CA Unpub Decisions

Defendants and appellants Thomas Liu and Squire Patton Boggs (US), LLP (Squire), erroneously sued as Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, LLP (collectively, Respondents), appeal from an order denying, in part, their special motion to strike the verified complaint filed by plaintiff and respondent Zina Dolzhenko pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, hereinafter, the anti-SLAPP statute. After an article appeared in the L.A. Weekly newspaper discussing numerous frivolous lawsuits filed by Zina and her brother, Gennady Dolzhenko, they filed suit against the newspaper, the author of the article, and all individuals and businesses that were quoted or discussed in the article, alleging the “libelous article” ruined their reputation and caused them harm. Respondents, a partner of the law firm Squire, was mentioned in the article as saying Zina had “snuck past building security” and “created a ruckus.”

Seventeen-year-old David G. appeals a disposition order committing him to juvenile hall for a maximum term of five years or until age 21, in order to participate in a county-run rehabilitation program that typically lasts one year (and, upon his release from the program, to return home on probation), after David admitted allegations that he committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). The disposition stems from a robbery at knifepoint he and an older friend committed in which their victim, another friend of David’s, received a critically serious stab wound to the abdomen.
David challenges the juvenile court’s commitment order as an abuse of discretion, and also the term of his confinement. We reject his arguments and affirm.

C.K. (Mother) appeals following an order that removed her son, J.M. (Minor), from her care, placed him in the custody of his father, N.M. (Father), and dismissed the dependency proceedings. We reject Mother’s arguments that the jurisdictional finding lacks substantial evidence and the dismissal order was unauthorized by law, but we agree with her contention that the visitation order effectively delegated to Father the discretion to allow visitation. We reverse and remand the visitation order, and otherwise affirm.

S.B. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights over D.B. (Minor). Her sole challenge on appeal is the agency failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA). We reverse.

Defendant Anthony Stokes contends the court erred when it denied his petition to reduce his 2009 felony conviction for transporting a controlled substance to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. Because transporting a controlled substance was exclusively a felony at the time of Stokes’s 2009 conviction, we affirm.

Minor C.G., a ward of the court, appeals following a juvenile adjudication that he committed the crime of attempted second degree robbery. He raises a single issue on appeal. C.G. argues that juvenile court limitations on his cross-examination of the victim and an investigating police officer violated his confrontation rights secured by the sixth amendment. We conclude that any possible constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The adjudication of the juvenile court is affirmed.

Benjamin Keath North appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of receiving stolen property and unlawfully possessing a firearm (as a felon). He contends (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a mistrial based on statements by a prosecution witness in a purported violation of an in limine order; and (2) the court should have stayed his sentence on one of his convictions under Penal Code section 654.
We will affirm the judgment.

Defendant John Paul Hoffman appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition seeking to reduce his felony conviction for receipt of stolen property to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18 enacted by the voters as part of Proposition 47, The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act (Prop. 47). Because Hoffman failed to prove the value of the stolen property in his possession exceeded $950, Hoffman did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating his eligibility for reduction. Therefore, we affirm.

A jury convicted defendant James D. Simpson of receiving stolen property in connection with a residential burglary. Following his arrest, defendant provided a written statement and a subsequent taped statement to police, in which he confessed to entering the residence and taking various items. On appeal, defendant contends the judgment must be reversed because his taped statement, in which he admitted stealing property from the residence, was the tainted fruit of his earlier written statement that was found to have been involuntary and obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). Defendant also contends the evidence was insufficient to prove the stolen property had a value in excess of $950. We affirm the judgment.

Defendant The Zin Group, LLC (Zin Group) appeals an order denying a motion to side aside a stipulated judgment against Zin Group. Zin Group contends the stipulated judgment was collusive because only one of the two managing members of Zin Group, Jeffrey Mall, agreed to enter into the stipulated judgment that benefitted Jeffrey’s wife, plaintiff Susan Mall. Scott Silva, the other managing member of Zin Group, claims he did not consent to the stipulated judgment.
We agree with the trial court that Silva’s claims stem from a disagreement with his business partner over the operation of Zin Group and do not justify setting aside a facially valid judgment. Accordingly, we shall affirm.

Appellant Fanchon Brianna Caldwell appeals in case No. FAM0129072 from the San Mateo County Superior Court’s order (Hon. Susan Greenberg) granting the motion, filed by respondent Jeffrey G. Randall, to quash and dismiss appellant’s consolidated petitions to establish parental relationship as to the parties’ minor child, G.C., and their then unborn child, based on the court’s finding that California lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.) to make initial child custody determinations regarding the parties’ minor child, G.C.

Erick Jason Talbot (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to five years and eight months in prison. He contends the court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights by denying his request for a continuance. We reject the contention and affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff June Elizabeth Davis appeals from an order denying her Government Code section 946.6 petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement of section 945.4. We affirm.

In 2000, Ronald and Victoria Hogan (the Hogans or plaintiffs) purchased a home on Gardenview Place in Santa Rosa. After discovering the developers and realtors had concealed material defects, they filed a complaint in 2002, seeking both rescission of the purchase agreement and legal damages. The rescission was confirmed in 2004 and, in 2007, the trial court entered judgment requiring the Hogans to return the property in exchange for consequential damages. In 2009, this court affirmed the judgment, confirming once and for all that the Hogans had, in 2002, effected a unilateral rescission which they were not free to revoke. (Hogan, et al. v. DeAngelis Construction, Inc., et al. (A117321, A118257, A120840, May 20, 2009) [nonpub. opn.] (Hogan I).) That decision was final on August 31, 2009.