Stay updated with the latest legal news, expert analysis, and firm updates from KAASS LAW.
Whether you're facing a legal challenge or seeking proactive counsel, our award-winning team is ready to defend your interests.
Violation of Prisoner's Federal Civil Rights in California: A prisoner in California has a right to file a lawsuit for money damages against a prison official, whose conduct caused the prisoner to suffer harm, bodily injuries or psychological distress. A lawsuit can be based on violations of either federal, state law or both) and can be filed in either federal or state court.
According to CACI 3040, in case the plaintiff claims that the defendant subjected him to prison conditions that violated his constitutional rights he must be able to prove all of the following elements to establish the claim:
According to CACI 3041, in case the prisoner claims that the defendant provided him with inadequate medical care in violation of his constitutional rights he must be able to establish the following elements to prove the claim.
Serious medical need exists when the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition can bring to further substantial injury or infliction of pain. The defendant can’t be found responsible for services that he couldn’t provide or cause to be provided because the necessary personnel, financial, and other resources could not be reasonably obtained or weren’t available.
In prison-conditions cases, the prisoner must show that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to his safety or health. Deliberate indifference includes a two-part inquiry. First, the prisoner must be able to show that the prison official was aware of a substantial risk of serious harm but failed to act to address the danger. Second, the prisoner must be able show that the prison official had no reasonable justification for his conduct, despite that risk. For any further legal assistance and or consultation, contact KAASS LAW right away!
The Ralph Act is a civil rights law, enforced by the DFEH, which has aim to protect individuals with special characteristics and their property from violence or intimidation by the threat of violence. The Ralph Act is codified in California’s Civil Code Section 51.7 according to which all individuals have the right to be free from any kind of violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against them or their property, based on race, religion, color, political affiliation, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, age, citizenship, immigration status, age, or position in labor dispute.
According to CACI 3063, in case the plaintiff claims that the defendant committed an act of violence against him or his property he must be able to prove all of the following elements to establish the claim:
California law imposes financial motor vehicle owner liability on the owner of a vehicle involved in an auto accident, even if the owner wasn’t driving or wasn’t in the vehicle at the time of the accident. According to California Vehicle Code Section 17150 vehicle owner is liable for damages to another people, which result from the negligence of another person operating the vehicle with the owner’s permission. The law limits a vehicle owner’s liability to $15,000 for injury or death to one person and $30,000 to several people. Property damage liability has a limit to $5,000.
According to CACI 720 to establish this claim, the plaintiff must be able to prove all of the following elements:
Supervisor Liability: Under the theory of Respondent Superior, there is no vicarious liability for the actions of a subordinate just because a person is a supervisor. Just knowledge about a violation is not enough to impose supervisory liability, thus for pursuing a supervisory liability claim, a plaintiff must be able to show the following:
According to CACI 3005 in case the plaintiff claims that the defendant is personally liable for his harm he must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:
California's court system is the nation's biggest and serves over thirty-nine million people — about 12 percent of the total American population.
There are fifty-eight trial courts in California, one in each county. A judge and sometimes a jury hears the testimony of witnesses and other proof in trial courts or superior courts and chooses cases by applying the appropriate law to the appropriate facts. The judiciary in California serve almost thirty-four million individuals. Until June 1998, the trial courts of California were made up of superior and municipal courts, each with their own jurisdiction and the number of judges set by the Legislature. Proposition 220 file type icon was endorsed by California voters in June 1998, a constitutional amendment that allowed the judges in each county to merge their superior and municipal courts into a «unified», or single, superior court. All 58 counties in California had also voted to unify their trial courts as of February 2001.
Conversion is an intentional interference with the property of another person with the intention to deprive the owner of the property. This includes situations when someone uses the property of another and damages or destroys it. During an act of conversion, taking the property may be lawful, while keeping the property and/or returning the property in a damaged state is unlawful.
According to CACI 2100 the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim.
The plaintiff generally must establish an actual interference with his ownership or right to possess property to prove the conversion. In addition to actual interference the plaintiff must also show that the interference was substantial, which can prove by showing an intention or purpose to keep the owner from taking possession of the property or to convert the goods and to exercise ownership over them.
According to California Government Code Section 830(a) a dangerous condition of property is a condition which creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a way in which it is foreseeable that it will be used. In California, property managers and owners are obliged to establish engineering standards when designing buildings and roadways and buildings. They should also conduct regular inspections for assuring that the property is not dangerous and maintain the property in a safe and secure manner. When the manager or owner fails to fulfill his legal obligations and someone is injured, he is responsible for the caused injuries and financial damages.
