CA Unpub Decisions

On September 22, 2020, the juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition and found jurisdiction over the four children based on father’s domestic violence toward mother, father’s physical abuse of the children, and father’s inappropriate conduct toward his oldest child (the half-sibling). The sustained allegations included: (1) in April 2020, while in front of two of the children, father smashed the windows of a car occupied by mother, injuring her, and then attacked and injured her boyfriend (who was also in the car) with a metal bat; (2) on multiple occasions, father pushed mother, threw her against a wall, threw objects at mother, grabbed mother’s hair, and struck mother; (3) on multiple occasions, father pulled his 14-year-old son’s hair, slammed him into a wall, threw him to the ground, kicked him, slapped and punched him, struck him with a belt, and made him kneel while holding a heavy cross until he fell asleep;

On February 25, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a UD complaint in Case No. 20BBCV00157 against defendants in the Burbank Courthouse. Plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of a residence on Chandler Boulevard in North Hollywood, and that defendants rented the residence from plaintiffs for $2,400 per month pursuant to an oral agreement entered into on April 1, 2016.
Plaintiffs alleged that on or about February 18, 2020, they caused a three-day notice to pay rent or quit to be served on defendants, which plaintiffs attached to the verified complaint as an exhibit. The three-day notice to quit demanded $2,400 per month for the time period beginning February 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020 (a total of $28,800 in back rent). The proof of service of notice attested that plaintiffs posted and mailed the three-day notice to quit on February 26, 2020.
The complaint sought damages of past due rent in the amount of $28,800, and damages at the rate of $80 per day beginning February 1, 2019.

After a jury awarded $1,500,000 in damages to the estate of Milton Glass for breach of contract and negligence in connection with his care at a residential facility for the elderly, defendants, respondents, and cross-appellants Whills, LLC and Leisure Care, LLC moved the court for a partial new trial and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In ruling on the motions, the trial court found the jury’s award comprised $500,197 in economic damages and $999,803 in emotional distress damages. Finding that Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34 precluded Milton’s estate from recovering emotional distress damages sustained from a tort, and that such damages could not be awarded on the breach of contract cause of action, the court reduced the damages awarded to Milton’s estate to $500,197. Separately, the court denied Renee’s motion for attorney fees, finding the parties’ contract did not permit them.

On August 20, 2020, mother R.B., father J.W. Jr., and then 1-year old J.W. were in a parked car when unknown assailants fired approximately 30 shots into the vehicle. Both parents were killed and J.W. was seriously injured and taken to the hospital, where he remained for several days.
On August 25, the Solano County Health and Social Services Department filed a dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (g), alleging that J.W. was without a care provider who could make medical decisions on his behalf.
A jurisdiction and detention hearing was set for October 6, in advance of which the department filed a jurisdiction and detention report. The report indicated that J.W. had been placed with his maternal aunt, M.B., after he was released from the hospital on August 27.

The parties were married in June 2000 and had two children, a son, born in June 2001, and a daughter, born in August 2004. They separated in March 2017. In May 2017, Allison filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.
While the dissolution petition was pending, Ron left his position as an executive at Lyft. Upon his departure, he signed a Confidential Separation Agreement and General Release (Separation Agreement). The Separation Agreement stated that Ron had been “granted options to purchase an aggregate of 240,230 shares” of Lyft common stock, referred to as the “Options.” It further indicated that Ron had already exercised 89,000 of these options, and would “be vested in an additional 151,230 of the shares that are subject to the Options and remain exercisable as of the Separation Date.”
On December 14, 2018, the family court filed the Judgment, which dissolved the marriage and resolved support and property issues.

Defendant was charged with four counts of sexual intercourse with Jane Doe One (Doe One), a child who was 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a), counts 1, 3, 5, 7). He was also charged with multiple counts of lewd acts upon a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a) (288(a))): four involving Doe One (counts 2, 4, 6, 8); and two involving Jane Doe Two (Doe Two) (counts 9 and 10). The charges concerning Doe One specified that counts 1 and 2 concerned conduct “In the bedroom—first time”; counts 3 and 4 concerned conduct “In the bedroom—the time when her sister was at the house”; counts 5 and 6 concerned conduct “In the bathroom”; counts 7 and 8 concerned conduct “The same day as the bathroom incident.” A One Strike multiple-victim allegation was alleged as to each of the section 288(a) counts. (§ 667.61, subds. (e), (j)(2).)
After trial in October and November 2019, a jury found defendant not guilty of counts 7 and 8, and could not reach a verdict on co

Appellant E.T., father of B.T. and H.T., appeals from an order terminating his parental rights as to B.T. and H.T. Respondent, Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department), and E.T. jointly move for a summary reversal of the order. The parties agree that the trial court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and request that we remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA. We grant the motion and reverse the order pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.
At a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in February 2020, E.T. and the children’s mother (mother) filed ICWA-20 forms. Mother indicated having no known Indian ancestry, and E.T. indicated that he may have Indian ancestry and provided the name of a paternal grandfather who might have more information.

