J.G. v. K.G. The Family Code §3044 presumption cannot be overcome by the parties’ stipulation alone. The court has an independent obligation to determine whether the perpetrator of domestic violence overcame the presumption that it is not in the child’s best interest to award sole or joint physical custody or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence.

In re the Marriage of A.M. and R.Y. The court may not deny ex parte relief at the DVTRO stage solely because otherwise sufficient allegations of abuse may have arisen in the context of a family law dispute. However, even when a DVRO petitioner has made a facially adequate showing of past abuse on the papers, the trial court still has discretion to conclude that the circumstances do not warrant ex parte relief pending a noticed hearing if it reasonably concludes based on the totality of circumstances that a DVTRO is not necessary to protect the petitioner or others for whom the petitioner is seeking protection from further acts of abuse pending the noticed hearing.

In re R.M. Grandparents do not have a protected right to ongoing litigation. Accordingly, the modification of grandparent visitation in a dependency action does not require notice or the opportunity for the grandparent to be heard.

In re B.L. A single incident can support the juvenile court’s decision to assume dependency jurisdiction under WIC §300(e).

In re D.B. Juvenile Court’s authority to issue restraining orders includes the ability to restrain a dependent minor from contacting his/her parent.

Stop C-19 LLC v. AOK. Set asides pursuant to CCP 663 permit trial courts to set aside and vacate a judgment following a bench trial, and enter another and different judge, based on incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision. The court cannot in any way change any finding of fact. The court set aside the Judgment and contemporaneously enter a new Judgment within 75 days. Failure to enter a new Judgment within the 75 days results in the court losing jurisdiction and the order vacating the prior Judgment is void.

Cash v. City of Los Angeles. When using the Lodestar Amount, the Court can apply an across the board percentage increase or decrease as long as it is not arbitrary and the court articulates a justifiable reason for the multiplier. Specific findings are not required, especially when not requested. Can recover fees incurred to request fees.

People v. Richee. Hearsay statements can be general and do not need to be verbatim to fall within an exception.

Agnone v. Agnone; Madick. Can a court issue sanctions independently under CCP 2023.010 and 2023.030, even if the conduct is not extreme. City of L.A. v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers decision was not limited to the facts of that case.

Hofer v. Boladian. The inquiry into whether it is highly probable the party has, by their conduct, intentionally relinquished or abandoned the right to arbitrate takes into account the totality of that conduct.