In re Marriage of Samson (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 23, published reversal. The Court of Appeal agreed with our arguments that the trial court had incorrectly allocated all of appellant husband’s substantial severance pay to a single month for the purposes of calculating temporary spousal support.
People v. Spencer, E051954 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed a conviction on one count of conspiracy to communicate with a prisoner.
Steve Kelley v. The Copley Press, Inc., D056776 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant newspaper on a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations which had been brought by a well-known editorial cartoonist.
Adoption of Baby Girl C., Guardianship of Baby Girl C., G043887, G043548, G044022. In this widely-publicized “Baby Vanessa” case, we successfully obtained a stay in the Court of Appeal, preventing the transfer of the child from California to the social services agency in Ohio. After extensive briefing in the Court of Appeal, the parties settled the matter in Ohio with an order awarding custody of the child to our client, the prospective adoptive mother.
People v. Kelly, (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 73, published reversal. The Court of Appeal reversed a $14,606.66 restitution award, ruling the Recording Industry Association of America was only a trade association, not a direct victim of offenses concerning counterfeit compact discs.
In re S.C., C063250, (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed the termination of parental rights because of non-compliance with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and also ruled the mother could file a new section 388 petition.
Hayden v. Hayden, B207007 (unpublished). In this complicated, protracted probate case, the Court of Appeal reversed charges against the appellant in excess of $300,000.00 and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
In re Marriage of Rinaldi, G041865 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal not only agreed with our arguments that trial court orders denying motions to vacate earlier family law orders must be affirmed but also ordered monetary sanctions be paid to our client.
In re Jasmin P., B216721 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed jurisdictional orders in a dependency case, agreeing there was insufficient evidence that a father had done anything to create a risk of detriment to his child.
Dolley v. Superior Court, G042869, (unpublished). The Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate, vacating trial court orders which were contrary to a prior Court of Appeal opinion.
People v. Belton, E047870, (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed a conviction for receiving stolen property and corrected custody credits.
People v. Bell, G041051, (published reversal). The Court of Appeal agreed the trial court had given an incorrect jury instruction and reversed a kidnapping conviction.
In re L. G., B210872, (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed dependency jurisdiction orders, agreeing the father’s periodic medical marijuana use was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate harm to the children.
In re J. D., B210429, (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed dependency jurisdiction findings against a father who did not have custody of the child at the time the mother’s actions caused the child to become a dependent.
In re Charlotte D. (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 1140. I successfully represented adopting parents in securing reversal of Court of Appeal’s ruling concerning constitutionality of Probate Code section 1516.5 in a case in which the biological father manifestly failed to fulfill his parental responsibilities and did not promptly defend his custodial rights.
People v. Mendiola, E043582 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal ordered the sentence on one count of making or possessing fictitious bills or notes with the intent to defraud stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
Adoption of Joshua S. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 945. I successfully represented the appellant, first in the Court of Appeal and then California Supreme Court in reversing a substantial award of attorney fees granted by the trial court under the “private attorney general doctrine” of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5
James and Bernadette S. v. Superior Court, B193675. In this writ petition filed on behalf the adopting parents, the Court of Appeal granted our alternative writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its orders staying the alleged biological father’s petition and thereafter set my clients’ petition for a hearing. The trial court complied with the alternative writ.
Adoption of Hayden P., G040413 (unpublished) and Adoption of Tyler O., G040056 (unpublished). In these unrelated matters, I represented respondents in securing an affirmance of orders terminating parental rights in order to facilitate a step-parent adoption.
Dolley v. Cummings, G039330 (unpublished). In this probate matter, I secured a reversal of the trial court’s order interpreting a settlement agreement and trust to strip the beneficiary of various rights under the trust.
In re Marriage of Luke, G037747 (unpublished). As a respondent, the Court of Appeal agreed with our arguments concerning the jurisdiction of the trial court to render child support awards, and we secured a partial reversal on our appeal concerning the amount of community property reimbursement to which our client was entitled.
J. C. v. Marissa C., B204304 (unpublished). The trial court’s order denying a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition without a hearing was reversed.
People v. Michael R., E045178 (unpublished). This case was remanded to the trial court to declare whether offense was a felony or misdemeanor.