According to CACI Instructions 1100 and California Government Code Section 835 the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim.
According to California Penal Code Section 350 it is prohibited to willfully manufacture, intentionally sell, or knowingly possess for sale any counterfeit mark registered with the Secretary of State or registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
The prosecutor must be able to establish the following element to convict the defendant of manufacturing, sale, or possession for sale of counterfeit goods under PC Section 350:
Unreasonable force refers to situations when government officials legally entitled to use force exceed the necessary minimum amount to diffuse an incident or to defend others or themselves from harm.
According to CACI 440 the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish this claim:
Under the legal doctrine of governmental immunity, a police officer's actions are protected from liability while being on the job. This is a rule that the police officer generally can’t be sued for reasonable actions taken while performing his official duties. So, the right to make an investigatory stop or arrest necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical force, but the degree of the force must be proportional to the threat and be applicable only in response to the threat.
Over the years, drivers under Uber, Lyft, and many others have not been successful with these apps. California legislature approved Assembly Bill 5, back in the year 2019, requiring app-based companies like Uber, Lyft, and Doordash treat workers as employees. It's aim is to make it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. This bill on a 2018 California Supreme Court decision, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, establishes the "ABC test" for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. Workers must be an employees instead of contractors if a company retains control over how they perform their tasks or if their work is part of a company’s regular business. California will become the first state to require app-based companies/gig-economy to treat workers as employees. Overall, AB 5 marked a pivotal shift in California's approach to worker rights, particularly within the gig economy, and its influence continues to shape debates about labor classification in the state and beyond
According to CACI 3064, in case the plaintiff claims that the defendant intimidated by threat of violence he must be able to prove all of the following elements to establish the claim:
In successful claims, the victims are entitled to the following remedies:
In a successful Ralph Act lawsuit, the court can order additional damages for the victims. The plaintiff can be entitled to punitive damages even if he already got a full compensation for caused harm or injuries. Civil Fine: The Ralph Act also allows plaintiff to recover a fine of $25,000. Restraining Order: The victims can get a restraining order and the defendant can be fined or jailed. Contact KAASS LAW for any further legal assistance!
When the direct evidence of permission (also known as “explicit permission”) is in dispute, one can consider the relationship between the owner and the driver. It is more likely that the owner granted permission if the owner and driver were married, had an employer-employee relationship, or were close friends. A fact-finder can reasonably conclude that the owner gave permission, even if the owner denies it and there is no direct evidence of prior permission. This is called “implied permission.”
According to CACI 721 in case the defendant claims that he is not responsible the plaintiff’s harm he must be able to prove the following elements:
Thus, if the defendant gives permission for a limited time, and the driver uses the vehicle beyond that time without consent, the owner cannot be liable for any resulting injuries, unless the circumstances suggest that the owner impliedly consented to further use.
In case the driver was acting on behalf of the owner, (for example, they were in employment relationship), then the limitations of damages under Vehicle Code Section 17515(a) doesn’t apply. The owner of the vehicle can be responsible for all the damages and injuries caused by the negligent conduct of the driver.
According to California Vehicle Code Section 14604(a) before lending a vehicle to another one the owner needs to make a reasonable effort to determine if the driver has a valid driver’s license. Thus, in case the owner of the vehicle acted with independent negligence by lending his car to another person, the damage limitation isn’t applicable.
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/output_HD7203.mp4"][/video]
When the supervisor is found responsible for causing harm to the plaintiff based on deliberate indifference, then he is being held liable for his own wrongful action or inaction, but not held vicariously liable for the wrongful actions or inactions of his subordinates
According to California Civil Code Section, 2351a sub-agent, legally appointed, represents the principal in like manner with the original agent; and the original agent cannot be liable to third persons for the acts of the sub-agent. Thus, the general rule is that an agent is not responsible for the unlawful act of an employee when the agent is acting on behalf or in an official capacity of the principal; hence the term, “agency immunity rule.” There are substantive exceptions to hold supervisory authority liable for the actions of their employees.
A supervisor can be liable for the actions of the employee if he is guilty of negligence in the appointment of such sub-agent. The negligence can include a decision to hire an employee despite knowledge of wrongful conduct of the employee.
According to California Civil Code Section 2343, a supervisor can be responsible for the torts of an employee within the scope of authority, rather than in an individual capacity. In case the supervisor authorizes or directs an unlawful act of the subagent, or improperly cooperates in the subagent’s acts, then he can be held liable for his illegal conduct.
