How does a civil case work?

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Friday, August 9, 2019. A civil case can be filed for any number of reasons, but the goal is to have the judge or jury decide if the defendant should be held liable for damages the plaintiff allegedly suffered. The judge and jury will listen to both sides present their arguments and consider if the defendant should be liable for the damages that have been alleged or not. If they will be held liable, the jury or judge has to decide to what extent they should be held liable. During the six stages of a civil trial, a jury will be chosen, there will be opening statements, witnesses will speak and attorneys will cross-examine them. Your attorney has an opportunity to make closing arguments before the jury is given instructions and left to deliberate and produce a verdict. Most family court cases are only tried before a judge, but in other cases, a jury may be present. Your attorney will take the time to review the pool or jurors and exclude certain jurors who they believe cannot be objective when considering the case. What should you do if you’re involved in a civil case? Always stay informed of what’s happening and communicate with your attorney clearly. Whether you are the person filing a claim against someone else or are defending yourself against a claim, your attorney can help guide you through the process. From choosing the jury to showing up at trial, your attorney can give you advice and take steps to make sure you’re treated fairly and are able to fight for the results you want to see.

Suing for emotional distress is possible with an attorney’s help

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Thursday, April 4, 2019. While many people don’t believe it’s possible, you can actually sue for another person hurting your emotional state. Through civil litigation, it’s possible to seek compensation for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED.) It isn’t always simple to prove IIED, so you’ll need to work with someone familiar with suing for emotional distress. Some of the things that you and your attorney will need to prove include that: The defendant was acting recklessly or intentionally to cause the distress The conduct was outrageous or extreme The act was the reason for your emotional distress You suffer from severe emotional distress as a result of the actions of the defendant There are a few different examples of how IIED can happen. This one is in a medical setting. Imagine a doctor is talking to you and about to perform an in-office treatment. If you mention that you’re in pain during the procedure, and the provider tells you to “stop being a baby” or curses at you, you may have a case against them for distress and malpractice. In a work environment, you might be able to file a lawsuit for IIED if your employer takes a photo of you, manipulates it and shares it to the point where you’re constantly harassed by co-workers. Overall, the court needs to see that the actions leading up to your emotional distress were not your everyday events. They need to be extreme, unusual, threatening and potentially harmful to you. Your attorney can help you build your case to show why you feel you should be awarded compensation.

What is constructive discharge?

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Friday, February 8, 2019. You weren’t fired, but your boss or others at work made your life so miserable that you felt you had no choice but to quit your job. Can you take legal action against your employer since technically you voluntarily left? You may be able to if you can show that what happened to you was “constructive discharge.” What is that? Some 25 years ago, in a suit brought against Anheuser-Busch, the California Supreme Court determined that constructive discharge “occurs when the employer’s conduct effectively forces an employee to resign” due to intolerable conditions. Of course, what one person finds intolerable, another might be able to live with. The court determined that a case could be considered one of constructive discharge if a reasonable person working in those conditions would feel that resignation was their only choice. A plaintiff must also show that an employer created the conditions or acted in a manner intended to make the employee quit. At least, they must have been aware of the conditions and failed to do anything about them. All jobs come with some level of stress. We also can’t expect all of our managers and colleagues to treat us the way we’d like. However, if your working conditions have become intolerable, you should address your concerns with someone in management or your human resources department. If conditions don’t improve, it may be wise to talk with an attorney before you quit to determine if that action could be considered constructive discharge. Depending on the situation, you might have a discrimination or sexual harassment case. Even if you likely wouldn’t prevail in a constructive discharge suit, it might still be best to leave your job anyway for the sake of your own mental and physical health. However, it’s good to know what your legal options are first.

