CA Unpub Decisions

This appeal arises out of a marital dissolution action between Marieke Randoy and Reed Randoy, and related custody proceedings regarding their only child.
Marieke appeals from the judgment entered on August 7, 2020 after a nine-day bench trial on the petition for dissolution, and several interlocutory rulings. Marieke contends the trial court erred by: (1) finding Reed had standing to petition for divorce when he did not meet the residency requirements set forth in Family Code section 2320; and (2) finding California was the child’s home state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.).

“At the time of the crimes, [G.T.], Veronica Perez, and their children were visiting [I.M.], [A.P.], and their children. At some point in the evening, [I.M.] and [G.T.] were sitting in [I.M.]’s car, parked near the front door to the house. [I.M.] was in the passenger seat, [G.T.] in the driver’s seat. The driver’s side door was open. [Defendant] and another man approached them.
“[Defendant] shot [G.T.] twice, in the stomach and in the chest. The other man shot [I.M.] twice. [G.T.] ran into the house and fell on the couch. [Defendant] continued to shoot at [G.T.] as he ran.
“[A.P.] was inside the house when she heard six or seven shots fired. She ran to the front door and saw two men. She could not tell if both . . . were shooting, but she heard rapid gunshots when she saw them both there. The men turned and appeared to see her, so she stepped back into the house.

Defendant was charged in counts 1 and 2 of an amended information with attempted murder in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a). It was also alleged that the attempted murders were committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation and that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c). Count 3 alleged that defendant unlawfully fired a firearm at an inhabited dwelling in violation of section 246, and in count 4 defendant was charged with second degree robbery in violation of section 213, subdivision (b). It was also alleged that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury to Jose Romero (Romero), within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). As to counts 1, 3, and 4, it was separately alleged that defendant personally caused great bodily injury to Romero, within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a).

In August 2020, the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) received a report from a Nevada child welfare worker that A.S. had reportedly been born on the side of the road while mother and M.H. were traveling from California to Las Vegas. Upon presenting the baby at a Las Vegas hospital, mother tested positive for marijuana and opiates. M.H. provided a false name for mother upon admission, and the child was believed to be older than reported. A.S. was doing well but tested positive for marijuana. After being informed by the Bureau that mother’s four older children had all been removed and placed in permanent out-of-home care, Nevada child welfare detained A.S. On September 10, 2020, it was determined pursuant to the uniform child custody jurisdiction and enforcement act (UCCJEA) that A.S.’s home state is California, and he was released to the Bureau.
Mother named M.H. as A.S.’s father on September 14, 2020.

On August 6, 2021, the Lake County District Attorney filed an information charging Gonzales with the attempted murder of C.P. (§§ 187, subd. (a) & 664, count I), felony assault with a deadly weapon, a knife (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count II), and battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d), count III). Count I was enhanced by allegations that Gonzales personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) As to all three counts, the information alleged that Gonzales personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
The charges arose from an incident on June 11, 2021, in which Gonzales and his housemate, C.P. fought outside their mobile home because Gonzales thought C.P. was “trying to get with [Gonzales’s] ex-girlfriend.” Punches were exchanged, C.P. tackled Gonzales to the ground, and Gonzales kicked C.P. in the face. After the fight, C.P. left the home for approximately an hour.

On August 6, 2021, the Lake County District Attorney filed an information charging Gonzales with the attempted murder of C.P. (§§ 187, subd. (a) & 664, count I), felony assault with a deadly weapon, a knife (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count II), and battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d), count III). Count I was enhanced by allegations that Gonzales personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) As to all three counts, the information alleged that Gonzales personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
The charges arose from an incident on June 11, 2021, in which Gonzales and his housemate, C.P. fought outside their mobile home because Gonzales thought C.P. was “trying to get with [Gonzales’s] ex-girlfriend.” Punches were exchanged, C.P. tackled Gonzales to the ground, and Gonzales kicked C.P. in the face. After the fight, C.P. left the home for approximately an hour.

After defendant Saykham Phouamkha consented to a search of his van, the police found ammunition, which he was prohibited from possessing due to a prior felony conviction. He was arrested, and a search of his backpack, incident to his arrest, yielded a loaded firearm. Defendant was charged and convicted by jury of unlawfully possessing a gun and ammunition. The trial court then found two prior strike allegations true, and sentenced defendant to consecutive indeterminate 25-years-to-life sentences.
On appeal, defendant maintains (1) his consent to the search of the van was involuntary and therefore the gun and ammunition should have been suppressed, (2) a North Carolina second degree murder conviction did not qualify as a prior strike, and (3) the trial court erroneously believed it did not have discretion to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences.
We conclude remand is required for the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether defendant’s sentences shall run

The Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g), alleging the minor was at substantial risk of harm due to lack of adequate or safe living environment and because mother was unable to provide regular care for the minor due to mother’s mental health issues. Mother intended to move minor into a van that was reported to be filthy, contained mold, and was not habitable, and minor appeared to have developmental delays and lacked socialization. Mother also had made suicidal comments that included walking into the ocean with minor. The court ordered minor detained. Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the court found true the allegations in the petition.
Minor was placed with nonrelated extended family members.

