Our firm has had to file yet another lawsuit to force compliance with California Military and Veterans’ Code § 800.  A copy of the Complaint can be viewed HERE.

In this case, the lawsuit alleges that NewRez, LLC took over the mortgage servicing rights from United Wholesale Mortgage.

Although United Wholesale Mortgage initially sent a letter to the borrowers informing them that the deferment protections would be honored, it appears that United created a lump sum amount in excess of $12,000.00 to claim that the borrowers owed that full amount in one lump sum instead of having it spread out over regular monthly payments, which appears to have then resulted in NewRez, LLC falsely claiming after they took over the account that the borrowers were in default on that full amount in excess of $12,000.00.

The lawsuit further alleges that, when the borrowers called in to NewRez, LLC, the customer service agents would claim that the borrowers were entitled to the deferment protections, but NewRez, LLC thereafter failed to actually take any steps to fix the problem.

And subsequently, as alleged in the lawsuit, when the collections department started to initiate collection efforts on this alleged default, NewRez, LLC then falsely insisted to the borrowers that they are not obligated to comply with the deferment protections and falsely claimed that the deferment protections was simply “an agreement with the previous servicer”.

Was this was a trick by NewRez, LLC in an attempt to deceive and manipulate the borrowers into believing that they do not have mandatory protections by law so that they would then pay the entire amount that was alleged to be in default (again, in excess of $12,000.00)?  Either way, such a claim is absolutely and unequivocally false!!

What NewRez, LLC either fails to understand or refuses to acknowledge is that Calif. Military and Veterans’ Code 800 is a mandatory law that applies to every mortgage servicer (so long as certain preliminary requirements are met, which is the case here), and compliance with these laws is not merely “an agreement” for voluntary compliance.

In this lawsuit, the borrowers are seeking punitive damages as a way of not only punishing NewRez, LLC for their egregious and indisputably illegal conduct, but to also teach them (and other mortgage servicers) that these laws are mandatory and must be complied with.

As we have stated before, it should go without saying that the stress and worry of being deployed is troubling enough on its own.  Add to that stress the concerns over mortgage loans, vehicle loans, credit cards, student loans, and leaving property in storage for several months.

During a time that is hard enough for the non-deployed spouse to be left home addressing all the family financial responsibilities alone, deployed military families who are victimized by violations of these laws are forced to endure more stress that they should have been able to trust would not have arisen.

Fortunately, California law provides mandatory protections to military families that our firm is proud to enforce.

If you or a loved one are experiencing similar problems, please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss your rights and whether our firm can help protect you as well.

The post NewRez, LLC appears to be too inept (or too indifferent) to comply with mandatory deferment protections for deployed military families appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Both California and federal laws very explicitly prohibit discrimination in the workplace, whether it be based on race, color, ethnicity and/or national origin.

The State of California considers such protections a matter of clear and express public policy.

In that regard, Government Code § 12920 (California’s statute commonly referred to as “FEHA”, or Fair Employment and Housing Act) states,

“It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.”

Section 12940 goes on to expressly prohibit such discrimination in all aspects of employment including: advertisements for job positions, applications and interviews, hiring, transferring, promoting or leaving a job and/or working conditions. Racial discrimination in the workplace is also illegal when such actions are taken in respect to the “terms or conditions of employment.” “Terms or conditions of employment” is virtually anything relating to a job: rate of pay, title, position, team role, hours, vacations, etc. Hiring or firing is also a term or condition of employment.

Unfortunately, our firm has recently had to file a lawsuit against A B Caring Senior Living, Inc. and its general manager, Rebecca Carrasco, for allegedly violating these laws. A copy of the lawsuit can be read by clicking HERE.

A B Caring Senior Living is a company that owns and operates multiple dependent senior adult residential facilities in Riverside County.

This lawsuit alleges that our client, while working as a Caregiver for one of the residential facilities, Rebecca Carrasco repeatedly called our client (a woman of mixed race) and her two young children the “N” word and “monkey”, to their faces, on several occasions, and even called a dependent adult resident of Black race the “N” word.

The lawsuit further alleges that Rebecca Carrasco committed assault and battery against our client by pushing and shoving her to the ground while screaming and her cursing at her and terminating her employment.

Because Rebecca Carrasco was a supervisor of our client, and the general manager of A B Caring Senior Living’s daily operations, her unlawful racial discrimination and racial harassment creates automatic strict liability against the company for violations of FEHA, regardless of whether the company knew about her propensity for hatred and animosity against Black people.

Simply put, such disgusting and hateful behavior should be intolerable in any aspect of life, but especially in the workplace where human beings are simply trying to make a wage to provide for their families and maintain a decent and healthy life.

If you or a loved one believe you have suffered any form of discrimination in the workplace, or even as a customer at a business establishment, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether your basic human rights have been violated.

The post LAWSUIT RECENTLY FILED AGAINST A B CARING SENIOR LIVING, INC. FOR ALLEGATIONS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND RACIAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

In these two lawsuits, our clients allege that their total original principal balance increased by the amount that LoanCare, LLC and Lakeview Servicing, LLC had calculated as the amount expected to be deferred.

In one lawsuit, the allegations claim that the military family refinanced with another lender in an effort to sever any relationship at all with LoanCare, LLC and Lakeview Servicing, LLC.  In the other lawsuit, the allegations claim that the companies committed various other violations by attempting to collect deferred amounts during the deferment period and falsely claiming the military members were in default for not making payments on the deferred amounts.