New law helps protect sexual harassment reporters from lawsuits

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Friday, January 11, 2019. The new year has brought more than one new California law that was helped along by the momentum of the #MeToo movement. The movement received notoriety largely because of well-known actresses who shared their stories of harassment and abuse. However, activists have focused on sexual assault, abuse and misconduct in all industries. One of the new laws protects people who bring good faith accusations of inappropriate behavior from being sued for defamation. It also offers protections for employers who tell prospective employers checking someone’s references that the person was accused of sexual harassment in the workplace. Specifically, it allows the disclosure “without malice [of] whether the employer would rehire an employee and whether or not a decision to not rehire is based on the employer’s determination that the former employee engaged in sexual harassment.” One woman who faced such a lawsuit almost two decades ago told her story to a public radio station in Sacramento. She says that all she had done was ask her former manager not to use inappropriate language around an intern who had just started working for her organization. That manager sued her for defamation. She says that the lawsuit caused her to second guess whether she had done the right thing by speaking to that manager about his behavior. “I just wanted him to act more professional in front of a possibly impressionable young woman.” Even all these years later, she doesn’t want her name to be made public because of how potential employers might view her actions. The woman says of the new law, “You either want people to work in a healthier work environment or you don’t. If you do, then you take out the obstacles that stop people from trying to make their work environment better.” If you’re involved in a legal dispute for speaking up about or reporting sexual harassment or abuse, it’s essential to know how this new law impacts you. An experienced attorney can provide valuable guidance.

Basketball coach receives $4 million termination settlement

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Thursday, April 12, 2018. Employers, even universities, can be held liable in a wrongful termination case by creating a pretext for firing an employee. Earlier this month, former San Diego State University women’s basketball coach Beth Burns settled civil litigation for $4 million. SDSU fired her in April of 2013 even though she had four years and $880,000 on her contract. The University claimed that it owed her nothing. The case began at what should have been a high-point in her career. Burns had experienced historic success as a coach at the time she was summoned for what she thought would be an annual review. The athletic director and human resource personnel confronted her with three options: resign, retirement or job termination. She was not hired as a head coach since this firing. Burns was an assistant coach at USC for two years and was an assistant coach at Louisville this year. Earlier attempts to settle the case were unsuccessful. Burns then filed a civil lawsuit claiming wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation for her complaints about Title IX gender equity violations in San Diego Superior Court in 2014. CSU claimed that she was terminated for mistreating subordinates and elbowing an assistant coach during a game. Burns won a $3.35 million verdict in her favor after a month-long trial involving dozens of witnesses and thousands of documents in 2016. The judge also held CSU responsible for $1.9 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses in March of 2017. Interest was also being added on the judgment at 7 percent, or almost $235,000 each year. CSU appealed, and the case then went to mediation in December of 2016. The mediation ultimately led to this settlement. Burns will receive $1.55 million of the total settlement. The settlement also pays $2.45 million for her attorneys’ fees. Another $1 million is being paid to another law firm involved in the case. The assistant coach who was allegedly elbowed on the bench will also receive $250,000. Source: San Diego Union Tribune, “San Diego State settles lawsuit with former coach Beth Burns for $4 million,” Mark Zeigler, April 5, 2018

California laws protected against foreclosure

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Thursday, March 29, 2018. California homeowners have oftentimes faced the frightening risk of civil litigation that could take their homes, especially during the mortgage crisis 10 years ago. However, California law provided essential protections against mortgage foreclosure that were unavailable elsewhere. The first law, Senate Bill 1137, was passed in July of 2008 and remained in effect through 2012. Lenders had to make greater efforts to alert distressed homeowners of pending foreclosure. Good-faith and personal notification had to be made through a phone call or email. Earlier, lenders only sent a letter notifying borrowers of their intent to foreclose. Borrowers had the right to discuss ways to modify mortgages. Fines of up to $1,000 per day could also be imposed upon lenders who did not properly maintain the property. This law slowed down foreclosures. According to estimates, it prevented 10,000 foreclosures in the first three months it was in effect. The second law was passed in February of 2009 and provided other relief. Lenders had to wait six months before sending a notice of default to disclosure if they did not offer loan modifications options to homeowners. This doubled the three-month wait that was standard in the state before the mortgage crisis. These laws persuaded lenders to consider more mortgage modifications. The modification rate in the state grew by 27 percent after the laws took effect. Also, these modifications helped preserve the solvency of banks by lowering take-back property seizures when property values were dropping. California’s mortgage problems also dropped below the national rate. These protections reduced foreclosures in the state by 16 percent and prevented 124,000 foreclosures. This preserved $310 million in housing wealth across the state. California laws were unique by providing more relief than federal laws. The federal government only provided an opportunity for distressed homeowners to apply for relief without inducing lenders to agree to modifications with homeowners. Source: The Sacramento Bee, “How two smart California laws kept the 2008 mortgage crisis from being far worse,” Stuart A. Gabriel and Chandler Lutz, March 13, 2018

