Our Cross-Complaint alleges that our client suffered identity theft when her estranged ex-husband forged her name without her knowledge or authorization on a business loan that the thief then used for his own business purposes.  After putting the creditor/lender Happy Rock Merchant Solutions (dba GoCap Financial) on notice of the identity theft and providing a copy of the police report, the creditor/lender failed to confirm that our client would be released from the alleged debt, which then necessitated the need to file a Cross-Complaint. Click here to view the confirmed cross complaint. 

Under the Identity Theft Act, the victim of identity theft is allowed to pursue damages and injunctive relief to seek a formal court order that she be deemed not obligated to owe the alleged debt.  The Act also allows for a penalty of up to $30,000.00 if the victim provides the creditor/lender with a police report to confirm the identity theft but the creditor/lender fails to conduct a reasonable investigation into the dispute.  Also, attorneys’ fees and costs are mandatory for a successful prosecution if forced to file a lawsuit.

All of this is meant to give victims of identity theft peace of mind that they have protections in place to free themselves from illegitimate debts.  It is often very difficult, if not impossible, to find and/or hold the actual identity thief accountable.  Because of that, California has made it clear that, when a creditor/lender is put on notice of possible identity theft, then they need to take appropriate steps to help correct the problem so that they do not continue to oppress and re-victimize the innocent party who does not actually owe the debt.

If you or a loved one believe you have been the victim of identity theft, then you definitely have rights to protect yourself.  It is vitally important to take action in this regard as soon as you find out in order to obtain efficient and effective relief before the problem gets worse.  Our firm is always happy to help potential clients review their credit reports to identify possible accounts that need to be disputed, and to also help the potential client obtain a police report and notify the appropriate parties of the identity theft in the hopes that the problem can be fixed without the need for litigation.

Please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and the steps that can be taken to protect yourself.

The post CALIFORNIA IDENTITY THEFT ACT ALLOWS CONSUMERS TO FIGHT BACK appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

This verdict was the culmination of a hard fought 2-week jury trial in San Diego Superior Court, involving multiple competing expert witnesses including those in the field of accident reconstruction, biomechanical engineering, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons.

Needless to say, this result for our client serves as proof that justice can prevail with a fair-minded jury.

A copy of the jury’s verdict sheet can be viewed by clicking HERE.

The post $2.3 MILLION DOLLAR JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF OUR CLIENT!!! appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

This new Complaint that we have filed against Shellpoint Mortgage (NewRez) can be read by clicking HERE.

This lawsuit attaches as exhibits letters from Shellpoint Mortgage (NewRez) expressly refusing to comply with California Military and Veterans Code § 800.  Shellpoint then did in fact start attempting to collect from the deployed servicemember the full amounts each month of principal plus interest, which resulted in Shellpoint falsely claiming that she owes thousands of dollars more than what she actually owed.  Shellpoint then began to make matters even worse by falsely claiming that the military member was in default of every single monthly payment in full (despite the fact that the deferment was mandatory under California law), and began to launch multiple threats of foreclosure, and multiple months of negative credit reporting (which placed the military member at risk of being demoted and/or stripped of top security clearance).

Based on the fact that this is now two lawsuits that our firm has had to file against Shellpoint Mortgage in recent months, it seems clear that they are flagrantly and deliberately refusing to comply with mandatory state laws that are intended to protect deployed military members.   

When a deployed servicemember is unable to focus on her missions during deployment because she is focused on the stress and aggravation caused by such flagrant refusals to follow mandatory deferment protections, then the mortgage company is placing our servicemembers’ lives at risk.  

As such, it would seem that Shellpoint Mortgage is doing nothing more than prioritizing their own financial profitability over the lives of our dedicated servicemembers who have chosen to put their lives at risk to preserve the safety of our nation.

In our opinion, Shellpoint Mortgage definitely deserves significant punitive damages in order to teach them  that they are required to comply with California law, and also to serve as an exemplary lesson against all other mortgage servicing companies.

As we have stated many times before, if you or a loved one is experiencing a violation of your rights as a deployed military family, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation.

The post DEPLOYED MILITARY PROTECTIONS REFUSED BY SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE (NEWREZ, LLC) appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

This law protects people of certain protected classes from violence and intimidation based on their affiliation with the protected class.  For example, a civil lawsuit can be filed by victims of violence or intimidation based on sex, sexual orientation gender, race, ethnicity, religion, ancestry/heritage, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, citizenship, political affiliation, language, and immigration status.  However, the statute makes it clear that this list is not all-encompassing, which means victims of other classes not specifically named can still seek recovery.