A supervisor with expansive authority over the hiring, management or firing his employee can be liable for the illegal conduct of the employee, in case he had prior knowledge of the tendencies of its employees to commit such conduct. For any further legal assistance, please contact KAASS LAW today!
The competition of two judges of the Superior Court's appeal division shall be essential for the rendering of the judgment in each situation and for the transaction of any other company except that which the presiding judge of the division may do in the chambers. In an appeal, an appeal division's decision shall contain a short declaration of the grounds for the judgement. There is inadequate a judgement saying only «affirmed» or «reversed».
Court proceedings may be recorded or electronically taped by a court reporter. Transcripts applications in civil and probate matters for privately owned court reporters must be created directly with the private court reporter. A paper transcript or a copy of an electronic recording may be accessible upon request, depending on the recording of a particular event.
The difference between a cause of action for conversion and for trespass against personal property turns on the degree of the defendant's interference with the plaintiff's rights in the property. In the case of conversion, it is essential to prove that the defendant actually and substantially has exercised control over the plaintiff's personal property, interfered with the plaintiff's rights in the property. In contrast, any illegal interference or exercise of control over the personal property of another person can give rise to a cause of action for trespass. After a property has been converted, the injured party can choose to either sue the defendant for the tort, or waive the tort and sue in "assumpsit" either for money had and received or the value of the property converted.
Conversion does not necessarily simply mean theft of the property, it is more related to actual interference with the victim’s possession or ownership rights rather than just theft. Examples of conduct which includes in the claim:
Evidence of the cost of the property, along with other circumstances such as the condition of the property ant the extent of its use can be considered essential in determining the value of the property at the time of the conversion.
For any further legal assistance, KAASS LAW is here to help!
In some cases, it is easy to determine who is the owner of the property. For example, if a person is injured in a dangerous curve in a roadway it is easy to know that it involves a public entity. The victim must determine whether the roadway is the responsibility of the Country, the State or the City. Other cases can involve a piece of business or a land that seems to be private, but is actually operated by a government entity. Sometimes there are no signs letting us know who is the owner of the property. In response to a letter to the entity requesting ownership information a public entity typically confirms the ownership or directs to the potential owner.
It is important to know that government entities have a multitude of defenses and immunities for fighting the claims.
Penalties for manufacturing or selling counterfeit marks under PC Section 350 depend on the value and the number of the counterfeit goods. Manufacturing or selling counterfeit marks is a misdemeanor in case:
Manufacturing or selling counterfeit marks is a wobbler in case:
Wobbler is a crime that can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the number of factors. Penalties for a felony conviction are the following:
In case the defendant has a prior conviction for manufacturing or selling counterfeit marks, then the second offense is always a wobbler even if the number of counterfeit goods is less than 1,000 and the value of counterfeit items is less than $950. The penalties are the same as for a wobbler conviction with the exception in the amount of the fine:
The defendant will face harsher penalties if the manufacture or sale of the counterfeit items caused great bodily injury or death or to another person, who used the items, thinking that it was genuine. In that case, defendant always faces felony conviction with up to two, three or four years in a county jail.
Courts can also grant police officers qualified immunity along with deferring to a law enforcement reasonableness standard. This aims to protect public officials from civil liability for violations of rights as long as they were reasonably performing their duties and the rights weren’t clearly established. In unreasonable force cases, qualified immunity can protect police officers in more unclear situations where there's a border between necessary and unreasonable force. Though, to benefit from this immunity, a public official must be able to show that a reasonable person in his position wouldn't have known that his conduct violated clearly established law.
Here are some examples of excessive force and police abuse.
A victim might be able to take his case to the court if he was victimized by law enforcement. Generally, there can be three main causes of action:
Under Section 1983 of the United States Code, an unreasonable force is a constitutional violation that can be remedied by filing a civil rights complaint for injunctive or monetary relief. A plaintiff can also file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, which can decide to investigate his case. When deciding the issue of whether the government official engaged in excessive force or not, courts consider particular circumstances to determine if the actions were objectively reasonable.
Have you been involved in an arrest where you've experienced unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer? Experienced attorneys at KAASS Law are here to help protect your rights. Get in touch with us to go over the details of your case at any time!
Accordingly, some experts say that nothing in Assembly Bill 5 will require employees to work set shifts, meaning that Uber and Lyft legally have to allow drivers to make their own scheduling decisions. This California Bill is to better help employees for Uber and Lyft, and other third party companies that offer delivery services for food, groceries, and or client transportation. Also see Uber Insurance Explained