A copy of the Court’s ruling can be found by clicking here.

Also, a copy of the Amended Complaint can be found by clicking here.

The lawsuit alleges that our client was forced to suffer ongoing sexual harassment, threats of violence, and ethnic discrimination, and Defendant NOR CAL CARPENTER UNION refused to undertake reasonable efforts to investigate, correct, and prevent such violations.

The lawsuit further alleges that our client was forced to suffer retaliation for refusing to drive an unsafe vehicle that was illegal to drive, and he was terminated unlawfully.

Because the lawsuit involves allegations of ongoing sexual harassment and refusal to undertake reasonable efforts to investigate, correct, and prevent such violations, Judge Whitman of the County of Alameda Superior Court agreed with our client that the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (“EFAA”) prohibits compelling the entire case into private arbitration.

To be clear, it is widely known that private forced arbitration is often biased and unfair against workers and consumers.  The cards are routinely stacked in favor of corporate defendants in private arbitration, at least in part based on the financial bias of arbitrators wanting to protect their “gravy train” of corporations and corporate attorneys bringing them more cases.

We are proud to have prevailed on this issue in defeating Defendant NOR CAL CARPENTER UNION’S motion to compel arbitration in our never-ending pursuit of justice on behalf of workers and consumers alike.

The post NOR CAL CARPENTERS UNION’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION DENIED BASED ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT VIOLATIONS ALLEGED appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

A copy of the Amended Complaint can be viewed by clicking here.

This lawsuit alleges that, despite the fact that the Reserve servicemember submitted all necessary documents to support his family’s request for deferment of principal and interest payments for up to 180 days during deployment, Freedom Mortgage completely ignored the request under C.M.V.C. § 800 and instead only implemented federal SCRA protections (which do not give the benefit of deferment that C.M.V.C. § 800 provides) and failed to provide any written response to the request for deferment under C.M.V.C. § 800.

The lawsuit further alleges that the servicemember tried communicating with Freedom Mortgage multiple times to notify them that his request was for deferment under C.M.V.C. 800 and his full monthly payments should not be showing as due, but Freedom Mortgage tricked him into going into default under the false assertion that the only way his account could be evaluated for any deferment would require him to first stop making his monthly payments entirely.

The lawsuit further alleges that, after going into default and suffering negative credit reporting and threats of foreclosure, the servicemember realized that this was a trick and was then forced to make a significant lump sum payment in order to bring the account current, but which never fixed the negative credit reporting that had already been submitted.

To be clear, this unfortunate scenario should have never happened.  Even though Freedom Mortgage ignored the fact that (during multiple conversations) the servicemember made it clear his request was for deferment under C.M.V.C. § 800, Section 813 mandates automatic entitlement to the deferment protections due to Freedom Mortgage’s failure to provide any written response within 30 days of the initial request.

There was simply no reason for a major player in the mortgage servicing industry such as Freedom Mortgage to ignore the fact that the request was for deferment under C.M.V.C. § 800 and instead only implemented federal SCRA protections, and to then add insult to injury by tricking the servicemember into going into default under the false assertion that the only way his account could be evaluated for deferment was to stop making his monthly payments entirely.

Especially considering the fact that Freedom Mortgage has been the subject of previous lawsuits alleging violations of the California Military and Veteran’s Code, this appears to be despicable conduct deserving of exemplary damages to deter future violations.

Simply put, if a company refuses to follow California law, then that company should not conduct business in an attempt to make monetary gain in California.

The post YET ANOTHER LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST FREEDOM MORTGAGE FOR VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF DEPLOYED RESERVE SERVICEMEMBERS appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

This verdict against Defendant ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. resulted in the Jury awarding a total amount of $189,000.00 in favor of our client on September 14, 2023, after agreeing that our client was terminated based on her advancing age.

On January 22, 2024, the Court signed an Amended Judgment that added $525,340.00 in attorneys’ fees, thereby making the Judgment against ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. a total of $714,340.00!!

A copy of the signed Amended Judgment can be read by clicking here.

The Court is also scheduled in March 2024 to determine how much more to add to our Judgment in litigation expenses, and we will also be able to seek more attorneys’ fees in the future for having to fend off Defendant’s attempts to challenge our verdict post-trial.

This should hopefully serve as a lesson to all unscrupulous employers that our law firms will never stop seeking justice on behalf of our clients who are oppressed, downtrodden, discriminated against, and victimized by companies that place power and profits over the interests of their own people.

The post VICTORIOUS AGE DISCRIMINATION JUDGMENT AMENDED TO ADD ATTORNEYS’ FEES!!! appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

On behalf of our client, our firm successfully pursued motions to vacate default judgments that had been entered against him in Los Angeles Superior Court and achieved a dismissal of the lawsuit against our client.

The plaintiff in that case then filed an appeal to the Second District Court of Appeals, challenging the discretion of the trial court in granting our motions to vacate the the default judgments.

After a full round of briefings and oral argument, the Court of Appeal agreed with our Opposition that explained how the trial court did not engage in an abuse of discretion in granting our motions to vacate the default judgment, and agreed that our win at the trial court level can remain as the final outcome of the litigation against our client.

Download a full copy of the Court of Appeals ruling by clicking here.

The post VICTORY AT COURT OF APPEALS!! appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.