after hearing in California

2013Absent a formal court order directing earlier disclosure, discovery must be provided at least 30 days prior to trial, ‘unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted, or deferred.’ (§ 1054.7.) ‘Good cause’ is defined for purposes of this provision as ‘threats or possible danger to the safety of a victim or witness, possible loss or destruction of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigation by law enforcement.’ (Ibid.) Section 1054.7 additionally provides that upon the request of any party, the court may permit a showing of good cause — for the denial or re

2009Code, § 1054.7.) The court noted that, included in California discovery statutes in the Penal Code, "is the *1526 requirement that a prosecutor disclose the names and addresses of the individuals whom he or she intends to call at trial. (§ 1054.1, subd. (a).) The disclosure may be made to defense counsel, who is prohibited from revealing, to the defendant or others, information that identifies the address or telephone number of the prosecution's potential witnesses, absent permission by the court after a hearing and a showing of good cause. (§ 1054.2.)" ( Alvarado, supra, at p. 1132 .) The Sup

2025(Conservatorship of Lee C. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1085 (Lee C.).) 5 “The person for whom the conservatorship is sought has the right to a jury trial on the issue of whether the person is gravely disabled. [Citation.] The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The Murphy conservatorship expires after one year and the conservator may petition for reappointment for a succeeding one-year period. [Citation.]” (Lee C., supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 1086 .) “When ordered by the court after the hearing required by this section, a conservator . . . shall place his or her conserv

2025(Conservatorship of Lee C. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1085 (Lee C.).) 5 “The person for whom the conservatorship is sought has the right to a jury trial on the issue of whether the person is gravely disabled. [Citation.] The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The Murphy conservatorship expires after one year and the conservator may petition for reappointment for a succeeding one-year period. [Citation.]” (Lee C., supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 1086 .) “When ordered by the court after the hearing required by this section, a conservator . . . shall place his or her conserv

2024Because we independently review the trial court’s order denying the housing corporation’s motion to compel arbitration and the record before us includes all evidence considered by the trial court, a reporter’s transcript is not necessary.”]; Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 924, 933 [“Bel Air does not claim that the hearing 8 included any live testimony or the introduction of any other evidence.”]; Chodos v. Cole (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 692, 699 [the court would review record without transcript in part because it had “no indication that witnesses testified or evidentiary i

2024Because we independently review the trial court’s order denying the housing corporation’s motion to compel arbitration and the record before us includes all evidence considered by the trial court, a reporter’s transcript is not necessary.”]; Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 924, 933 [“Bel Air does not claim that the hearing 8 included any live testimony or the introduction of any other evidence.”]; Chodos v. Cole (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 692, 699 [the court would review record without transcript in part because it had “no indication that witnesses testified or evidentiary i

2021For support, plaintiffs cite Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86-87 [when person is “deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of due process,” fact that result might be the same after a hearing irrelevant]); Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 565-569 , superseded by § 170.1 [when litigant’s case is dismissed by disqualified judge, fact that case will likely be dismissed before qualified judge does not obviate entitlement to relief]; Sindler v. Brenna (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1353-1354 (Sindler) [when trial court dismisses ca

2021For support, plaintiffs cite Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86-87 [when person is “deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of due process,” fact that result might be the same after a hearing irrelevant]); Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 565-569 , superseded by § 170.1 [when litigant’s case is dismissed by disqualified judge, fact that case will likely be dismissed before qualified judge does not obviate entitlement to relief]; Sindler v. Brenna (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1353-1354 (Sindler) [when trial court dismisses ca

2021For support, plaintiffs cite Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86-87 [when person is “deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of due process,” fact that result might be the same after a hearing irrelevant]); Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 565-569 , superseded by § 170.1 [when litigant’s case is dismissed by disqualified judge, fact that case will likely be dismissed before qualified judge does not obviate entitlement to relief]; Sindler v. Brenna (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1353-1354 (Sindler) [when trial court dismisses ca

2021For support, plaintiffs cite Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86-87 [when person is “deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of due process,” fact that result might be the same after a hearing irrelevant]); Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 565-569 , superseded by § 170.1 [when litigant’s case is dismissed by disqualified judge, fact that case will likely be dismissed before qualified judge does not obviate entitlement to relief]; Sindler v. Brenna (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1353-1354 (Sindler) [when trial court dismisses ca

