Our lawsuit alleges that, in February of 2019, the two Detectives broke into our client’s home to execute a search warrant related to someone else, and they refused to provide her a copy of the warrant upon her demand.  The Detectives then body slammed her to the ground face first, pinning her right arm under her body.  They then used so much force to rip her right arm out from under her body that they snapped her upper right humerus (one of the hardest bones in the body to break).

Despite acknowledging that they heard a loud pop and our client screaming and crying out in excruciating pain, they proceeded to cuff her broken arm behind her back to her left arm and left her laying on her face in pain.

We filed a lawsuit alleging a variety of claims based on police brutality and excessive force.  A copy of the lawsuit can be read by clicking HERE.

The Defendants’ attorneys attempted to obtain an order dismissing the entire case based on legal technicalities, but thankfully today Judge Bernal disagreed with their arguments and denied their motion to dismiss!  A copy of Judge Bernal’s ruling can be read by clicking HERE.

If you or a loved one have also encountered an unfortunate circumstance whereby law enforcement caused injury, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether your rights were violated!

The post AN IMPORTANT VICTORY IN THE FIGHT AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

The lawsuit alleges multiple violations by the Defendants, including claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, retaliation for reporting and resisting sexual harassment, and whistleblower retaliation, among others.

You can read a copy of the lawsuit by clicking HERE.

In California, laws prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace are not limited to quid pro quo (where employment or pay are contingent upon performing sexual acts), but also covers hostile environment sexual harassment claims.

A hostile work environment involves statements or physical actions that turn the workplace into a hostile or uncomfortable work environment, and the statements/actions do not have to just affect the victim, but may also affect other employees.

Hostile environment claims require such statements/actions to be so frequent and severe that it interferes with the employee’s ability to work, creates a toxic environment, or changes the conditions of employment.  The courts will also look at whether a reasonable person would be offended by the statements/actions.

The claims in this new lawsuit filed against Defendants Rancho Reprographics, Inc. and its owner, Gary Chance involve allegations of Gary Chance taking pictures of female employees with the office security camera as they were bent over, showing the female employees pictures and memes of female genitalia on his cell phone, and touching the women’s hair and trying to massage their shoulders while he was intoxicated in the workplace, among other claims.

The lawsuit alleges that this sexual harassment was directed not only towards our client, but to other women in the office to the point where it created a hostile work environment.

California law makes a company strictly liable for the sexually harassing conduct of its managing agents, in addition to liability of the person who commits the sexual harassment.  As Defendant Gary Chance is the owner and President of Defendant Rancho Reprographics, Inc., and therefore meets the criteria of a managing agent, our lawsuit includes claims for liability as against both Defendants.

If you or a loved one is suffering similar wrongful conduct, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights.

The post SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS IN THE EMPLOYMENT SETTING: NEW CASE FILED AGAINST RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS, INC. AND GARY CHANCE appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Our case alleges that Nationstar violated the law by failing to update its credit reporting of a mortgage loan after they foreclosed on the home subject of the loan and thereby failed to inform the world that our client’s loan and financial obligations had been extinguished.  As a result, even after the foreclosure, our client’s credit reports showed that a foreclosure remained pending from 2013 and also showed that she owed on-going monthly payments to Nationstar with a total balance owed on the loan in excess of $160,000.00.  Sadly, our client did not discover these problems until she and her husband attempted to obtain a new mortgage loan in late 2018.  Ultimately, she and her husband were unable to obtain a new home mortgage loan because the credit reports showed that she had not been free from a foreclosure for at least 3 years (since the credit reports showed that she was still pending foreclosure), and also created a negative debt to income ratio (since the credit reports showed that she still owed on-going financial obligations to Nationstar).

Even when our client lodged a formal dispute in December 2018, Nationstar verified the information as accurate and failed to simply update the reporting to show that the foreclosure had been completed.

We filed our claims against Nationstar for violating Section 1785.25(a) for furnishing incomplete and/or inaccurate information that Nationstar knew or should have known was incomplete or inaccurate.

Nationstar filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, where they argued that no rational jury could find liability on our claims and/or no rational jury could find that the credit reporting issues caused our client to suffer damages.

However, on January 15, 2020, the Court disagreed with Nationstar and denied their Motion, thereby paving the way for our claims to proceed to a jury to seek liability and damages.

A copy of the Court’s minute order entry can be found by clicking HERE, and a copy of our opposition to the Motion can be found by clicking HERE.

The post NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.