CA Unpub Decisions
California Unpublished Decisions
David and Amy married in 2014. They had one daughter, Charly, who was born in 2017. In 2018, David petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. The family court granted the dissolution. On August 8, 2019, the family court awarded parents joint legal custody but gave Amy primary physical custody and David visitation weekdays for three hours each day and weekends twice a month.
In December 2020, Amy requested spousal support and to be allowed to relocate with Charly to Georgia. She also requested attorney fees in the amount of $18,000. In her brief, Amy represented that she had job offers for full-time work in Georgia and that Georgia’s educational system would be better for Charly. David opposed the requests and asked that Charly remain with him if Amy relocated. |
David and Amy married in 2014. They had one daughter, Charly, who was born in 2017. In 2018, David petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. The family court granted the dissolution. On August 8, 2019, the family court awarded parents joint legal custody but gave Amy primary physical custody and David visitation weekdays for three hours each day and weekends twice a month.
In December 2020, Amy requested spousal support and to be allowed to relocate with Charly to Georgia. She also requested attorney fees in the amount of $18,000. In her brief, Amy represented that she had job offers for full-time work in Georgia and that Georgia’s educational system would be better for Charly. David opposed the requests and asked that Charly remain with him if Amy relocated. |
The arbitration spanned 10 days and involved hundreds of exhibits, most of which are absent from the appellate record. Following our Supreme Court’s lead, we draw from the arbitrator’s final award in outlining the parties’ dispute, and we take the arbitrator’s findings as correct. (See Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 367, fn. 1 (Advanced).) Because this appeal mainly attacks one paragraph of the 45-page final award, we focus on facts relating to the disputed paragraph.
Choe ran a family-owned minerals processing business called Protech Minerals, Inc. We refer to this entity and Choe together as Seller. In 2016, Choe embarked on selling the business to Michael Mattox and Mattox’s new company, Protech Minerals, LLC. We refer to the buying parties as Buyer. There were multiple related contracts between the parties, including separate agreements concerning business operations and the sale of real property. |
Gabriel (born July 2006) and his sister Guadalupe T. (born May 2010) came to the attention of the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) on August 14, 2019, when Guadalupe reported to the police that she had been sexually abused by father inside his home. Guadalupe reported that while she was on a bed by herself, father entered the room and got on top of her, kissing Guadalupe and moving his body “in a[n] up and down motion.” At some point, Guadalupe pushed father aside and left the room. Inside the home during the incident were three other adults, Gabriel and Guadalupe’s stepsister, and Gabriel. Guadalupe also informed police that father had sexually abused her during two incidents when she was five and six years old, respectively.
|
In April 2009, appellant and Zingerman purchased GHDF, a cannabis collective. They were GHDF’s sole shareholders, directors, and officers. In May 2009, they made GHDF a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. Zingerman operated the business’s day-to-day affairs.
In July 2009, Zingerman was arrested at GHDF for drug possession with intent to sell; he pleaded guilty to a felony in 2010. As part of Zingerman’s plea, the court ordered the closure of GHDF. Zingerman did not call a board meeting to discuss his agreement to close GHDF in his criminal case. In 2012, Zingerman successfully petitioned the court to dismiss his conviction but did not inform appellant about it. Appellant asked Zingerman every year about reopening the business; he told her it was impossible because GHDF was shuttered by court order. Zingerman advised appellant in 2018 that he consulted an attorney who told him “ ‘the shop is dead’ ” and its license could not be restored. |
On December 10, 2019, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition on behalf of mother’s minor children: Paris S. (born Oct. 2006); Aaniyjah G. (born Nov. 2008); Kaniyah C. (born Aug. 2010); Ky’on T. (born Aug. 2016); Laila T. (born Sept. 2017); and Ra’Jaih T. (born June 2019). As to mother, the petition (as amended) was sustained on November 13, 2020, based on mother’s physical and emotional abuse of the children as well as her failure to protect the children from the physical abuse of Timothy T., father to the three youngest children (Ky’on, Laila, and Ra’Jaih). The court declared the children dependents and removed them from parental custody.
Paris, Aaniyjah, and Kaniyah (collectively, older children) were placed in the foster home of Ms. B. Ky’on, Laila, and Ra’Jaih (collectively, younger children) were placed in the foster home of Ms. H. |
On August 2, 2020, Ashley Kermani purportedly suffered burns while undergoing a laser hair-removal procedure at the New Look spa. Kermani was a family friend of Attorney Yerushalmi.
On August 14, 2020, Attorney Yerushalmi phoned New Look spa and spoke to Evana Khachadoori “in reference to Ashley Kermani’s burn.” Yerushalmi explained that Kermani had unsuccessfully requested New Look spa’s liability insurance information to make a claim for her injuries. Now, Attorney Yerushalmi was demanding that New Look spa produce the requested insurance information or face a lawsuit. Khachadoori replied she did not have the insurance information, but she would obtain it from New Look spa’s owner and follow up with Kermani. Khachadoori added that if Kermani intended to pursue a lawsuit, she should contact New Look spa’s attorneys. On August 15, 2020, Ashley Kermani retained defendants to represent her against New Look spa concerning her alleged personal injuries. |
Alston is a construction general contractor. Alston acts solely in a managerial capacity and hires independent contractors to perform the actual construction work.