Bro culture cited in Google termination lawsuit

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Thursday, March 22, 2018. At times, civil litigation may reflect ongoing social issues, such as the sexual harassment exposed by the “Me Too” movement. For example, a wrongful termination lawsuit was recently filed in California against Google, charging that the company permitted a workplace culture that diminished women. In her labor employment lawsuit, the employee alleged that she was the first female software engineer to obtain a position with the company, performed excellent work, earned positive performance evaluations and won workplace coding competitions. Nonetheless, the plaintiff claimed that a “bro culture” led to sexual harassment involving several lewd comments, inappropriate text messages and pranks over seven years. In January of 2016, according to the plaintiff, she returned to her desk to find a male co-worker emerge from under desk who said that she would never discover what he was doing under it. She believed that he was installing a camera. The human resources department repeatedly advised her to file an incident report, but she was concerned that she would be accused of being an informant. After HR deemed her uncooperative, she finally filed a report, which she claimed was never investigated. She was also shunned by her co-workers, according to her charges. The plaintiff took approved medical leave. After returning to work and resuming her assignments, she asked for additional time off for physical therapy appointments, according to the lawsuit. However, Google rejected her request and subsequently terminated her employment in February of 2016 because of performance issues. The plaintiff filed her labor lawsuit in February of 2018 after receiving approval by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. In her wrongful termination action, she charged that Google permitted a workplace environment that was hostile to female employees and then fired her after she reported that alleged abuse. This workplace atmosphere, which was left uncorrected, allegedly played a role with her suffering sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Google denied these claims and said that it has strict workplace harassment and discrimination policies. The company also stated that every complaint is properly reviewed. Source: Lawyers and Settlements.com, “Google hit with another California wrongful termination lawsuit,” Gordon Gibb, March 5, 2018

Data breach lawsuit may continue

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Thursday, March 15, 2018. Data breaches have become frightening. These incidents have imposed costs, loss of confidentiality and serious inconvenience to email users. In one case, a California federal court judge ruled that victims of data breaches may continue their civil litigation. Yahoo was accused of failing to timely address three data breaches in 2013 and 2016. The breaches were blamed for increasing email users’ exposure to identity theft and spending money on protection services, such as credit freezes and monitoring. These breaches were revealed after Verizon agreed to buy Yahoo’s Internet business last June. This led to a lower purchase price of $4.5 billion. Plaintiffs ultimately filed a lawsuit against Verizon, as purchaser of Yahoo’s Internet service. They alleged that personal information was compromised in these data breaches. Last October, they amended their complaint to include Yahoo’s disclosure that the breach impacted 3 billion users. This tripled earlier estimates. A federal judge in San Jose denied Verizon’s motions to dismiss breach of contract, negligence and other claims earlier this month. Previously, she denied Yahoo’s request to dismiss some claims of unfair competition, but dismissed some of the other charges in the complaint. The judge cited the amended complaint as demonstrating that security played an important role in the plaintiffs’ decision to choose Yahoo as their Internet email provider and they would have made other choices if they were notified of these problems. Because of their allegations that Yahoo knew that it had flawed security and did not address this problem, the plaintiffs can also try to prove that its term of service were unconscionable. Federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against two Russian intelligence agents and two hackers for one of the Yahoo breaches in March 2017. One of the accused hackers, a Kazakhstan-born Canadian, pled guilty to charges of identity theft and conspiracy. The other accused are avoiding prosecution by staying in Russia. Victims of identity theft or cases where a company did not meet contract terms, abide with legal requirements or make appropriate disclosures should seek legal assistance. An attorney can help try to obtain compensation in these cases to help make up their losses. Source: Reuters, “Data breach victims can sue Yahoo in the United States: judge,” Jonathan Stempel, March 12, 2018