People v. Willis, E040684 (unpublished). The conviction on two counts of robbery was reversed with direction to dismiss the charges.
In re Lauren R. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 841. I secured a reversal on behalf of the adopting parent of a trial court order removing the minor from her home. The Court of Appeal agreed the relative placement preference of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3 did not apply to a placement for adoption when no new placement was necessary; rather, the caretaker preference of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (k) applied.
In re Marriage of Crane, G037644 (unpublished). The Court agreed with our position, representing the Respondent, that appellant had appealed from a non-appealable order and dismissed her appeal.
In re Marriage of Prichard, G039180. The Court of Appeal granted our Petition for Writ of Supersedeas, staying the trial court’s order requiring the minor child attend a different school, pending the outcome of the appeal.
In re Tatiana T., G037593 (unpublished). We represented the responding adopting parents and secured an order affirming the judgment terminating the parental rights of the birth parents and freeing the child for adoption.
In re Hope B., B194384, (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed a visitation order as an improper delegation of judicial authority.
In re Jacob C., B193154 (unpublished). The dispositional order in a dependency matter was reversed because there was no showing that there were no other reasonable means to protect the child.
People v. Oates, E042645 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal modified the sentence so that concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences ordered.
People v. Beltran, G037052 (unpublished). The appellant’s sentence was reversed, and case remanded for resentencing.
Avina v. Macias, G035209 (unpublished). I represented the appellants in this appeal concerning a breach of contract for the sale of real property. Our clients lost at trial, but I secured a full reversal and retrial, based on the legal argument they had presented substantial evidence of part performance and equitable estoppel sufficient to take the agreement outside the operation of the statute of frauds.
Bren v. Superior Court, G036650 (unpublished). I obtained a writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order requiring the petitioner to testify in a misdemeanor matter, notwithstanding the fact she had invoked her rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Prosser v. Osborne, B183512 (unpublished). Representing the Respondent, we secured the dismissal of a portion of the appellant’s appeal on procedural grounds, and an affirmance of the balance of the trial court’s orders.
People v. Au, G035711 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed a restitution order because the appellant was not provide the notice required by Due Process Clause.
People v. Williams, E037477 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal struck sentence enhancements.
In re Marriage of Land, G034975 (unpublished). The Court reversed an order modifying child support, finding the trial court erred in imputing the husband’s new spouse’s benefits to him and in failing to account for tax implications.
In re Andres R., B180830 (unpublished). The judgment was partially reversed and the case remanded for a paternity determination.
People v. Merchant, E033887 (unpublished). The Penal Code section 12022.7 enhancements were stricken.
People v. Sanchez, E034555 (unpublished.) The Court agreed there were multiple sentencing errors.
People v. Ross, E035782 (unpublished). I secured a partial reversal with direction the trial court consider a motion for new trial.
In re Marriage of O’Brien, G032608 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal not only agreed with our arguments on behalf of the Respondent concerning the “home state”of the child, it also awarded us sanctions for the appellant’s frivolous appeal.
Royas v. Superior Court, B179438. The Court of Appeal granted our writ petition, requiring the trial court to dismiss the entire lawsuit against our client, the defendant, because the action violated Civil Code section 43.5, the “anti-heart-balm” statute.
Adoption of Joshua S., D042100 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal vacated a “presumed parent” finding.
In re B.B., B167949 (unpublished). The trial court’s orders were reversed because the Department’s attempts to notify the father were Constitutionally inadequate.
In re Force, G032966 (unpublished). Our petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted, directing trial court to hold evidentiary hearing.
People v. Williams, E033166 (unpublished). The Court agreed there were sentencing errors pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
People v. Virgle, G032407 (unpublished). Life sentences were vacated with direction the court substitute the minimum parole eligibility date.
In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 97. This was a case of first impression establishing that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, protective measures applicable to adult criminal appeals also applied in juvenile delinquency matters.
In re C.D. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 214. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal agreed there was insufficient evidence of a history of drug and alcohol use and reversed a portion of the dispositional order.
Adoption of Christopher C., G031723 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal agreed with our arguments, representing an adoption agency, and reversed the trial court’s ruling that the birth parent had not been adequately advised prior to executing a relinquishment.
In re Glenda G., B165585 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition, agreeing with our argument that our client, and out-of-state father, had taken sufficient actions to establish his parental rights.
