CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff Mehrdad Molaei sued defendant State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, ancestry and national original discrimination based on plaintiff’s Iranian ancestry, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Brenda Solheim is an inventor, and entered into a contractual relationship with Bad Boy Branding, LLC (Bad Boy). A dispute between them led to Bad Boy filing a lawsuit in Florida, which was served on Solheim. Solheim’s response was to file her own lawsuit in California, leading to the appeal here. But this appeal involves neither Bad Boy nor Solheim, but rather their attorneys, specifically appellant Peyman Roshan, Solheim’s attorney who practices in Santa Rosa, and respondents, two law firms and three individual lawyers who practice in Florida, and who have never practiced in, resided in, or done business in California—who were nevertheless named as defendants in Solheim’s lawsuit.

T.N. (mother) and D.S. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 terminating their parental rights to their son, D.S. (child, born 2009). Both mother and father argue the court abused its discretion when it failed to find the beneficial parent child relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) applicable. As we explain, we find no merit in their arguments and affirm the juvenile court’s order.

Defendant Jesse Devlin Quiming appeals after a jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and attempted voluntary manslaughter (§§ 664/192, subd. (a)) and found true allegations that defendant personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) as to both counts and personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the attempted voluntary manslaughter (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court found true allegations that defendant had a strike prior (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and it sentenced defendant to a prison term of 56 years to life.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant Juan Manual Hernandez on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument in defendant’s own behalf.
That period has passed, and we have received no communication from defendant.

A jury convicted defendant Abel Martin Fischer of three counts of lewd and lascivious acts against a child under the age of 14. On appeal, Fischer challenges the admission of fresh complaint testimony from three witnesses, arguing that such evidence was cumulative to the point of being prejudicial, exceedingly detailed, and not always preceded by a limiting instruction. He also challenges the admission of testimony concerning a journal entry that the victim made about the abuse. These contentions lack merit. We affirm the judgment.

In this juvenile dependency case, three siblings, two girls and a boy, were removed from the custody of their mother, Q.J. (mother) and father, D.Z. (father). After reunification efforts failed, the juvenile court found the siblings likely to be adopted and entered an order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Father appeals, challenging the termination of parental rights as to the girls. Father asserts insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding the girls were likely to be adopted. We agree, and since the girls are part of a sibling group with their brother, we reverse the juvenile court’s order as to all of the siblings and remand for the juvenile court to hold a new hearing under section 366.26 to select and implement a permanent plan for all three children.

Cousins John and Angelo Ielmini had equal, 50 percent ownership and control of several agricultural entities, including Patterson Frozen Foods, Inc., Valley Frozen Foods, Inc., and Del Puerto Farms, Inc. (collectively the Ielmini Entities). John was 14 years older than Angelo and, as he advanced in age, he delegated more responsibilities for the management of the Ielmini Entities to Angelo.
John passed away in July 2010, and his half of the shares of the Ielmini Entities passed to John’s four children, Christian, Anne, Jane and Thomas, in equal shares of 12.5 percent each. Despite equal ownership of shares by John’s children and Angelo, Angelo retained and perpetuated his control of the board of the directors of each of the Ielmini Entities by refusing to hold any annual shareholders’ meetings after John’s death. Without shareholder elections, John’s children have been unable to elect any corporate directors that would represent their collective interests.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant, Victor Manuel Moreno, of attempted robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211; count 1.) Defendant thereafter admitted he had suffered a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of seven years eight months, consisting of the following: the low term of one year four months on count 1, doubled pursuant to the strike prior, and a consecutive five-year term on the prior serious felony conviction.
After defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the facts and a statement of the case. We affirm.

In these consolidated appeals brought by defendant and appellant Elena Gross, we address orders entered following two hearings in a child support enforcement action. Underlying many of Elena’s contentions is her assertion that her former husband, real party in interest and respondent Timothy Gross, has an ongoing obligation to pay her $1,128 a month pursuant to a sponsorship agreement he executed in 2001 in connection with Elena’s immigration to the United States from South Africa. Although the veracity of this contention was not contested in either of the hearings that are at issue in this appeal, we feel compelled to point out, in light of Elena’s continuing reliance on that contention, that it has been adjudicated that Timothy no longer has any such obligation. To demonstrate this, we take judicial notice of our unpublished opinions in County of San Bernardino Child Support Division v. Gross.

In 2007, Damon Green and a friend stopped at a taco shop after a night of drinking. Green struck up a conversation with a Hispanic male, who was accompanied by another Hispanic male. The conversation became heated, and the Hispanic men left. They returned a few minutes later, and one of them shot Green to death. Eyewitnesses gave police general descriptions of the suspects, but the crime went unsolved for several years.

On February 13, 2015, defendant Alexandria Petronella Evans and several codefendants were charged in case No. CRF15-0000077-03 (the first case) with robbery, attempting to dissuade/prevent a person from reporting a crime, making criminal threats, aggravated assault, burglary, vandalism, resisting an officer, and interfering with an officer by force or violence. Charges for three counts of battery and active participation in a criminal street gang were later added. It was also alleged that the crimes had been committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

A petition filed September 26, 2016, alleged that the 16-year-old minor S.K. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that she possessed heroin, a misdemeanor, and gave false information to a police officer, also a misdemeanor.
At the jurisdictional hearing, the minor admitted both allegations. At the dispositional hearing, the court adjudged the minor a ward of the court, placed the minor on probation for six months, and ordered home supervision after her release from juvenile hall. The minor was ordered to, among other things, refrain from the use of controlled substances, submit to “chemical testing,” complete a family reunification program that included alcohol and drug counseling, and complete 10 days of juvenile court work program and 20 hours of community service. The court ordered the minor to have no contact with two individuals, one of whom, James M., was suspected of sexually exploiting the minor and providing her with controlled

Appellant S.R., father of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s order, entered at the six-month review hearing, requiring that he participate in dependency drug court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, 395.) We shall affirm this order. Father also contends there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of detriment to the minor should she be returned to father’s physical custody. We conclude this contention is moot because the minor has since been returned.