CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant K.L. (Mother) is the mother of nine minor children, only one of whom is the subject of the present appeal. Mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating parental rights over K.W. (K.), her second youngest child, in the face of assertions that the parental benefit and sibling exceptions applied. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subds. (c)(1)(B)(i) & (c)(1)(B)(v).) Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Robert Richard Appling purports to appeal, following his admission of a probation violation and imposition of a 16-month sentence on November 17, 2016. Because there is nothing in the record to show that Appling timely sought, and was granted, a certificate of probable cause, he is barred by statute from appealing. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal.

In her first appeal (B279798), Jennifer P. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s December 9, 2016 order denying her modification petition seeking to return her then three-year-old son, Jonas S., to her custody and to reinstate reunification or family maintenance services. In her second appeal (B282773), mother challenges the court’s April 21, 2017 order terminating her visitation with Jonas and the court’s April 25, 2017 order terminating her parental rights. On our own motion, we consolidate the appeals for purposes of decision. We conclude mother’s challenge to the April 21, 2017 visitation order is not properly before us because she never appealed from that order. Finding no error, we affirm the court’s orders denying mother’s petition and terminating her parental rights.

Appellant Cathye Curreri appeals from the judgment in the marriage dissolution action filed by respondent Joseph Curreri. Cathye contends the court erroneously apportioned Joseph’s pension benefits based on the time period worked during the marriage, rather than the monetary contributions made during the marriage. Finding no error, we affirm.

Curtis D. (Father) appeals the Los Angeles Superior Court dependency court orders sustaining the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition brought by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and ordering his daughter Ariel D. (Child) removed from Father’s custody. Father contends that, both when sustaining the petition and when removing the Child from his custody, the dependency court improperly relied upon a “bunk bed” injury incident that is not in the record and, for that reason, the judgment must be reversed. He also contends Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) notices were sent to the wrong tribes. Because we find that substantial evidence supports the court’s August 10, 2016 orders and ICWA’s placement requirements were met, we affirm the August 10, 2016 orders.

Several judgment creditors appeal from a post-judgment order establishing the priority of liens under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.470. In the underlying trial, the trial court awarded a restaurant owner damages of $840,000 against a mall and $560,000 against a management company, but awarded the mall unpaid rent and attorney fees of $2.5 million against the restaurant. The mall waived its right to set off the judgments under section 666. A third party judgment creditor filed a notice of lien on any judgment awarded to the restaurant. As to the portion of the judgment against the mall, the trial court awarded the mall priority to receive the proceeds, based on the principles underlying equitable setoff.

Defendant Jomarace Kwanci Robinson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of willful infliction of corporal injury on someone with whom the defendant had a dating relationship (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subds. (a), (b)(3)), two counts of felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)) and cruelty to a child by inflicting injury (§ 273a, subd. (b)). Robinson admitted a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) for which he served a prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Robinson to the upper term of four years for injury to a girlfriend, doubled as a second strike to eight years. Pursuant to section 654, the court stayed the execution of sentence on the two felony vandalism counts. As to count 4, cruelty to a child by inflicting injury, the court imposed a six-month sentence to be served consecutively to the eight-year state prison sentence.

A jury found the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) failed to accommodate the disability of one of its bus drivers, Garey Estelle, and failed to engage in the interactive process to discuss accommodating his disability. The jury awarded Estelle $625,000, consisting of
$350,000 in past noneconomic damages and $275,000 in future noneconomic damages. The trial court denied the MTA’s posttrial motions based on judicial estoppel and insufficiency of the evidence to support the damages award. In addition, the trial court, using a lodestar multiplier of 1.5, awarded Estelle $752,925.92 in statutory attorneys’ fees. We conclude that the trial court did not err in declining to apply judicial estoppel to vacate the jury’s verdict and that substantial evidence supports the jury’s award of noneconomic damages.

Plaintiff and respondent ABM Security Services, Inc. provided security services at Figueroa Tower, a downtown Los Angeles office building co-owned by three limited partnerships. The limited partnerships engaged a property management company, Milbank Holdings, Inc., dba Milbank Real Estate Services, Inc., to handle building operations and maintenance. Milbank missed some payments to ABM in late 2010 and 2011. The two companies discussed ways Milbank could reduce security costs. Facing a potential foreclosure action from a secured lender, the limited partnerships sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy filings identified ABM’s unsecured claim for $243,627.39. After the bankruptcy case was dismissed without discharge, ABM sued the limited partnerships for payment and obtained a judgment in its favor.

A jury found that Rite Aid Corporation harassed, discriminated against, and wrongfully discharged Robert Leggins, a store manager, based on his disability, retaliated against him for his complaints about harassment and discrimination based on race and disability, and failed to prevent discrimination. It awarded him $3,769,128 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. Rite Aid appeals, arguing insufficient evidence supported the verdict, the award of punitive damages was improper, and the trial court made evidentiary errors. We conclude insufficient evidence supported both the punitive damages award and the jury’s finding that Leggins was harassed because of his disability. We further conclude the trial court made evidentiary errors, but they were harmless. We therefore reverse the punitive damages award but otherwise affirm.

Petitioner R.J. (Father) is the natural father of A.J., born in April 2017. He challenges the juvenile court’s decision to deny him reunification services and to set a November 30, 2017 hearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, to consider a permanent plan for her. Father contends the juvenile court (1) abused its discretion when it denied him reunification services because it employed a standard that considered whether he and the child would benefit from those services, and (2) violated the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) notice provisions. For the reasons stated, we deny the petition.

N.D. appeals from the juvenile court’s decision to commit him to the
Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) after being presented with evidence that he committed several forcible sex offenses against Jane Doe and engaged in violent and/or aggressive behavior before and after these offenses, including at juvenile hall pending the resolution of his case, as well as evidence that the DJJ was a secure facility that would provide an extensive therapeutic program and disciplined environment for him. N.D. contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the DJJ because there is not sufficient evidence that less restrictive placement alternatives were inappropriate or that he would probably benefit from a DJJ commitment. We disagree and affirm the court’s commitment decision.

The trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer filed by respondents Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) et al. (respondents) to a complaint filed by appellants Servio T. Gomez and Martha E. Gomez (appellants), and dismissed appellants’ action. We affirm. In May 2015, appellants filed the present action against respondents, alleging causes of action for wrongful foreclosure; violation of a statute requiring a recorded substitution of trustees (Civ. Code § 2934a, subd. (a)(1)(A)); violation of the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200); fraud; and unjust enrichment.

These consolidated appeals arise from probate petitions filed by relatives of decedents Alva Finley (who died in 2005) and Norma Finley (who died in 2008). The trial court granted a petition filed by Kay Finley Moore (a daughter of the decedents) for letters of administration and appointed her the administrator of the estate of her mother, Norma Finley. Lincoln D. Finley, Jr. (Lincoln), a grandson of the decedents, opposed Moore’s petition in the trial court, and he now appeals (No. A147305). In his other appeal (No. A147820), Lincoln purports to appeal after the superior court clerk entered minutes reflecting that the court “dropped” from the calendar Lincoln’s petition to be appointed administrator of the estate of his grandfather, Alva Finley (a petition that Lincoln contends also included a request for appointment as administrator of the estate of Norma Finley). Lincoln has proceeded in propria persona in the trial court and in this court.