In re M. T., C042899 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition agreeing appellant’s personal appearance had not been required at trial.
In re Justine J., B158212 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed an order terminating my client’s “de facto parent” status.
People v. Coryell & Darden (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1299. As to my client, the Court of Appeal reversed a conviction of vehicle theft, agreeing he could not be convicted of both carjacking and unlawful taking and driving a vehicle, as well as staying another portion of a sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
People v. Grissom, C036853 (unpublished). Convictions for grand theft and theft or embezzlement from an elder were reversed because of the failure to instruct on a “claim-of-right” defense.
People v. Flores, E031344 (unpublished). A second degree murder conviction was reversed because of instructional error.
People v. Salzar, E031903 (unpublished). Firearm enhancements were stricken.
Aps Sports Collectibles, Inc., v. Sports Time, Inc. et al. (7th Cir 2002) 299 F.3d 624. The Court of Appeals agreed with our position, representing the appellees (or respondents) that where a borrower and its principals sold the stock of the borrower to successor, which transferred most of borrower's assets to itself, an unpaid lender could not recover from the principals under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, as they were not "debtors."
In re Karen C. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 832. In this case the court held that California’s “presumed father” statutes of the Uniform Parentage Act also applied to mothers.
MacDonald v. City of Brea Police Department, G028372 (unpublished). In this wrongful death action, on behalf of the mother of the decedent, we obtained a reversal of a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, arguing there were numerous triable issues of fact concerning a waiver allegedly signed by the decedent.
Hanson v. Grode, B149531 (unpublished). I obtained the reversal of a judgment imposed against the plaintiff after his request for a continuance at the outset of trial on the ground his attorney had abandoned him was denied.
King v. Kincade, G030103 (unpublished). We obtained the reversal of a restraining order issued pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Family Code section 6200, et seq., on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence.
In re Marriage of Owen, G028510 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed a judgment annulling a marriage, agreeing with our arguments that pre-marital promises concerning the type of marriage the parties would have was insufficient to establish “fraud.”
Nettleman v. Aesculap, Inc., E027555 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed a sanctions order.
In re Graham A., B153683 (unpublished). A custody order was reversed because the trial court erroneously had delegated the question of visitation to the minor.
In re Cypress Q., B156670 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed an order terminating the grandparents’ guardianship.
In re J.D., C038997 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a petition for disclosure of juvenile court records.
Adoption of Alexander M. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 403. I represented the adopting parents’ opposing an appeal by a birth father and in pursuing their own petition for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal granted our writ petition, commanding the superior court to hold a hearing on the adopting parent’s petition to terminate the birth father’s parental rights under Family Code section 7664, subdivision (b).
In re Janet T. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 377. We secured a ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to declare children dependents under the Welfare and Institutions Code because there was no current risk of harm to the children.
Adoption of Baby Boy D. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1. Representing adopting parents, we secured a reversal of a trial court’s ruling that a child had to be returned to the birth mother and a ruling that the relinquishment signed by the birth mother had been valid and binding.
In re Santos Y. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1274. Representing the adopting parents, I first obtained a stay of a trial court order directing the child be delivered to the custody of an Indian reservation in Minnesota. The Court of Appeal then reversed the trial court’s ruling and found the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act to this child was “unconstitutional under the Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
Adoption of Daniele G.(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1392. An order denying guardianship was reversed because the trial court did not apply the correct "detriment" and "best interest" standard, set forth in Family Code section 3041.
In re Steven H. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1023. I secured reversal of an order terminating parental rights. The Court of Appeal first ruled a client need not personally authorize an appeal if the basis of the appeal was improper notice of the trial court proceedings, then that Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.23, subdivision (b)(5)(B) required notice of the lower court hearing be given to the grandparents if the parent could not be located.
Hughes v. Hardin, E029728 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal agreed with our position, as respondents, in this commercial matter concerning contract terms and conditions precedent.
Macgillivray v. Wicke, B160654 (unpublished). I obtained a reversal of a judgment on the pleadings in a legal malpractice action.
In re Kyiesha H., B149761 (unpublished). The termination of parental rights was reversed because of inadequate notice.
