Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
The California Court of Appeal for the Second District decided two criminal cases, insurance reimbursement claim, an attorney's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a lawsuit by a former client, and a child custody and support case.
In In re Mille, No. B217102, the court dealt with whether to grant defendant's request for habeas relief based on his 84-day delay in transfer from a county jail to a state hospital after the superior court ordered the sheriff to transport him for evaluation and treatment. Although, the court concluded that the trial court should have granted defendant's initial petition and ordered the sheriff for prompt transfer, the petition was denied as moot because defendant is no longer in custody of the county jail or the sheriff, and having been transferred to the hospital, he has now received the relief requested.
In People v. Nitschmann, No. B210291, the court flatly refused a defendant's request to either withdraw from the negotiated disposition or a lesser sentence. The court based its conclusion on the fact that defendant's written 16 page plea agreement and waiver of constitutional rights with a 10 page oral colloquy with the prosecutor and trial court clearly showed that he understood the disposition and wanted immediate sentencing.
In Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, the court faced a challenge to the trial court's denial of defendant-attorney's anti-SLAPP motion. Defendant's motion to strike was in response to a lawsuit by a former client in connection with development of real estate in Beverly Hills, which the client claimed the attorney's actions, following termination of the representation, was in opposition to the redevelopment efforts, in breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence. In reversing the trial court's denial of the motion, the court held that all causes of action in the complaint arose from acts in furtherance of protected activity and plaintiff could not show a probability of prevailing at trial.
In City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n, No. B214027, the court addressed the issue of whether the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Insurance Code section 1063.1 abrogated Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 104 Cal App.4th 1433. In concluding that it did not, the court held that the Denny's rule was properly invoked in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant as it need not reimburse a permissbly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injurry if employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess coverage.
In Mendoza v. Ramos, No. B211969, the court faced a challenge to the trial court's decision declining to attribure income to the mother of petitioner's four children. In affirming the trial court's decision, the court rejected the father's assertion that income can be attributed to the mother because she is pursuing an education rather than working because he has not shown that the mother has the ability to earn the income he seeks to impute. Furthermore, imputation of income to a parent on CalWork's would be contrary to public policy.
In Galbiso v. Orosi Pub. Util. Dist., No. F056506, the Fifth District faced a challenge to the trial court's sustaining defendant's (a public utitlity district) demurrer to plaintiff's complaint seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant from conducting a tax sale of her property for collection of sewer assessments. In affirming the decision to sustain general demurrer to complaint for injunctive relief, the court rejected all causes of action for injunctive relief, including plaintiff's claim that the defendant had no authority to conduct a tax sale because this remedy was time-barred under section 104505's provisions. The court also rejected her cause of action under the Brown Act and held that the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer to the writ of mandate petition as well.
Lastly, in In re E.O., No. A124534, the First District affirmed the juvenile court's denial of a father's request for presumed father status. In so affirming, the court considered the fact that the father did not have any contact with the children, a 14-year old and a 7-year old, until recently, and the children expressed their wishes not to be with him. Moreover, the court concluded that the father did not come within any of the categories set forth in Family Code section 7611 that may entitle him presumed father status.