Case Number: 2020-001999

Client is seeking PB representation after being served with a complaint on March 9th, by former employer, owner of a taco store. The complaint served on Client alleges civil fraud, civil conspiracy, harassment and extortion. Adverse is also suing three other former employees in the complaint. Adverse is claiming relief for an amount of $15,000.  Client states that Adverse is retaliating after three other employees and himself filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner Office for unpaid wages. The Labor Commissioner Office found and awarded that Adverse did not pay the wages. A settlement agreement was signed by Adverse with the Labor Commissioner Office on March 5, 2020. The following day on March 6th, OP filed a civil action. Client states that Adverse is making false allegations in the complaint. According to the Settlement, Adverse needs to pay client back wages. The Settlement is signed by the parties.

Case Number: 2020-002845

Our client is a young CAP client who is under voluntary jurisdiction. She needs to complete another living will with her Pro Bono attorney,  since she is no longer with her husband. Unfortunately, she is not able to complete this until she is divorced. Our client married on 09/07/2019. In December 2019, she left her husband because he was not being faithful to her. Our client is a single mother and wants to be sure that her will is set up in case something happens to her. In her previous will, she had designated her husband as the person she would like to have custody of her daughter if something happened to her.

Case Number: 2020-002953

Applicant took his 1983 El Camino to adverse auto body and paint and was told it would take 4 weeks to repair ac and some wiring in the vehicle. The vehicle was in a fire and the insurance company paid out $3,200 and the body shop owner took it as payment. He asked for an additional week after the four weeks. He promised the car by the applicant’s birthday. He was upset when the car was not ready at that time and they started to argue. Applicant went to the shop and the owner told him the car would not run unless he was paid more and put his hands on his pistol when speaking to him.  Applicant filed a DMV complaint and owner was forced to release vehicle. Vehicle is now at a different repair shop. There are additional damages done to the car as revenge, there is scratched and other damages. Applicant posted on Social Media that people should not go to the first shop because they did not do good work and posted pictures and therefore is now being sued for defamation. Applicant filed a small claims suit for return of funds and owner filed a counterclaim and was sued in district court for the same and for defamation