Military families are asked to make great sacrifices on behalf of our country and risk their lives to fight for our country’s principles and values.  Many soldiers being deployed leave behind their friends, family, the comforts of civilian life, and also leave behind their careers and financial security, all to answer our country’s call to duty.  And this is all aside from the risk to their lives that they face when deployed to an area of conflict.

In return for these sacrifices, our country provides certain benefits and protections.  One of these very important protections provided to deployed military members is that they should not be penalized by any creditors for being deployed, and that they are entitled to a specific time period of deferment on certain loan obligations so that they can focus on their lives being disrupted by the deployment and allow the family members they are leaving back home to adjust both emotionally and financially to the deployment.  Anytime a company refuses to honor and uphold these protections, our office is more than happy to step in and pursue legal action.

The next time you tell a military member “thank you for your service”, please consider for a moment what is actually being done by our country to really thank them for their service.  Our office is proud to stand up for the rights of those who stand up for our rights and our values with their service.

The post LAWSUIT AGAINST LOANCARE, LLC AND LAKEVIEW SERVICING, LLC appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Our firm has had the opportunity to stand for minors who were victims of unlawful physical touching and emotional distress at the hands of another minor.  We filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of our minor clients and their parents against the Defendant minor and his parents for a failure to properly watch over their teenage son.  Defendants were sued in Riverside Superior Court, Southwest, Case Number MCC1800357.

The lawsuit alleged that, pursuant to Civil Code section 1714.1 et. al., both parents were responsible for the harm committed by their teenage son, as his actions involved willful misconduct resulting in injury to another person, and as such the conduct of their son was imputed to the parents.

Civil Code section 1714.1 allows for parents of a minor to be liable for up to $25,000 for their child’s willful misconduct. To be liable, the child’s conduct must result in injury or death to another person or harm to another person’s property.  This statute can be supplemented with other theories of liability in hopes of recovering the full harm incurred.

For example, in this case, the parents of the minor were sued for Negligent Supervision of the child, coupled with the liability provided under California Civil Code Section 1714.1., while the Minor Defendant was personally sued for Assault, Battery, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and violation of California Civil Code Section 52.1.

The Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleged in part that Defendants so negligently, carelessly, recklessly, and unlawfully supervised their minor child to where the lack of proper supervision directly and proximately caused physical and/or psychological injury to Plaintiffs.

Discovery revealed that, on October 17, 2017, Defendant’s 15-year-old son had driven to Staples in Temecula.  The minor was sleeping, so Defendant, decided to leave his son in the car alone in the car.  Moments later, Plaintiffs (Mom and her two minor children) travelled to Staples to purchase some school items.  Plaintiffs started to get out of their vehicle, and they were seen by the teenager who had been left in the car by himself.

The Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleged that the Plaintiffs were walking towards the front door of the store when the teenage son (15-years old and approximately 6’0”, 225lbs) approached Plaintiffs from behind and violently grabbed the 6-year old boy without the consent or knowledge of either the 6-year old or his mother.  At this time, the teenager violently snatched the 6-year old boy from his mother’s hold.  The teenager proceeded to grab and drag the 6-year old against his will towards a nearby vehicle.  During this time, the 6-year old’s mother continued to scream at the teenager to release her son, while at the same time attempting to physically pry her son away from the teenager’s hold.

During this time, the 9-year old sister of the 6-year-old boy, who had witnessed this kidnapping of her brother, was in fear that she was also going to be kidnapped.

Meanwhile, the mother continued to engage in a tug-of-war with the teenager, as they both pulled on the 6-year old boy in opposite directions.  Eventually, the teenager opened the back door to his vehicle and proceeded to enter the vehicle while still holding the 6-year old boy.

Realizing that the teenager would soon be completely inside the vehicle with her son in his arms, and that she would be unable to rescue her son, the mother began to initiate distraction blows against Defendant, MINOR in hopes that he would release her son. Meanwhile, the 6-year old boy was in complete fear for his life, shocked and scared that he was being kidnapped and taken away from his mother.

Ultimately, Defendant came out of a nearby store and assisted the mother in forcing the teenager to release the 6-year old boy.

During the lawsuit, both the father and the mother had their depositions taken.

Discovery revealed that another incident prior to the one at issue in the pending lawsuit had occurred with their son at Walmart in Temecula about a year before.  One of the Defendants was in the tire store and he had again left his minor son along with his minor daughter in the car. While another child was walking by, the teenage son saw a child and his parent traveling by in a shopping cart, and the teenager decided to leave his car and approach the minor.  The child’s father shielded his young son from the teenager to prevent the teenager from having any ability to touch his child, and the police were ultimately called.

In our case, the damages consisted primarily of emotional distress-related damages that were reduced significantly with appropriate care.  Luckily, they did not suffer any permanent physical injuries, although the risk of such injuries was very real.  Although Defendants did not formally acknowledge the full extent of the claimed damages, they ultimately offered to pay the minors involved a total of $30,000.00 and their mother $15,000.00, for a total of $45,000.00.

The post Parents Can Be Held Responsible for Unlawful Conduct of Their Minor Children appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

On February 12, 2021, we had to file yet another lawsuit against Navy Federal Credit Union and the consumer credit reporting agencies (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion) for falsely (and unlawfully) reporting our clients as 30 days late during a month that is indisputably part of the mandatory deferment period.

Adding insult to injury, Navy Federal Credit Union has also engaged in months of grossly unfair and unlawful attempts to collect amounts from the clients that are not owed due to the deferment, and has also engaged in multiple unfair and unlawful threats of foreclosure.

A copy of the complaint can be found by clicking HERE.

The post PROUD TO REPRESENT MILITARY FAMILIES appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.