CA Unpub Decisions

D.Q. (Father) appeals an order of the juvenile court declaring that his minor child K.P. is adoptable, and terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) We conclude that the court properly determined that the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption does not apply and affirm. (Id., subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)

D.D. (Father) appeals an order of the juvenile court dismissing a dependency concerning his child S.D. and awarding primary physical custody to the child’s mother (Mother). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4, subd. (a).) We affirm.

Kaci Angelo appeals from an order denying her petition for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO). She contends the trial court erred when it determined she did not meet her burden of proof. We affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Walter Lancaster purports to appeal from a judgment entered after an order granting the summary judgment motion of defendants and respondents Sean Barry and The Ticket Clinic, PLC.

Petitioner and appellant Mark Fudge sued, among others, a neighboring landowner and developer Laguna Beach Golf and Bungalow Village, LLC, which sought to further develop and renovate an 84–acre parcel of coastal property located in a biologically diverse and environmentally sensitive area. On various substantive and procedural grounds, Fudge challenged the California Coastal Commission’s decision to approve the developer’s application for a coastal development permit under the California Coastal Act. The trial court rejected Fudge’s claims and entered judgment against him. Finding no error, we affirm.

Plaintiff Dustin Leming sued defendants Sephora USA and Breezy Gaxiola for negligence and intentional tort after Leming was arrested and charged with allegedly committing a battery against Gaxiola while he was a customer at a Sephora store. The trial court partially granted and partially denied a special motion to strike brought by the defendants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The court granted the motion to strike the claim based on the defendants’ alleged involvement in having Leming criminally prosecuted, but denied the motion to strike the claim based on the defendants’ alleged citizen’s arrest of Leming. Both parties appeal the trial court’s order. We affirm.

Plaintiff Rhakila Fulcher asked the trial court to enter a default judgment against defendant Dolores Frances Affordable Housing, L.P. (DFAH). After reviewing the complaint and plaintiff’s evidence, the trial court determined the complaint did not state a cause of action and entered judgment in favor of DFAH. Plaintiff appeals; we affirm.

Petitioner Jeffrey C. (Father) is the presumed father of five-year-old Jackson B.-D. (Minor). Father has filed a petition for an extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 seeking to vacate the order of respondent Superior Court of Contra Costa County terminating his reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency hearing. He contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s conclusion that returning Minor to his care would create a substantial risk of detriment to Minor and that the court should have continued the
18-month review hearing. We disagree, and accordingly we deny the petition on the merits.

J.W. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights as to her daughter, J.R., and her son, A.W., after a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends the order should be set aside because (1) the juvenile court did not sua sponte appoint a guardian ad litem for her, and (2) the court should not have terminated her parental rights in light of her beneficial relationship with the children (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). We will affirm the order.

Randall and Leslie Whitney (the Whitneys) filed the underlying action to prevent Olive M. Brothers (Brothers) from proceeding with a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding against the Whitneys’ home. Following a bench trial, judgment was entered in favor of Brothers. In this appeal from the judgment, the Whitneys fail to present any theory of error. Instead, they seek review of a postjudgment attorney fee order that was not appealed. Under these circumstances, we dismiss the Whitneys’ appeal.

Petitioners E.B. (Mother) and J.B. (Father) seek a writ of mandate challenging an order of the juvenile court finding that reasonable reunification services had been provided to them and setting a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (.26 hearing). Petitioners ask that the juvenile court be ordered to return custody of their children to them or provide further reunification services. The issues in these petitions are whether substantial evidence supports the court’s findings at a 12-month review hearing that: (1) returning the children to the parents would be detrimental, (2) it was not likely the children would be returned by an 18-month review hearing, and (3) reasonable services were provided to Mother and Father. Mother and Father filed separate writ petitions. We deny the petitions.

Armando Antunez Roman moved under newly-enacted Penal Code section 1203.43 to withdraw the prior plea of guilty. He appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion. Finding no error, we affirm the order.

This is an appeal from a trial court’s judgment concerning an order of attorney fees following a bench trial. The underlying facts and procedural background are more fully described in a companion opinion being filed today (G054373).
We reverse the attorney fee award and remand the matter with directions consistent with the companion opinion.

Steve Grand hired Ira Frazer as an attorney for himself and his companies. Grand verbally agreed to pay Frazer $5,500 per month, plus 25 percent of the net sale price of any business Grand sold for which Frazer had performed legal services; the parties never had a written agreement. After 19 months, Grand and Frazer parted ways in April 2008.
In June 2009, Grand sold one of his companies for which Frazer had performed legal services. Grand neither provided notice of the sale to Frazer nor paid him a portion of the net profits. Frazer filed this lawsuit for breach of contract after learning from a third party about the sale of yet another of Grand’s businesses for which Frazer had also performed legal services. The jury awarded Frazer damages for the reasonable value of his services to Grand and Grand’s businesses. Grand appealed; we affirm.
Grand argues that the lawsuit is barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that the discovery rule applies to Frazer’s cause