People v. Nesbitt, B218373, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for sexual abuse of three of his children. In affirming, the court held that, because the trial court had inherent authority to reconsider its order dismissing counts 4 and 5, both of which alleged the commission of a forcible lewd act on a child in violation of section 288(b), the trial court's order vacating the dismissal of those counts and reinstating them was proper.
In re V.M., B220976, concerned a challenge to a trial court's exercise of dependency jurisdiction over a minor, in finding that the minor's father had "abdicated his role of father for his daughter all her life," which resulted in the child being suitably placed with her grandparents. In reversing the decision, the court remanded the matter in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion as the dependency court cannot assert jurisdiction where there is no evidence of parental abuse of neglect.
In re Sean A., D056026, concerned a challenge to a juvenile court's judgment declaring defendant a ward of the court and placing him in probation after defendant admitted to possessing a controlled substance for sale. In affirming, the court held that the search of his person by a public high school official was lawful, and defendant has waived any objection to his probation conditions by failing to object in the juvenile court.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, B223184, concerned a challenge to the defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking relief from the trial court's denial of its demurrer to plaintiffs' first amended complaint, which contains a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), in plaintiffs' suit against the defendant for alleged failure to provide seating to its employees pursuant to section 1198 and Wage Order 7-2001. In denying the petition, the court held that the first amended complaint alleges that defendant has not provided seating for its employees, even though there is ample space behind each counter/cashier to sallow for a stool or seat, and the seating requirement of Wage Order 7-2100 clearly prohibits such conduct. The court also held that, the default remedy penalties, viewed as supplements to the section 20(A) of the wage order penalties, are not excessive or improper.
City of Arcadia v. State Water Res. Control Bd., G041545, concerned a challenge to a trial court's judgment issuing a writ of mandate that vacated a resolution by defendant California Regional Water Quality Control Board after it completed a periodic review of its water quality control plan and related judgments.
In reversing the judgment, the court held that, insofar as plaintiffs' action is limited to their challenge to the Board's resolution on the 2004 Triennial Review without addressing their requests concerning the validity of the water quality objective as well as the imposition of total maximum daily load (TMDL) under the current MS4 permit, it would appear to be timely. The court also held that the trial court erred in failing to give collateral estoppel effect to the first and second appellate court decisions concerning the application of section 13241 to the 2001 MS4 permit and the adoption of the trash TMDL. Further, absent a showing that defendants sought to impose water quality objectives exceeding what federal law required, plaintiffs cannot prevail. Lastly the court held that the trial court erred in limiting the Board's exercise of its discretion in developing water quality objectives, and denied the pending motions by intervenors and amici curiae.
- Read the Full Decision in Talley v. Valuation Counselors Group, Inc., D055894
- Read the Full Decision in People v. Nesbitt, B218373
- Read the Full Decision in In re V.M., B220976
- Read the Full Decision in In re Sean A., D056026
- Read the Full Decision in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, B223184
- Read the Full Decision in City of Arcadia v. State Water Res. Control Bd., G041545