CA Unpub Decisions

This case concerns the adoption of M.M., a child conceived in China by Chinese nationals, but born in the United States. Newborn M.M. was relinquished by mother D.M. to Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services (the adoption agency) so he could be adopted by John and Marie Ann B. The trial court ordered that alleged biological father H.Q. was not required to receive notice of the proceedings or give consent to the adoption, after finding that his whereabouts were unknown. Mother and H.Q. moved to set aside this order, but their motion was denied. Multiple notices of appeal have been filed concerning the order terminating H.Q.’s parental rights (case No. B287861), and the order denying the parents’ request for a change of court order (case No. B288756). The parents, as well as mother’s ex-husband K.Y., have also petitioned for habeas relief (case No. B288881).

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), Q.S. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her daughter A.B. (then, nearly three years old). Mother contends the court erred in finding the parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply to the relationship between her and A.B. We affirm.

A.R. (mother) appeals from a judgment declaring her three children, Roy J. (born Mar. 2011); Aaliyah J. (born Mar. 2013); and Prince M. (born Sept. 2015) dependents of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d). Mother contends that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s findings under count (d)(1). We affirm.

Appellant and judgment creditor Pacific Western Bank (Bank) appeals from the trial court’s order granting a motion by judgment debtors Chris Shah (Shah) and Jyotibala Patel-Shah (J. Shah) to amend a previous order denying a claim of exemption from enforcement of a money judgment under Code of Civil Procedure sections 703.580 and 704.115. We reverse the trial court’s order.

In this appeal and cross-appeal concerning coverage under a workers’ compensation insurance policy, defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Liberty) appeals from the judgment entered against it and in favor of plaintiff Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith) following a jury trial on Zenith’s claims for equitable contribution and indemnity. Liberty contends the trial court erred by submitting to the jury the legal determination of whether Liberty’s policy covered a claim against a successor entity that acquired the assets of the named insured corporation. In a defensive cross-appeal, Zenith contends that if the judgment is reversed, the trial court erred by ruling that the de facto merger doctrine did not apply, as a matter of law, to transfer the benefits of the Liberty policy from the named insured corporation to the successor entity.
The trial court erred by submitting to the jury the legal determination of coverage under the Liberty policy.

SP Investment Fund I, LLC (SP) sued Ivan Grossman for breach of contract and conversion. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of SP. The court entered a judgment in favor of SP that awarded prejudgment interest, but the space for the amount of prejudgment interest was left blank. SP moved to have the prejudgment interest amount inserted into the judgment, and also moved for attorney fees and costs. The court granted SP’s motions, and Grossman appealed.
Grossman asserts that the procedure by which SP requested that the court include the amount of prejudgment interest was improper, because it was tantamount to an untimely motion for new trial. We disagree; SP’s request that the court fill in the amount of prejudgment interest that had already been awarded did not require a substantive change in the judgment.

Defendants Cary Meadow and Channel Investment Advisors, Inc. appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to disqualify counsel for plaintiffs Cappello Group, Inc. and Cappello Capital Corp. from representing defendants in an arbitration pending before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority based on alleged violation of discovery rules set forth in State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 644, 657 (State Fund). Defendants contend the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, which represents plaintiffs, improperly sought to use in the FINRA arbitration pending among the parties five of the 717,760 documents that defendants had electronically produced during discovery. Defendants assert these five documents were privileged under the attorney-client or work product privileges and had been produced inadvertently.

Plaintiff and appellant CA Auto Mart Group, Inc. (Auto Mart) appeals from the order sustaining, without leave to amend, a demurrer by defendant and respondent the City of Los Angeles (City) to Auto Mart’s causes of action for breach of contract, specific performance, and injunctive and declaratory relief in this action seeking to compel the sale of certain City-owned real property. All of those causes of action were premised on the theory that the City’s adoption of Ordinance No. 182620 created a binding and enforceable agreement by the City to sell the property to Auto Mart. The trial court overruled the demurrer as to Auto Mart’s cause of action for a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 to compel the City to comply with Ordinance No. 182620. The mandamus action proceeded to trial, and judgment was subsequently entered in the City’s favor. Auto Mart also appeals from that judgment.

Jose Roberto Turner (defendant) appeals from a conviction of first degree murder following a jury trial. The victim was LaJoya McCoy, the mother of defendant’s two young children. Defendant challenges the admission of evidence of his violent relationship with a former girlfriend pursuant to Evidence Code section 1109. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence. We further find that even if the trial court had erred, such error is harmless in light of the other evidence presented at trial. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff Janice Dickinson appeals from the summary judgment entered for defendants, the owners and operators of a parking lot where Dickinson was injured by a descending parking gate arm. We affirm because Dickinson’s defective appellate briefs lead us to conclude that she has forfeited her appellate arguments. We alternatively affirm on the merits.

John and Judith DeLong (appellants) appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court confirmed an arbitration award arising out of binding arbitration between them and Engel & Engel, LLP, an accounting firm (respondent). The arbitrator initially awarded respondent $27,100.13 on the merits of respondent’s claim, plus undetermined interest and costs. The arbitrator then awarded respondent costs and attorney fees in connection with the arbitration. The trial court granted respondent’s petition to confirm the incrementally-entered arbitration award with an additional award of costs and fees incurred in the trial court. The trial court entered judgment against appellants for a total sum of $75,949.02.
Appellant argues that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of her power in making the additional fee and cost awards and that the trial court erred in awarding fees and costs in connection with the petition for confirmation. We affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Darlene Renee Tardaguila (plaintiff) appeals from the trial court’s order awarding $8,956.34 in attorney fees to defendant and respondent Cathleen Elizabeth Conley (defendant) following plaintiff’s dismissal of her petition for civil harassment restraining orders against defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. We affirm the trial court’s order.

A default judgment was entered against Gianfranco Interlandi in 2006 for the failure to repay a $61,500 note. Ten years later, Interlandi moved to vacate the default judgment on a number of grounds, including that he was the victim of identity theft and he did not know about the lawsuit until 2016. The trial court denied his motion to vacate. We affirm the judgment.

Jeffrey Lopez was convicted by jury of possession and transportation of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 11379.) The trial court sentenced Lopez to 15 years in state prison, including two consecutive three-year terms for two prior convictions for violation of section 11379, subdivision (a). (See former § 11370.2, subd. (c).)
On appeal, Lopez contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the transported controlled substance was for sale, and in imposing the sentence enhancements for the two prior convictions.