CA Unpub Decisions

Father appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and disposition order regarding his infant daughter. Father argues that he posed no present threat of harm to daughter. We affirm because father’s egregious and aberrant sexual abuse of daughter’s siblings supported the court’s jurisdictional findings. We also conclude that father’s challenge to daughter’s removal was untimely.

Plaintiff and appellant Paul McCorkendale appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of his former employer, defendant and respondent County of Los Angeles, in his action for physical disability discrimination and related causes of action. We conclude: (1) there are no triable issues of material fact as to any of McCorkendale’s claims; and (2) there was no prejudicial error in the trial court’s decision not to continue the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.

A.F. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders in the juvenile dependency petitions filed on behalf of 13-year-old A.C. (younger daughter) and nine-year-old J.C. (son). In those orders, the juvenile court placed the children with father and directed that both father and mother receive family maintenance services. The juvenile court further found that mother had received reasonable reunification services.
We find no error and will affirm the orders.

The San Lorenzo Valley Water District (District) acquired real property in Boulder Creek, California from Gregory and Edwige Dildine (Dildines). Bruce Holloway is a taxpayer within District, and filed suit claiming the contract was void under Government Code section 1090, because one of District’s directors, Terry Vierra, had an interest in the contract by nature of his partial ownership in Showcase Realty (Showcase), the agency that facilitated the property sale, and the fact that his wife was the listing agent for the property.
District and Showcase brought a successful demurrer on the ground that Holloway lacked standing to assert a claim for conflict of interest.
On appeal, we consider whether Holloway had standing under Government Code section 1092 to bring an action for conflict of interest. We also consider whether Holloway was required to bring a validation action to challenge the real estate contract under Code of Civil Procedure section 863.

A Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was filed on behalf of I.G., the child of Martha R. (mother). Reunification services were not provided to mother. Mother filed a section 388 petition seeking reunification services, which the juvenile court denied. Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied her section 388 petition. We affirm.

Appellant A.B. admitted allegations in a fourth amended wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) filed on November 14, 2016, that charged him with felony receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)/count 1), resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), possession of a concealed dirk or dagger (§ 21310/count 3), and vehicle tampering (Veh. Code, § 10852/count 6).
Following a jurisdictional hearing on December 29, 2016, the court found true allegations in a wardship petition filed on December 8, 2016, that charged appellant with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).

Appellant, Samuel Zaki (Husband), challenges the trial court’s order terminating spousal support. According to Husband, the trial court failed to consider all of the relevant factors for determining the amount of support under Family Code section 4320. Husband further contends that the trial court arbitrarily excluded evidence and that substantial evidence does not support certain of the trial court’s findings.
The trial court did not err as alleged. Accordingly, the order will be affirmed.

Defendant and appellant K.I. (Father) is the father of the two children, M.I. and J.I. (the children) who were, respectively, ages two years and one year on the date of the challenged order. Father appeals from the court’s order of November 3, 2017, terminating his parental rights regarding the children at the hearing held under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26. Specifically, he argues the court’s finding that the children are adoptable is not supported by substantial evidence. As explained post, we affirm the court’s order.

Appellant K.H. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition order, sustaining jurisdiction over her son, J.H., and ordering him placed in a group home. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence warranting removal of the minor from her custody. We reject her challenge and affirm.

Defendant and appellant, Jamin Corey Neat, pled no contest to the attempted illegal transfer of a firearm. (Count 3; Pen. Code, §§ 664, 27500.) The court sentenced defendant to two years of imprisonment and awarded defendant 308 days of custody credit.
After defendant’s counsel and counsel from Appellate Defenders, Inc. filed notices of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him.

Savannah Marie Garrett appeals a jury verdict finding her guilty of driving a vehicle without consent of the owner and receiving a stolen vehicle. She argues we should reverse both convictions because insufficient evidence showed she drove or had possession of the car or knew it was stolen. She also argues the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury they had to find she knew the car had been stolen to convict her of driving a vehicle without consent. Finally, she argues the trial court improperly reduced the burden of proof by directing the jury that, if it determined she was in possession of recently stolen property, it could infer guilt from additional corroborating evidence.
We conclude there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish Garrett possessed the stolen car, drove it, and knew it had been stolen, and the trial court instructed the jury properly. We therefore affirm the judgment.

Defendant and appellant Arnold James Collins (defendant) appeals his conviction and 19-year sentence for first degree residential burglary under Penal Code section 459 on the contention that removing a window screen and unsuccessfully attempting to open a closed window does not constitute an entry for purposes of the statute. The Supreme Court case of People v. Valencia (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1 (Valencia), disapproved of on other grounds by People v. Yarbrough (2012) 54 Cal.4th 889, which is factually identical to this matter, holds just the opposite. For this reason, we affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff and appellant Tammy Gilmore initiated this negligence and medical malpractice action against defendant and respondent Parkview Community Hospital Medical Center (Parkview) based on a visit in August 2013. She claimed that Parkview caused a foreign object to be left in her arm. Parkview successfully moved for summary judgment, and the trial court entered judgment in its favor. On appeal, plaintiff contends she demonstrated a triable issue of material fact. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment.

Minor Isaiah J. appeals an order granting his father's petition for reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. Isaiah contends there is not substantial evidence to support a finding of changed circumstances or new evidence to support granting the modification request. He also asserts the court abused its discretion by not considering whether granting the modification was in his best interests. We agree the court did not consider Isaiah's best interest in granting the modification, and reverse.