2014It is a violation of a mandatory requirement put in place to benefit the public by assuring that a court through neglect or abuse of discretion has not misused the ‘great power’ of dismissal. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 152-153; see also People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 531 [failure to state reasons for striking a Three Strikes prior requires reversal].) In its supplemental brief, respondent asks that we strike the nunc pro tunc order and remand for “clarification of appellant’s sentence.” Respondent points out that it “appears the court and the parties intended that appel

2014(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(a).) This is in order to “ 1 “ ‘prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class.’ ” ’ ” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 483 ].) “The court must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. [Citations.] The purpose of the requirement is ‘the protection of those class members, including the named plaintiffs, whose rights may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1801, fn. omitted.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.769 sets forth the procedure to be followed

2014(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(a).) This is in order to “ 1 “ ‘prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class.’ ” ’ ” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 483 ].) “The court must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. [Citations.] The purpose of the requirement is ‘the protection of those class members, including the named plaintiffs, whose rights may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1801, fn. omitted.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.769 sets forth the procedure to be followed

2013Absent a formal court order directing earlier disclosure, discovery must be provided at least 30 days prior to trial, ‘unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted, or deferred.’ (§ 1054.7.) ‘Good cause’ is defined for purposes of this provision as ‘threats or possible danger to the safety of a victim or witness, possible loss or destruction of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigation by law enforcement.’ (Ibid.) Section 1054.7 additionally provides that upon the request of any party, the court may permit a showing of good cause — for the denial or re

2013Absent a formal court order directing earlier disclosure, discovery must be provided at least 30 days prior to trial, ‘unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted, or deferred.’ (§ 1054.7.) ‘Good cause’ is defined for purposes of this provision as ‘threats or possible danger to the safety of a victim or witness, possible loss or destruction of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigation by law enforcement.’ (Ibid.) Section 1054.7 additionally provides that upon the request of any party, the court may permit a showing of good cause — for the denial or re

2007If upon the termination of an initial or a succeeding period of conservatorship the conservator determines that conservatorship is still required, he may petition the superior court for his reappointment as conservator for a succeeding one-year period.” (§ 5361.) “If-the conservator does not petition to reestablish conservatorship at or before the termination of the one-year period, the court shall issue a decree terminating conservatorship.” (§ 5362, subd. (b).) In Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 868 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 ], the court held that the conservator has the

2007If upon the termination of an initial or a succeeding period of conservatorship the conservator determines that conservatorship is still required, he may petition the superior court for his reappointment as conservator for a succeeding one-year period.” (§ 5361.) “If-the conservator does not petition to reestablish conservatorship at or before the termination of the one-year period, the court shall issue a decree terminating conservatorship.” (§ 5362, subd. (b).) In Conservatorship of Martha P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 857, 868 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 ], the court held that the conservator has the

1984(See generally In re Harrell (1970) 2 Cal.3d 675 [ 87 Cal. Rptr. 504 , 470 P.2d 640 ]; In re Allison (1967) 66 Cal.2d 282, 285 [ 57 Cal. Rptr. 593 , 425 P.2d 193 ].)] [8] [] [S]ection 5358 (as amended by Stats. 1980, ch. 681, § 2) reflects this policy: "(a) When ordered by the court after the hearing required by this section, a conservator appointed pursuant to this chapter shall place his or her conservatee in the least restrictive alternative placement, as designated by the court.

1984(See generally In re Harrell (1970) 2 Cal.3d 675 [ 87 Cal. Rptr. 504 , 470 P.2d 640 ]; In re Allison (1967) 66 Cal.2d 282, 285 [ 57 Cal. Rptr. 593 , 425 P.2d 193 ].)] [8] [] [S]ection 5358 (as amended by Stats. 1980, ch. 681, § 2) reflects this policy: "(a) When ordered by the court after the hearing required by this section, a conservator appointed pursuant to this chapter shall place his or her conservatee in the least restrictive alternative placement, as designated by the court.