In a confidential indictment, the grand jury alleged that Law murdered Nguyen and personally used deadly and dangerous weapons, a rock and brick, in the commission of the offense.
A. Trial Evidence
On July 12, 2016, Hoang Thi “Jenny” Ho was looking for Nguyen. Ho was concerned about Nguyen’s health because, when Ho had seen him that morning, he had been doing crack for three days and seemed “very tired” and “weaker” than usual. She tried calling Nguyen but received no response. When Ho did not find him at his house, she drove by Law’s house at around 4:00 or 5:00 p.m.: Law and Nguyen were friends, and Nguyen frequently visited Law, sometimes with Ho, sometimes to use crack together.
Nguyen’s car was parked in Law’s driveway. Because Nguyen had not been answering his phone, Ho called Law and offered to bring him some crack and to “hang out.” When she returned with “the goods,” Ho spoke to Law in person in the driveway.

The children were removed from mother’s custody in October 2020 by the San Francisco County Human Services Agency (agency) after mother and J.S., father of the three younger children (father), engaged in domestic violence in the children’s presence. Mother struck father with a candle, a towel rack, and a wooden picture frame, causing injury. The children were crying and visibly upset. Then 10-year-old A.J. contacted the police and mother was arrested. The parents had a significant history of domestic violence. They also had untreated mental health and anger issues and father had an untreated substance abuse (alcohol) problem. The whereabouts of A.J.’s alleged father were initially unknown.
The agency filed a dependency petition alleging the children came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (c) (serious emotional damage).

On February 2, 2016, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a section 602 juvenile wardship petition, alleging that appellant committed two counts of misdemeanor battery on January 31, 2016. (Pen. Code, § 242; counts 1, 2.) On April 12, 2016, appellant was placed on informal probation. (§ 654.2.)
On June 27, 2016, appellant was detained in relation to an incident occurring on that date. On June 29, 2016, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a first amended section 602 petition, adding one count of misdemeanor possession of a weapon (folding knife) on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a); count 3), two counts of resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer (id., § 148, subd. (a)(1); counts 4, 5), and one count of public intoxication (id., § 647, subd. (f); count 6).
On July 1, 2016, appellant was placed on home supervision. On August 19, 2016, he was placed on electronic monitoring. On September 2, 2016, informal probation was terminated.

On July 11, 2021, a witness was outside cleaning his vehicle when he saw defendant throw a punch at the victim. Defendant’s punch missed the victim’s head, but she fell to the ground. As the victim was on the ground, defendant punched her multiple times with a closed fist. After the witness and his father separated defendant and the victim, defendant fled the scene and was gone before deputies arrived. During the change of plea hearing, defendant admitted that he willfully and unlawfully inflicted a corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition on the victim, someone with whom he had a dating relationship.
On October 6, 2021, a complaint was filed charging defendant with one count of willfully inflicting corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant/girlfriend (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, subd. (a), 243, subd. (f)(10)). The complaint further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667 (c), (e), 1170.12 (c)(1).)

On December 7, 2011, an information charged defendant with using a false document under Penal Code section 114 (count 1), and indecently exposing himself under section 314, subdivision (1) (counts 2 & A3).
On March 9, 2012, pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, the People added count 4—that defendant falsely impersonated another under section 529. Thereafter, defendant pled no contest to counts 2, 3, and 4, and the court dismissed count 1. The court then imposed a low term of 16 months, with 288 days of custody credits plus 288 days of conduct credits. The sentence was “deemed served in full” and defendant was released from custody.
In the plea agreement, defendant initialed term number 14, which stated: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization will result from a conviction of the offense(s) to which I plead guilty/no contest.”

This case involves three sets of petitions filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 against the minor over two years.
A. First Set of Petitions
In June and July 2019, the minor was charged with 10 separate felonies, in three petitions, based on three separate incidents. On August 20, 2019, at the contested jurisdictional hearing, the minor admitted four counts from the three petitions: willful discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (Pen. Code, § 246.3, subd. (a)), carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(2)), grand theft of a person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)), and false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236). The remaining counts were dismissed.
The factual basis for the admissions, as agreed to on the record at the jurisdictional hearing, described the three events leading to the petitions. On March 16, 2019, the minor had a concealed firearm, “and while handling the firearm, the minor . . . shot himself in the thigh.”

In December 2019, defendant filed his petition for transfer to outpatient treatment under section 1026.2. In March 2021, the court held a hearing on the petition. Defendant was the only witness to testify. At the close of his testimony, the People moved for a “directed verdict . . . in that Mr. Sanabria ha[d] failed to meet his legal burden by a preponderance of the evidence.”
The court granted this motion, finding: “[T]he petition has failed on the preponderance of the evidence before me to establish that Mr. Sanabria would not pose an undue risk if under supervision and treatment in the community. [¶] Now, Mr. Sanabria, I take your testimony at face value, that you are making progress, you’ve recognized your condition, you’re working on coping skills, you’re working on a relapse plan, you understand the need for the medication. There’[re] no serious acts of violence while you were in the state hospital. And you are to be commended for that.