The lawsuit alleges that our client suffered ongoing false rumors at work about her sleeping with one of Trademark Venues’ Banquet Supervisors, that our client lodged multiple complaints for more than a year about these false rumors, and that she repeatedly reported that she felt harassed.

The lawsuit further alleges that our client even provided her supervisors and Human Resources Dept copies of text messages that had been sent to her showing that Trademark Venue’s Banquet Supervisor was making lewd false sexual comments about her with coworkers.

The lawsuit further alleges that Trademark Venues failed to properly investigate the reported harassment and failed to take appropriate steps to remedy what our client alleged to be ongoing harassment.

The allegations also include claims for retaliation and wrongful termination because our client was terminated after she began lodging written complaints about her supervisors and Human Resources department failing to properly investigate the complaints of harassment and failing to take appropriate steps to protect her from further harassment.

A copy of the Complaint against Trademark Venues can be viewed here.

After more than a year of litigation, discovery, and depositions, Trademark Venues filed a Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication, asking the Court to either dismiss our lawsuit entirely or whittle it down by dismissing one or more of the claims.

Thankfully, the Court did not fall for Trademark Venues’ efforts to evade liability and denied its Motion in full on July 17, 2026.

A copy of the Court’s ruling denying the Motion can be viewed here.

At Semnar & Hartman, we are proud to stand up for the rights of employees who are being treated unfairly and unlawfully at work, whether it be sexual harassment, disability discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, or in whatever form victimization occurs!

Our victory in this case allows us to move one step closer to seeking justice for our client at jury trial.

The post Sexual Harassment, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination Claims Against Trademark Venues, LLC Survive Summary Judgment appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

The lawsuit alleges that our client’s supervisor forced our client to change his time sheets to show that our client did not work any overtime hours so that he would not be entitled to receive any overtime wages.

The lawsuit further alleges that our client submitted complaints to Human Resources, which resulted in him being promptly terminated.

A copy of the complaint against Irvine Management Company can be viewed here.

California law is very clear in its mandate that employees are entitled to wages for all hours worked, and it is absolutely illegal to deprive employees from any wages owed, whether it be regular hourly wages or overtime wages.

Forcing employees to falsely doctor their time sheets to deprive them of overtime wages is categorized as wage theft under California law.

And, California law also absolutely mandates that employees who lodge complaints about what they reasonably believe to be unlawful business practices are protected. If an employee is terminated within a reasonably short period of time after lodging complaints (e.g., 90 days) then there is a presumption of unlawful retaliation.

At Semnar & Hartman, we take these laws seriously and we are proud to stand up for California’s workers who are victimized by wage theft and retaliation, among other employee rights.

Please do not hesitate to contact our office for a free and confidential consultation so that we can evaluate whether your rights have been violated.

The post Employee Rights Lawsuit Against Irvine Management Company appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Each lawsuit alleges that, after our clients submitted written requests to invoke their statutory rights to deferment of principal and interest pursuant to C.M.V.C. § 800, each company failed to provide written responses within the required 30 day deadline. Therefore, Section 813 of the C.M.V.C. mandates that our clients are entitled to the deferment relief requested and each company therefore waived any ability to object or deny the requested relief.

Each lawsuit alleges that, despite mandatory application of deferment pursuant to C.M.V.C. 813, each company began accusing our clients of going into default, including some companies going so far as to threaten foreclosure even though it is blatantly obvious that our clients are protected from foreclosure not only pursuant to the C.M.V.C. but also pursuant to federal SCRA laws.

Some of these recently filed Complaints can be found in the Lakeview and LoanCare complaint, the Lendmark Financial complaint, and the Carrington Mortgage complaint.
To put it mildly, it seems to us that there are many mortgage companies in this Country that simply have no respect for our deployed military servicemembers and have no intention of honoring deployed military servicemembers’ mandatory statutory protections for deferment.

If these issues sound familiar to something you are experiencing, please do not hesitate to contact our firm for a free and confidential evaluation of whether your rights have been violated as well.

The post Legal Action Taken Against Lakeview Loan Servicing, LoanCare, Lendmark Financial Services, and Carrington Mortgage Services for Violating Military Rights appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

A copy of that Complaint can be viewed here.

Part of the allegations in this lawsuit involve our client accusing Shellpoint Mortgage of failing to comply with a Court Order that required Shellpoint to implement deferment protections, among other violations of our client’s statutory rights.

Our client alleges that she was forced to seek and obtain a Court Order for deferment protections because Shellpoint Mortgage ignored all of her prior attempts to request deferment informally pursuant to C.M.V.C. § 800.

Not only does this lawsuit allege that C.M.V.C. § 813 protects our client by mandating that she receive the protections due to Shellpoint Mortgage’s failure to respond to her informal requests within 30 days but also alleges multiple violations of the Court Ordered deferment protections.

After being served with our lawsuit, Shellpoint Mortgage tried to set aside and vacate the Court Ordered deferment protections.

Thankfully, that effort was rejected by the Court. A copy of the Court’s ruling denying the motion to set aside can be viewed here.

Shellpoint Mortgage then appealed the Court’s denial of their Motion in an attempt to once again deprive our client of her statutory, and now Court Ordered, deferment protections.

After months of research and briefing, and after oral arguments were conducted by the attorneys on June 16, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal finally denied NewRez, LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage’s latest attempt at depriving our client of her statutory rights.

A copy of the Court of Appeal’s ruling can be viewed here.

At Semnar & Hartman, LLP, we are proud to always stand up to protect those who stand up to protect us… we will never tire in our zealous pursuit of justice for deployed servicemembers, and we are always glad to see the Courts reaching the right decision to implement and enforce these protections!

The post APPELLATE VICTORY IN PURSUIT OF JUSTICE FOR DEPLOYED MILITARY SERVICEMEMBER! appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.