CA Unpub Decisions

In their marital dissolution action, Michael Ackerman filed two unsuccessful orders to show cause re contempt against Erin Fleming in an attempt to compel her to release from escrow funds from the sale of the marital home. Fleming then sought sanctions against Ackerman under Family Code section 271. The family court denied her request for sanctions, and Fleming appeals. We affirm.

This case centers on long-running disputes between two neighboring families. Karen Morales (Karen) and her husband Ted Morales (Ted) have lived next to Steven Miller (Steven) and his wife Debbie Miller (Debbie) for approximately nineteen years. Though their relationship began cordially, it deteriorated quickly and never recovered. In December 2015, Karen sought a civil harassment restraining order against Steven, seeking protection for herself, Ted, and her sister, Janice Pearce (Pearce). After more than a year of proceedings and more than thirty hearings, the trial court granted Karen and Pearce a restraining order protecting them from Steven and awarded Karen attorney fees. Steven appeals, and we are asked to decide whether he has affirmatively shown the trial court prejudicially erred on the record presented—which is missing at least one day’s worth of testimony and is devoid of any of the exhibits presented to the trial court. We also decide whether the trial court’s aw

In this wrongful death action, David S. Lindley (Lindley) and Maureen Sennhauser, the parents of decedent David W. Lindley (David), appeal from a judgment after a jury verdict in favor of the City of Los Angeles (City), related government agencies, and various entities and individuals involved in the construction of the Culver City station of the Los Angeles Metro Rail Expo Line. Lindley and Sennhauser alleged the defendants created a dangerous condition at the intersection of Venice Boulevard and Robertson Boulevard in West Los Angeles that contributed to an accident that killed their 17-year-old son as he crossed the street.

Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officer Salvador Salas appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court denied his petition for writ of administrative mandamus. Salas’s petition challenged the decision by the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission to suspend him for 20 days for handcuffing a juvenile resident of Camp Mendenhall without authorization. Because we disagree with Salas that the Commission abused its discretion in imposing a 20-day suspension, we affirm.

Patricia H. Lee appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, defendants’, CitiMortgage, Inc., MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (MERSCORP), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), CR Title Services, Inc. (CR Title), and Lisa Markham, demurrer to appellant’s first amended complaint for wrongful foreclosure. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Edwin Ines appeals from an order terminating his probation and executing his suspended prison sentence. We find no abuse of discretion and therefore affirm.

Morris S. Getzels appeals in propria persona from two trial court orders, the first denying his petition for attorney fees and costs and ordering him to disgorge $10,000 already received, and the second denying his motion to vacate the disgorgement order. We affirm.

Petitioner S.F. (Mother) contends the trial court erred in denying contested hearings on motions by her and by real party in interest San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency), filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. We deny Mother’s petition for writ of mandate.

M.P.’s mother, Y.G. (Mother), appeals from a finding made at the six-month review hearing that she received reasonable reunification services (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)(8)). She contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) provided her with reasonable services. We agree and reverse.

Troy William Thompson appeals from an order denying his petition to recall his sentence pursuant to Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126 or Proposition 36). We reverse and remand.

On January 17, 2017, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare & Institutions Code section 602 alleging that appellant D.L., born September 2001, committed misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2)(a)), misdemeanor public intoxication (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)), and misdemeanor giving false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted the vandalism charge, the remaining charges were dismissed, and the case was ordered transferred to Contra Costa County.
The charges arose out of a January 13 incident during which appellant and a friend were detained after midnight for public intoxication and transported to a South San Francisco Police Department station. While waiting in an interview room, appellant removed makeup from her purse and wrote “FUCK” on the wall with lipstick or lip gloss. A police officer unsuccessfully attempted to clean the wall.

The probate court approved a proposal by respondent and trustee Mechanics Bank (respondent or Trustee) to reimburse Marilyn Ragan for attorney fees and costs incurred in establishing her entitlement to receive disbursements as an income beneficiary of a trust. We affirm.

On November 8, 2016, the electorate of California passed Proposition 57, the “Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016.” Among other things, Proposition 57 required that prosecutions against defendants who committed their crimes as juveniles be commenced in juvenile court and eliminated provisions that had allowed the district attorney to bring certain criminal charges directly against juvenile defendants in adult court. (Compare Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 602, 707 with former §§ 602, 707.) Our Supreme Court has held that juvenile defendants whose convictions were not yet final at the time of the passage of Proposition 57 are entitled to retroactive application of the new law. (People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303 (Lara).) We conclude appellant Luis Brizuela-Nava’s conviction was final as of the date Proposition 57 was effective and he is not entitled to relief under that provision. We reject his remaining claims and affirm.

The former residence of plaintiffs, appellants, and cross-respondents Samuel Ng and Angela Leung (plaintiffs) on Acalanes Avenue in Lafayette (Property) was sold in foreclosure proceedings in June 2016. Defendant, respondent, and cross-appellant Six P.I.D., Inc. (SPID) purchased the Property at the foreclosure sale.
In August 2016, plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking to quiet title to the Property. The complaint was brought against Trident Financial Group, Inc. (Trident), the lender; “[a]ll persons known and/or unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to [p]laintiff[s’] title or any cloud on [p]laintiff[s’] title thereto” (capitalization altered); and ten Doe defendants. In September, default was entered against Trident. In November, plaintiffs obtained a judgment quieting title to the Property in their favor (Judgment), obtained an order setting aside the deed of trust that was the