Decisions in Criminal, anti-SLAPP Motions, Family and Administrative Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff on June 01, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In In re A.O., No. B218741, the Second District faced a challenge to the juvenile court's order on a supplemental petition terminating a home of parent order and removing father's daughter from his care after his arrest and incarceration.  In affirming  the order, the court held that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that the previous home of parent order was no longer effective to protect the daughter.  Furthermore, the court held that a basis to avoid the assertion of dependency court jurisdiction over a child under section 300(g) -- an incarcerated parent's making an appropriate arrangement for the care of the child by a relative or friend -- is inapplicable to a supplemental petition under section 387 because section 300(g) deals with the initial imposition of dependency court jurisdiction over a child, which is not at issue on a section 387 petition to terminate a home of parent order.     

Scalzo v. Am. Express Co., No. B213636, concerned a plaintiff's action against a credit card company and others for invasion of privacy, violation of California Financial Information Privacy Act, and other claims.  The court reversed in part the trial court's grant of two special motions to strike as the plaintiff's evidentiary support is sufficient to establish the requisite prima facie showing, and defendant has failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff cannot succeed on the merits showing that the claimed illegal acts occurred and caused damage unrelated to the underlying litigation.  The court affirming the trial court's grant of the remaining defendants' special motion to strike. 

In Gressett v. Superior Court, No. A127100, the First District faced a challenge to the trial court's order denying a former senior deputy district attorney's request that a particular attorney be appointed at county expense as his assigned counsel in a prosecution for multiple sex related crimes.  In affirming the denial, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it held that defendant failed to establish good cause to depart from the statutory scheme for appointment of assigned counsel specified in section 987.2.    

Garcia v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, No. A126130, concerned a plaintiff's petition for writ of administrative mandamus, seeking an order directing the DMV to set aside the suspension of his driving privileges.  In affirming the trial court's denial of the petition, the court held that the trial court did not err in concluding that plaintiff's change of mind regarding a blood test and his eventual consensual submission to such a test did not obviate the consequences of defendant's initial refusal and failure to complete the breath test. 

In Lucky United Properties Inv., Inc. v. Lee, No. A124965, the First District faced a challenge to the trial court's grant of defendants' motion to compel plaintiff's attorney to acknowledge the satisfaction of a prior order for attorney fees and costs and denying in part the attorney's motion for other attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with his successful motion to strike, arising from an underlying suit involving a contract dispute over purchase of real property.

In reversing the trial court's decision, the court first held that the trial court erred in denying the attorney's request for attorney fees as the judgment was not fully satisfied by the time the attorney brought his motion for attorney fees incurred in connection with the abstract of judgment and lien notices.  Next, the court held that the trial court erred in denying the attorney's memorandum of costs.  And lastly, the court held that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for satisfaction of judgment under section 724.050.   

Related Resources:


Copied to clipboard