In re Teresa H., B145480 (unpublished). The Court of Appeal agreed the trial court had denied appellant due process of law and acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it terminated appellant’s guardianship.
In re Daniel H., E027823, (unpublished). An order appointing a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was reversed for failure to comply with procedural requirements.
In re Jeffrey V., B143140 (unpublished). An order summarily denying a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition was reversed.
People v. Jacobs, G026510 (unpublished). This murder conviction was reversed because shackling the defendants denied them their Constitutional right to a fair trial, and admission of hearsay statements denied their right to confrontation.
People v. Sanchez, B144410 (unpublished). A conviction for receiving stolen property was reversed.
Adoption of Michael W., B120134 (unpublished). Representing the adopting parents, we obtained a reversal of the trial court’s order denying their adoption petition and an order that the trial court grant their adoption petition.
Chapman v. Superior Court, G026664 (unpublished). A sanctions order was vacated.
In re Jonathan H., B134105 (unpublished). An order terminating parental rights was reversed because the mother did not receive notice required by law.
In re Kristian K., B134984 (unpublished). An order denying a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition was reversed.
In re Francisco A., B130879 (unpublished). An order denying a contested Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing was reversed.
People v. Shipman, E025619 (unpublished). The Court reversed a conviction on a count of “false personation,” Penal Code section 529.
People v. Hill, E024976 (unpublished). Enhancements for association with a criminal street gang and firearm use reversed.
People v. Smith, F031782 (unpublished). An order denying a Pitchess motion was reversed.
Adoption of Baby Girl B. (2001) 74 Cal.App.4th 43. The Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a proposed adopting parent an evidentiary hearing on her adoption petition.
Howe v. Regent Villa, et al., B114557 (unpublished). We secured a reversal of a summary judgment against the plaintiff in a breach of contract action based on inadequate nursing home care.
In re Marriage of Rebecca & David R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 471 [subsequently ordered not to be published]. In this case of first impression, the Court of Appeal reversed an order requiring a non-biological father to pay child support.
In re Alexandria Y. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1483. The Court of Appeal agreed with my arguments, advanced on behalf of the minor, that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply to this child who had no connection to the Indian tribe seeking custody.
In re Bridget R. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1483. The Court of Appeal agreed with my original arguments the Indian Child Welfare Act constituted an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth, Tenth an Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in cases in which a child’s biological parents have no significant connection to an Indian tribe or reservation life. To my knowledge, this is the first time any Federal Indian legislation has been declared unconstitutional in the history of United States law.
In re Paul E. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 996. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order removing the minor from his parents home.
In re Vanessa P. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1763. The Court of Appeal reversed an order of the trial court and ordered my clients, the aunt and uncle of an orphaned girl, had “de facto parent” standing because the aunt had been nominated as guardian by the mother.
Fidopiastis v. Hirtler (2005) 34 Cal.App.4th 1458 [subsequently ordered not published]. I secured the reversal of a summary judgment against the plaintiff who had suffered a sports injury because there was a coach-student relationship between the parties, which required different “assumption of risk” rules apply.
In re David D. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 941. The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s judgment terminating parental rights because the trial court had not required the implementation of a reasonable reunification plan.
Johnson v. Calvert (1993) 5 Cal.4th 84. I briefed and argued this landmark surrogacy case on behalf of the minor. The Supreme Court adopted my Constitutional analysis, upholding the surrogacy agreement.
In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435. The California Supreme Court granted my petition, filed on behalf of the minor, and subsequently ruled its Kelsey S. standards applied to dependency cases.
In re Brittany S. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1399. The Court of Appeal reversed the termination of parental rights because the mother had not been granted reasonable visitation. This case is known for the comment there is no “‘go to prison, lose your child’” rule in California.
In re Joshua G. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 242 [subsequently ordered not published]. The Court of Appeal reversed an order terminating parental rights because the trial court set the hearing prematurely.
In re Anita G. (1992) 15 Cal.App.4th 1044 [subsequently ordered not published]. An order terminating parental rights was reversed because the standard applied was not Constitutionally adequate.
In re Allison H. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1154. An order terminating a father’s parental rights was reversed because his consent was necessary because he was a presumed father.
In re Baby Boy M. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 475. An order terminating the biological mother’s parental rights was reversed because she had neither abandoned nor relinquished her child.