(5).
The People seek review of the order granting defendant’s motion for reconsideration by way of a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the magistrate lost jurisdiction to reduce the charge pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), once an order holding defendant to answer was filed.

Sometime between the late evening of November 19, 2019 and the early morning of the following day, the victim was beaten and bound with an extension cord while his assailants stole various items from his home and took his car. Over the course of the investigation and at trial, the victim gave a number of accounts that conflicted on certain details, including the precise time the home invasion took place. Hidalgo’s defense at trial was that he couldn’t have been one of the assailants because he was in police custody for nearly 12 hours on November 20, 2019—from about 3:45 a.m. to about 3:00 p.m.
A. Prosecution’s Case
The victim, who is 5'7'' and in his 60s, lives in Hesperia with his wife and son, neither of whom was home when the incident occurred. The victim was acquainted with Hidalgo (who is in his 30s) through his daughter, Rachel, and had spent time with him on a few previous occasions.

A jury found defendant and appellant, Arturo Perez Medina, guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1), being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 3). The jury additionally found true allegations that defendant had committed the murder for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and that defendant had personally and intentionally used a firearm causing great bodily injury in his commission of the murder (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court thereafter found true allegations defendant had suffered a prior strike (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)).
At sentencing, on the People’s motion, the court dismissed counts 2 and 3.

In November 2008, father filed a petition to establish a parental relationship with his three-month-old son, after Talia Johnson (mother) moved out of state with the child. In response, mother requested, and the trial court ordered, genetic testing to determine paternity. Paternity was established, and the court found that mother intentionally kept the child from father by moving to Georgia, and father is the parent most likely to facilitate a relationship between the child and the other parent. Thus, father was granted primary physical custody, the parties were awarded joint legal custody, and they were required to set up a webcam in their homes to facilitate daily visitation. Mother returned to California, and both parents were ordered to enroll in coparenting classes.
In 2010, at mother’s request, an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation was conducted by Teresita Guerrero-Cottrell, Ph.D. Dr. Guerrero-Cottrell recommended that mother be granted primary physical custody.

In November 2008, father filed a petition to establish a parental relationship with his three-month-old son, after Talia Johnson (mother) moved out of state with the child. In response, mother requested, and the trial court ordered, genetic testing to determine paternity. Paternity was established, and the court found that mother intentionally kept the child from father by moving to Georgia, and father is the parent most likely to facilitate a relationship between the child and the other parent. Thus, father was granted primary physical custody, the parties were awarded joint legal custody, and they were required to set up a webcam in their homes to facilitate daily visitation. Mother returned to California, and both parents were ordered to enroll in coparenting classes.
In 2010, at mother’s request, an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation was conducted by Teresita Guerrero-Cottrell, Ph.D. Dr. Guerrero-Cottrell recommended that mother be granted primary physical custody.

A witness testified that a person he saw earlier dressed the same as defendant shot and killed the victim. A second witness told an officer he saw defendant and another man shoot the victim seven times.
By interlineated felony information, the People charged defendant with murder (§ 187, subd. (a), count 1) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (former § 29800, count 2). The People additionally alleged that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in his commission of the murder (former § 12022.53, subd. (d)); committed the murder for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (former § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)); had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (former § 667, subd. (a)); and had suffered a prior strike conviction (former §§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).

The Agency initiated these dependency proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 subdivision (b)(1) on behalf of J.L.E.S., J.A.E.S., and L.D. (collectively referred to as the children) in September 2019, alleging there was a substantial risk the children would suffer serious physical harm or illness based on Mother’s failure to provide adequate supervision or protection. The agency alleged Mother was fearful of Father because he appeared to be under the influence of drugs, but she nonetheless allowed him to sleep in the home with the children. J.S. took J.A.E.S., who was three years old at the time, from the home, stole a vehicle, and drove erratically with J.A.E.S. unrestrained in the stolen vehicle. Father was arrested and admitted methamphetamine use.