CarMax lawsuit given green light

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Thursday, March 8, 2018. A manufacturer who does not meet their contract responsibilities can harm consumers and face civil litigation. In a case that may have an impact across the nation, a California appellate court ruled earlier this year that a woman can sue CarMax for the sale of a car with an unfixed safety recall. The plaintiff charged that CarMax sold her a 2008 Hyundai Elantra in 2013, but did not tell her that there was a manufacturer’s recall for the stop lamp switch. This device turns on a light when the break is pressed. In 2013, thousands of Elantras were recalled for this defect. A California trial court ruled in CarMax’s favor and dismissed the lawsuit in January of 2016. It held that the complaint did not contain sufficient alleged facts for breach of contract, breach of warranty and misrepresentation that was not fixed or limited by the express warranty. The plaintiff, with the help of the Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, appealed. The appellate court reversed this ruling and reinstated the lawsuit. The appeals court ruled that CarMax did not provide full disclosure and dealers cannot sell recalled vehicles without disclosing recalls, according to the Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. The consumer group also interpreted the opinion as ruling that the cars did not comply with the implied warranty that the car was merchantable under two state laws. This ruling, if it withstands an appeal, could affect lawsuits in other states that have consumer protection laws like California. It could also make CarMax liable in cases where it does not disclose safety recalls when selling preowned cars. CarMax issued a statement that it leads the industry with providing transparency with recalls and sharing this information to consumers. It said that it complies with the court’s ruling that dealers disclose open recalls when it is aware of them. CarMax may appeal the ruling to the state Supreme court. The appellate court decision is not a finding of legal liability and allows the lawsuit to proceed to a trial. Source: Richmond Times Dispatch, “California case questions CarMax’s policy on informing consumers about recalls,” Tammie Smith, Feb. 27, 2018

Conversion therapy may be labeled fraudulent

On behalf of Mohajer Law Firm, APC posted in civil litigation on Wednesday, February 28, 2018. False and deceptive practices associated with mental health or medical care may have long-term and harmful consequences. The California legislature is considering a bill that provides another civil litigation tool for victims of this fraud. The bill treats practicing or advertising conversion therapy as consumer fraud under California’s consumer protection laws and allow individuals to file a private lawsuit against practitioners. Conversion therapy is falsely promoted as a cure for LGBT people. Unacceptable, professionally questionable and even cruel treatments include hypnosis, injections and electric shocks. Major medical and mental health organizations across the world uniformly discredit this therapy. The bill, in its current form, makes conversion therapy an unlawful practice under the state’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Advertising, offering to engage in or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with another person would be illegal. The law would also allow any consumer who suffers damages from unlawful conversion therapy to bring a legal action against that person for damages and other losses. The Legislative LGBT caucus sponsored this bill. Although state law already prohibits this therapy for minors, proponents argue that adults also need protection. A spokesperson for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a supporter of this bill, pointed out that people who underwent this therapy with a licensed therapist or unlicensed organization often learned that they wasted years of their lives with this treatment and thousands of dollars on fraudulent promises. Other states are considering similar measures. Legislators in Florida and Maine are considering bills that would prohibit physicians and counselors from using this therapy on minors. Illinois, Massachusetts and Connecticut already passed laws making conversion therapy with minors illegal. Source: Court House News, California leaders move to call conversion therapy fraud,” Nick Cahill, Feb. 23, 2018

Category