Mother and presumed father are the parents of I.C. (born 2009) and M.C. (born 2010). Several years after the children were born, the parents separated; the children initially spent time with mother then father reportedly took custody due to mother’s methamphetamine use. Just before the agency’s intervention in 2019, the children (then 10-year-old I.C. and 9-year-old M.C.) were living with father and his girlfriend. During the agency’s investigation leading to the court’s intervention, father and the children’s maternal aunts reported that mother was living in a vehicle and struggling with mental health and substance use issues.
Following its investigation concerning father’s behavior, the agency took the children into protective custody on November 4, 2019. The next day, the agency placed the children with their maternal aunt B.C. and her partner. The children have lived there since their removal and B.C. wishes to adopt the children if reunification fails.

Delbert Joseph Mathews (Joe) and Roberta Mathews first married in 1958. Joe and Roberta divorced in 1989. After the divorce, Joe married Zieta R. Mathews.
On October 10, 2000, Joe and Zieta, as husband and wife (settlors) executed the Mathews 2000 Trust (Trust). Three years later the settlors executed a first amendment to the Trust. In February 2015, Zieta died and Joe became the sole surviving settlor and trustee of the Trust.
In December 2015, Joe executed the first amendment to the survivor’s trust, which amended the dispositive provisions of the survivor’s trust created under the terms of the Trust. Roberta Mathews is a beneficiary of the survivor’s trust, and under the terms of the first amendment to the survivor’s trust, she is entitled to receive $50,000 upon Joe’s death. Joe remarried Roberta in October 2018.
Joe died in February 2019. Upon his death, Mark O. Showers became the sole acting successor trustee of the Trust, including the survivor’s trust.

In November 2018, the Santa Clara Social Services Agency filed petitions on behalf of mother’s children alleging dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) [failure to protect from risk of harm], 300, subdivision (c) [serious emotional damage], and 300, subdivision (g) [no provision for support]. According to the petition allegations, mother left her three older children alone for two days while she was at the hospital giving birth to Rosie. Following Rosie’s birth, mother was placed under an emergency psychiatric hold due to active psychosis, and the children were taken into protective custody. The agency alleged mother had untreated mental health issues since at least 2006, with symptoms that include delusions and paranoia, which were negatively impacting her children, who were homeschooled by mother, isolated from family and community, and adopted many of mother’s bizarre ideas.

On August 1, 2016, Ramon Gomez (Plaintiff) fell while skateboarding across an intersection (the Intersection) in a residential neighborhood in the City. Plaintiff does not remember the accident. When police responded, there was a hose stretched diagonally across the Intersection, connecting a fire hydrant to a residential construction site (the Site). No cones or signs warned of the hose. Appellants were the plumbing subcontractor at the Site, and the hose had been placed in the Intersection that morning by one of Appellants’ employees, to fill the pipes in advance of an inspection scheduled for that day.
Approximately a year before the accident, the City issued a permit authorizing use of the fire hydrant for work at the Site. The permit was valid from August 10, 2015 to October 10, 2015 and, by its own terms, expired at the end of that period. The permit was not extended or renewed after October 10, 2015.

Before us is an appeal and a cross-appeal from an order granting in part and denying in part an anti-SLAPP motion under section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Finding no merit to the appeal or the cross-appeal, we shall affirm.
I.
In 2019, Judith Jones sued her two brothers, Bart and Malcolm (“Mac”) Coombs and Coombs Tree Farms, Inc. (CTF), a family-owned company in which all three siblings are shareholders. CTF was cofounded in the 1970’s by Malcolm (“Mal”) Coombs and his son, Rogan Coombs, respectively the grandfather and father of Judith, Bart, and Mac. Mal Coombs passed away in 2001. When he was still alive, Mal began a process of transferring CTF shares in equal percentages to Judith, Bart, and Mac. Following Mal’s death, Rogan took control of the company and continued the process of transferring CTF shares to his three children in equal percentages.

Comb and the victim (R.C.) were married. On the night of August 23, 2019, sheriff’s deputies responded to a report of domestic violence at their residence. Comb, who was intoxicated, placed R.C. in a headlock and groped her breasts. R.C. locked herself in the bathroom to escape, but Comb forcibly broke open the door. He grabbed her by the neck, lifted her off the floor, and bashed her head against the wall. R.C. escaped again and locked herself in the bedroom where she called 911. Comb attempted to break into the bedroom while stating, “If you don’t let me in, I’m going to burn down this house.”
In her victim impact statement read at sentencing, R.C. told the court that “[h]e shouted that he was going to burn the house down.” At which point, R.C. screamed loudly for her mother to get away to safety. When R.C. jumped out of the bedroom window, she found her mother waiting “just outside.” Both women ran into the RV parked next to the house to hide.