CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found that plaintiff had been subjected to a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment by defendant and awarded her damages of $100,000 against Austin and defendants County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (collectively, County). Defendant moved for $456,425 in attorney fees -- a lodestar of $228,212.50, with a multiplier of two -- under Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b) (section 12965(b)) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (section 1021.5). Finding 'compelling justification for limiting fees to no greater than the monetary [damages] award given by the jury," the trial court awarded Scott attorney fees in the amount of $100,000.
court reverse the order awarding attorney fees and remand the matter for a determination of the reasonable attorney fees under the lodestar adjustment method.

Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating his reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing. (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1.) Court deny the petition.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape (Pen. Code, S 261, subd. (a)(2)) and one count of kidnapping to commit rape (Pen. Code, S 209, subd. (b)(1)) primarily on the strength of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence. He was sentenced under the three strikes law to an aggregate, indeterminate term in state prison of 150 years to life.
Defendant was first identified as a suspect through a search of a convicted offender DNA database that contained a profile of defendant's DNA taken in connection with an unrelated matter. Defendant contends on appeal the earlier seizure of his DNA violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant further contends statistical data regarding the probability of a random DNA match was improperly admitted. Finally, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior uncharged offense. Court find no error and affirm the judgment.

Following a nonjury trial, the trial court determined defendants were liable for fraudulently obtaining ownership of a home held in trust for the support of their late father's wife. Court affirm the judgment.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, S 21000 et seq.) requires an environmental impact report (EIR) to accurately describe the scope of the project to be approved. Here, after completion of the draft EIR (DEIR), appellant and real party in interest FHK Paradise (FHK) discovered its planned development, the Skyway Plaza Shopping Center (Skyway), lacked sufficient capacity to handle projected wastewater demands. The subsequent final EIR contained water disposal mitigation measures. Defendants and respondents Town of Paradise and Paradise Town Council (Town) certified the EIR.
Court find the EIR failed to adequately consider the necessity for additional wastewater disposal in violation of CEQA. However, in contrast with the trial court's analysis, court find substantial evidence supports the Town's determination that Skyway will not result in significant urban blight. Therefore, court affirm the trial court's finding as to wastewater, but reverse its findings on urban decay. As to Save Our Gateway's cross appeal, court find Skyway is consistent with the Town's general plan and affirm the trial court on this issue.

After finding defendant violated his probation, the court sentenced him to the upper term of four years for spousal battery in case No. 03F10812, and eight months (one-third the midterm) for possessing a controlled substance in case No. 04F11030, to be served consecutively.
The judgment is affirmed.

On November 16, 2004, a police officer conducting a valid search seized 7.8 grams of methamphetamine, 1.3 grams of marijuana, two scales, two glass smoking pipes, and a marijuana smoking pipe from defendant. Court have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Appellant, the mother of the minors, appeals from the orders and judgment of the juvenile court declaring the minors to be dependents of the court. (Welf. and Inst. Code, SS 361, 395.) Appellant contends the juvenile court incorrectly applied the presumption contained in section 355.1, subdivision (d) (presumption that the minor is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court), when it sustained the petitions and erred by removing the minors from her care. Court affirm.

Plaintiff suffered devastating personal losses during a tumultuous time for her employer, the newly consolidated Kellogg's and Keebler companies. Amidst management turnover and corporate reorganization, plaintiff suffered an ectopic pregnancy resulting in two surgeries and two leaves of absence followed by two more unsuccessful pregnancies requiring two additional leaves of absence. Thomson's supervisors expressed dissatisfaction with her job performance, provided her a series of updated performance improvement plans, and, when she did not meet company expectations, fired her. The question posed by this appeal from a summary judgment is whether plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to create a material triable issue of fact that her termination was motivated by a discriminatory animus. Court review the trial court's order de novo and affirm. (Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142.)

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of five counts charged in an indictment. All of those counts related to the manufacture of methamphetamine and issues relating thereto. The jury also found true several charged enhancements, including one alleging that appellant was personally armed with a firearm. (Pen. Code, S 12022, subd. (c).) The trial judge subsequently sentenced appellant to a nine year prison term. Defendant appeals, claiming: (1) Miranda error; (2) improper denial of his motion to suppress evidence; (3) improper denial of his motion to compel disclosure of the name of a confidential informant; and (4) instructional error regarding the arming enhancement. Court reject all of these claims and affirm the judgment.

Appellant appeals an order awarding full custody of the parties' twin minor children to their mother. Court find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Appellant appeals an order imposing attorney fees as sanctions in the amount of $17,786, and declaring him to be a vexatious litigant. Court affirm.

Defendant appeals from a judgment sentencing him to 26 years, 8 months in state prison for attempted murder, intimidating a witness, and burglary. Defendant argues the following sentencing errors: (1) the trial court improperly imposed a full strength consecutive sentence on the witness intimidation count; (2) the trial court improperly imposed a sentence of one year, eight months on the burglary charge when it was unclear whether the offense was first or second degree burglary; (3) defendant was entitled to but not given credit for time served on the burglary charge; and (4) imposition of the upper term on the attempted murder count violated Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. Court agree the sentence on the burglary charge was improperly calculated but affirm the judgment in all other regards.

Defendant appeals his convictions for infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, assault with a deadly weapon, and battery causing serious bodily injury. Appellant argues the verdicts were not supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a new trial. Court affirm.