Also, the victim does not even have to actually be in the protected class, as the statute also applies if the perpetrator erroneously believes the victim is in a protected class.  The point is, the motivation of the perpetrator is what matters.

The Act not only allows for the victim to recover damages for financial harm (such as medical bills, loss of wages for time off work, etc.), but also for emotional damages, pain and suffering, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.  But the Act also goes further in that Civil Code § 52(b)(2) mandates a civil penalty against the perpetrator in the amount of $25,000.00 for violations of Civil Code § 51.7.

These violations do not have to be pursued in a civil lawsuit, but can also be pursued by the Department of Fair Employment & Housing Agency or by the Attorney General.

Our office has unfortunately had to file one such lawsuit recently against A B CARING SENIOR LIVING, INC. and its manager/supervisor REBECCA CARRASCO.

The lawsuit alleges that REBECCA CARRASCO repeatedly called our client (a single mother of mixed race) derogatory racial slurs such as the “N word” and “monkey” and committed both threatened violence and actual violence against our client because of her race and ethnicity.  

The lawsuit also alleges that REBECCA CARRASCO called our client’s two young children (who are also of mixed race) derogatory racial slurs such as the “N word” and “monkey”, which corroborates the allegation that the threatened violence and actual violence committed by REBECCA CARRASCO against our client was because of her race and ethnicity.

The lawsuit also alleges that REBECCA CARRASCO called the only black patient living in the facility derogatory racial slurs such as the “N word” and “monkey”, which, again, corroborates the allegation that the threatened violence and actual violence committed by REBECCA CARRASCO against our client was because of her race and ethnicity.

And because these despicable actions were committed by REBECCA CARRASCO while she was acting as both the landlord for our client’s residence and also acting as our client’s supervisor during our client’s employment with A B CARING SENIOR LIVING, INC., our lawsuit includes not only violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act, but also violations based on statutes prohibiting physical assault by employers, prohibiting racial discrimination in the workplace, and also prohibiting force or violence to interfere with statutory and Constitutional Rights, among several others.

A copy of our Complaint against both A B CARING SENIOR LIVING, INC. and REBECCA CARRASCO can be viewed by clicking HERE.

If you or a loved one believe you have suffered any form of hate crime by someone else, or any discrimination in the workplace, or any discrimination 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 CALIFORNIA LAWS PROHIBIT HATE CRIMES UNDER THE “RALPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT” appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

The post Lawsuit Alleging Balance Billing and Unlawful Debt Collection Practices by Temecula Valley Emergency Physicians, Inc. Survives Dismissal appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Now, compound that stress with the problem of being denied a job based on an indisputably inaccurate reporting of criminal history by Checkr for a misdemeanor conviction from 20 years ago, something that you thought was a long-closed chapter of your past.

Sadly, that is precisely what this lawsuit is about, and you can read the complaint by clicking HERE.

In this case, the job applicant was falsely reported by Checkr in two different background check reports as having a felony conviction, when in reality the court records make it abundantly clear that the only conviction was for misdemeanor.  This false reporting by Checkr resulted in the applicant being outrightly denied by Lyft, and then being put on delays by Uber and then eventually being told by Uber he could only drive food and not people.

All over a 20-year-old misdemeanor conviction that he thought was long behind him and was now being falsely reported by Checkr as a felony conviction.

These violations also came at a time when Checkr was being valued at $4.6 Billion and growing, and were in the process of obtaining hundreds of millions in loans to sustain their anticipated growth.

It is indisputable that background check companies like Checkr are required to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1681e of the FCRA, which requires reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the reports being prepared for employment purposes.

However, because Checkr has been sued so many times and has been criticized so many times over its flawed procedures in using digital technology to prepare its background check reports and not actual humans with brains, this appears to be a clear example of why Checkr deserves punitive damages to be taught an exemplary lesson that it is simply unfair for such a company to make staggering profits off of procedures that are so inherently flawed that they keep struggling consumers from obtaining simple working class jobs.

If you or a loved one is suffering inaccurate background check reports, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation.

The post LAWSUIT AGAINST CHECKR FOR GROSSLY INADEQUATE REPORTING OF CRIMINAL HISTORY appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.