In 2015, Alston contracted with PanCal 11525 Shoemaker LLC (PanCal) to alter an existing building and construct a parking lot for FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx Project). Alston contracted with AMPCO Contracting, Inc. (AMPCO) to demolish existing structures and pavement. In turn, AMPCO hired KML to remove asbestos from the structures before the demolition began. The Alston/AMPCO agreement contained a set of rules related to worksite safety, among them Alston’s “Site Specific Safety Plan.” The plan expressly delegated worksite safety, including “safety training and equipment” and “[f]all prevention and/or protection” to AMPCO and its lower-tiered subcontractors. The plan also required subcontractors to “perform and document pre-task planning to identify any hazards related to their work.” |
We only recite those facts necessary to resolve the issues on appeal, doing so in the light most favorable to the probate court’s order. (Estate of Young (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 62, 76.)
Cleo created the trust and transferred her principal residence, miscellaneous real and personal property to it. She named herself as trustee, however, in the event she became incapacitated, Cash and Cornell were to become successor trustees, or, alternatively, Cash and Bass. After Cleo became incapacitated, Bass was appointed conservator, and petitioned the probate court for an order appointing herself as successor trustee, or, alternatively, her and Cornell as successor cotrustees. In March 2015, the probate court granted Bass’s petition and appointed her and Cornell as successor cotrustees. The probate court granted the petition over Cash’s objections. |
Appellants Derion Devon Lee, Charod Robinson, and Pernell Barnes, members of the Duarte Duroc Crips gang (DDC), were convicted of various charges arising from two shootings that occurred as part of a war between DDC and a rival gang, the Pasadena Denver Lane Bloods (PDL). The first shooting (the Douglas shooting) occurred on December 22, 2016, at the Kings Villages apartment complex in Pasadena, a known PDL hangout, and resulted in the killing of Brandon Douglas, a PDL associate. The second shooting (the Vigil shooting) occurred on January 6, 2017, during a candlelight vigil held for Douglas at Kings Villages. Ormoni Duncan and Antoine Sutphen were killed, and Janell Lipkin and Shamark Wright were wounded. Just hours before the Vigil shooting, someone had opened fire on a residence in DDC’s territory in Duarte (the Duarte shooting).
Appellants were tried along with two codefendants, Isaiah Daniels and Andrew Vasquez, also members of DDC. |
On August 16, 1997, the murder victim, 12-year-old D.W. (the victim), and 16-year-old M.H. (the attempted-murder victim) were sitting in Kennedy Park in Pomona with W.I. and another companion. The attempted-murder victim saw a large four-door maroon car in “‘bad shape’” emerge from a nearby housing area. The front passenger made a gang sign for the Westside Mafia. The car then turned around, entered the park, and stopped in a parking lot. When four men exited the car, the attempted-murder victim told the victim to get on his bicycle and leave. The victim rode away, and the attempted-murder victim ran with him. At some point, the attempted-murder victim took control of the bicycle while the victim rode on the handlebars.
The four men returned to the car and followed the two minors. |
In 2011, before Minor was born, a petition was filed in Alaska on behalf of Mother’s oldest child, Minor’s half-brother (Brother), who was taken into the custody of Anchorage County Child Welfare Services. Mother completed reunification services and Brother was returned to her care 14 months later, when Minor was a few months old. Mother subsequently gave legal custody of Brother to a friend, with whom Brother continues to reside.
In 2018, a petition was filed on behalf of Minor in Alameda County Superior Court, and Minor was detained. The following allegations were sustained at the jurisdiction hearing in 2019: while Mother was at work and Minor was in the care of her boyfriend J.D., Minor sustained non-accidental life-threatening injuries, including devastating brain injury that resulted in the loss of function of much of the left side of Minor’s brain, affecting his speech and language ability; that during Minor’s hospitalization, older injuries were discovered including th |
On May 3, 2016, in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCR-680697, defendant was charged with two misdemeanors: violating a court order to prevent domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)) and evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.1, subd. (a)), both on April 30, 2016. In Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCR-680770-1, also filed on May 3, defendant was charged with three more counts of violating a court order to prevent domestic violence (§ 273.6, subd. (a)) on March 22, April 21, and April 25, and with another count of evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.1, subd. (a) ) on April 28. The record does not contain the complaint in either case, but the trial court later described the section 273.6 charges as alleging that defendant “violat[ed] an Elder Protection order obtained by his elderly mother.”
On May 5, defendant was released from custody when the surety, through its agent Romelli Bail Bonds, posted bond number AF-00863510 in Case No. |
In 1990, Micah, then twelve years old, admitted committing unlawful sexual intercourse with another minor. The juvenile court declared Micah
a ward of the court and placed him on probation. The prosecution filed supplemental wardship petitions while Micah was on probation, and Micah admitted committing two felonies and several misdemeanors. In 1993, the court terminated jurisdiction over Micah after finding he successfully completed probation. Subsequently, Micah suffered felony convictions — as a juvenile and an adult — for car theft, evading a police officer, and illegal firearm possession. He also suffered numerous misdemeanor convictions, including for reckless driving. In 2018, and again in 2019, Micah moved to seal his juvenile records pursuant to section 781. The juvenile court denied the motions. It found Micah was ineligible for relief under section 781 because he suffered “felony convictions subsequent to his successful completion of probation.” |
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 77268
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023
Regular: 77268
Last listing added: 06:28:2023