CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs filed claims alleging that defendants Said Mehrinfar and SM Properties Development violated the Los Angeles Municipal Code Rent Stabilization Ordinance by evicting them without paying a relocation assistance fee. Mehrinfar filed a demurrer arguing he was not a proper defendant because he did not own the property. SM Properties filed a separate motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 arguing that plaintiffs’ claims arose from the filing and prosecution of unlawful detainer actions that had resulted in their evictions. The trial court sustained Mehrinfar’s demurrer without leave to amend, granted SM Properties’ motion to strike and entered a judgment in defendants’ favor.

Paul Jasnosz appeals a judgment terminating his marriage to Sharon Jasnosz. Appearing in propria persona, he contends that due in part to his incarceration he was denied meaningful access to the courts and that the trial judge exhibited bias against him because of his incarceration. He also contends the court erred in finding that there was no community property to divide. We find no error and, therefore, we shall affirm the judgment.

E.M. (mother) appeals in pro. per. from a permanent order awarding full custody of her two minor children to J.M. (father). (See Enrique M. v. Angelina V. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1377–1378 [permanent custody order appealable].) She contends: (1) the court should have admitted a transcript of several witnesses’ prior testimony under Evidence Code section 1291; (2) the court should have disqualified itself under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 and its remarks show it was biased against her; (3) the proceedings were prejudiced by the misstatements of opposing counsel; (4) the court erred in allowing a detective to testify without qualifying as an expert; (5) there was no evidence that circumstances had changed or which supported a change in custody; and (6) the court should have issued a statement of decision under Code of Civil Procedure section 632. We affirm.

Plaintiff John Medina appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), and Wells Fargo Bank (Wells Fargo), as trustee for a mortgage-backed securities trust, after the entry of an order sustaining without leave to amend their demurrer to Medina’s first amended complaint. Medina seeks to prohibit foreclosure of his home although no foreclosure has yet occurred. Wells Fargo is the current beneficiary of the deed of trust (DoT) on Medina’s home, which it acquired by a 2016 assignment from MERS.

Following a denial of her motion to suppress evidence, Emma Nicole Guido was convicted by a jury of violating Health and Safety Code section 11378 for possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell and two additional misdemeanors. On appeal, Guido contends the court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence she claims was seized following an unlawful detention. We affirm.

Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of residential burglary, stalking and vandalism and sentencing him to 16 years 4 months in prison. He contends the court’s instruction on the use of prior uncharged acts of domestic violence as propensity evidence impermissibly lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof on the charged offenses. He also contends punishment for his vandalism conviction must be stayed under Penal Code section 654. We find no instructional error but agree that execution of defendant’s sentence for vandalism must be stayed. Accordingly, we modify defendant’s sentence and otherwise affirm the judgment.

In this panel’s per curiam opinion in Quiles v. Parent (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 130 (Quiles I), we ordered issuance of a writ of supersedeas requiring that enforcement of the remaining unpaid portion of the amended judgment entered against defendant Arthur J. Parent, Jr. (Parent), which solely consisted of attorney fees and costs, be stayed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1, subdivision (d). (All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.) In our disposition in Quiles I, we ordered issuance of that writ without prejudice to plaintiff Amanda Quiles filing a motion in the trial court seeking an order requiring Parent to post a discretionary bond under section 917.9. Quiles did file such a motion which the trial court granted; the court required Parent to post a $1.5 million undertaking to thereafter stay execution of the judgment against him.

Appellant Heather B. (mother) appeals from the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21 order terminating her reunification services as to her son, E.B. She contends the juvenile court’s finding that the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services (department) provided reasonable services is not supported by sufficient evidence. She also contends that in assessing the reasonableness of services, the court improperly relied on the engagement of mother with services. We disagree with both contentions and affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Appellant Najee Carter appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Defendant Stephen Beavers was convicted by no contest plea of escape or attempted escape from a detention facility and escape or attempted escape from a detention facility by use of force or violence. On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied (1) his motion to withdraw his plea and (2) his request to dismiss or strike his prior felony conviction allegation. We reverse the conviction for escape from a detention facility (Pen. Code, § 4532, subd. (b)(1)). In all other respects, we affirm.

The City of Delano (City) resolved to increase its charges for City-provided utility services, after employing the procedures required by the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, known as Proposition 218. (Cal. Const., arts. XIII C, XIII D.) Delano Guardians, an unincorporated association, challenged the decision, filing a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court that claimed the City failed to comply with some of the provisions of Proposition 218.
The trial court agreed with Delano Guardians on one point, found another moot, and upheld the remainder of the City’s action. Increases in charges for water, sewer, and refuse collection services were allowed to remain in effect. Delano Guardians appeals.
We conclude no reversible error has been demonstrated and affirm the judgment.

On July 12, 2017, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Raymond Thomas Garcia with street terrorism under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a) (count 1); and possession of a firearm by a felon under section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) (counts 2, 3, 4). The complaint also alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction for a serious or violent felony under sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 1170.12, subdivision (a).

On May 24, 2017, a second amended information charged defendant and appellant Joseph Franklin Downs with second degree burglary under Penal Code sections 211 and 212.5, subdivision (c) (count 1), and possession of a firearm by a felon under section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) (count 2). As to count 1, the information also alleged that defendant personally used a firearm, to wit, a shotgun, causing the offense to become a serious and violent felony under sections 667.5, subdivision (c)(8), 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8), and 12022.53, subdivision (b). The information further alleged that defendant had suffered (1) a prior conviction, which was both a strike (§§ 667, subs. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and (2) four prison prior convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

Grant O. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights as the presumed father of John O. at a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. At that hearing, the court explicitly found by clear and convincing evidence that placing John in Father’s custody would be detrimental to John. Father contends that, because the court made its detriment finding at the hearing terminating parental rights, rather than earlier, the proceedings below did not comply with due process. Although Father forfeited this argument by failing to raise any due process issues below, we exercise our discretion to address it.