lisa l. maki law

Los Angeles Elementary School Molester-Miramonte Elementary, Do You Know Where Your Kids Are?

2012-01-31T20:05:00.000-08:00

How can a 30 year teacher commit violent, sadistic acts against children, in his class room, after luring them in from recess, on school grounds, for several years and never ever get caught? Is it time for cameras in the class room? Computer Checks? Better recess monitors? Letting kids know that it is not acceptable to be bound and gagged in class to your teacher can let cockroaches crawl on your face so he can feed you semen?

Look at some of the reporting courtesy of the AP:
"at first, neither the parents nor the children believed they had been molested, so there wasn't much reaction, according to sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore."

THEY WERE NOT HIS STUDENTS? THEY WERE STUDENTS, RIGHT?
The incidents occurred during school hours but not all the children were his students, Marquez said. "The reason some of the kids are not his students, per se, is that during the lunch breaks or recess, he'd go out to the playground and entice them back to the classroom," Marquez said.

BLINDFOLDING AND GAGGING CHILDREN AND HAVING COCKROACHES CRAWL ON THEIR FACES WHILE BEING FED THEIR TEACHER'S SEMEN IS NOT A GAME!
"They didn't know they were being violated in that manner," he said. "They just thought it was a game."

Prayers to the victims. Shame on this school.

EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES FILED IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 1/27/2012

2012-01-31T08:40:00.000-08:00

SC115747 DANIEL WATSON VS. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC. ET. AL.

EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES FILED IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 1/26/2012 (addition)

2012-01-31T08:39:00.001-08:00

SC115741 AKILAH SWIFT VS. SCIENTIFIC IMAGE CTR MANAGEMENT, INC. ET.AL.

EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES FILED IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 1/26/2012

2012-01-29T08:08:00.000-08:00

YC 066380 DEBRA EDWARDS VS. CACI INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL

EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES FILED IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 1/25/2012

2012-01-26T08:25:00.001-08:00

BC477735 SHANE SPRINGER VS VERATEX INC ET AL

PC052360 JUDI FIELDS VS. QSP INC.

BC477736 ALBA NAJERA VS DIAMOND CONTRACT SERVICES INC ET AL

BC477763 ESTHER RANSON VS SOUTHERN CA PERMANENTE MED GROUP ET AL

EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES FILED IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 1/24/2012

2012-01-26T08:22:00.000-08:00

YC066303 JULIO GUTIERREZ VS. RAMSES AUTO CENTER

BC477632 TENNILLE WILSON VS CYBERDEFENDER CORPORATION

BC477633 YOLANDA RODRIGUEZ VS HOME DEPOT SERVICES LLC ET AL

BC477659 JESUS S VILLALOBOS VS DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING ASSOCIATES INC

BC477660 SERGIO R DEL CID VS THE KROGER CO ET AL

BC477662 GEORGE WILLIAMS VS DENCO ENTERPRISES INC

BC477664 KEVIN VALDIVIA VS AT&T SERVICES INC ET AL

BC477682 REGINALD WEBB VS JUANITAS FOODS

BC477683 JAMES LAM VS ALSS INC

EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES FILED IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 1/23/12

2012-01-24T08:20:00.000-08:00

BC477564 ANTOINETTE ESTRADA VS PRESENCE WEST INC

BC477593 FIDEL AGUAS VS INTERIOR REMOVAL SPECIALIST INC

BC477596 NAPOLEON ILANO ET AL VS ADMIRAL SECURITY SERVICES INC

BC477597 MOAHMMAD HAJIANPOUR VS SYNOVA INC

BC477598 EVELIA ARNOLD VS WESTERN FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

BC477602 MARK MADRIGAL VS AMERICAN MEDIA INC ET AL

BC477561 ROSA ROMERO VS FOREVER 21 LOGISTICS LLC ET AL

BC477605 MILOS CRUZ VS WAL-MART STORES INC ET AL

BC477631 MORTEZA DORMANESH ET AL VS TRIVEDI FOUNDATION ET AL

EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES FILED IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 1/19/12

2012-01-23T09:56:00.000-08:00

BC477349 BRANDON JACKSON VS ANCON MARINE

BC477369 DAVID LOMAS VS WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC

BC477308 LABOR COMMISSIONER VS SIGN CENTRAL INC

BC477309 ISRAEL MENDOZA VS HANMI SECURITY GUARD SERVICES CORPORATION

BC477368 NANCY LOPEZ VS DEL TACO RESTAURANT SERVICES INC

BC477382 RAMONA ARAUJO VS ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES INC

BC477383 JOSE PINO VS AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LLC

BC477387 JOSE VALDEZ VS VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC

BC477390 CHRISSY CHACON VS STERLING MACHINERY EXCHANGE ET AL

BC477394 EVANGELOS FLEVOTOMOS VS RALPHS GROGERY COMPANY

EC057357 JESON WOOD VS. ACCO ENGINEERING SYSTEMS INC.

NC057044 SALINAS VS ESTORGA'S COLLISION REPAIR

Daily Cases: Employment, Discrimination, Wage and Hour Cases, Class Actions, Sexual Harassment

2012-01-22T10:54:00.000-08:00

Arbitration Case 1/19/2012 California
Reyes v. Macy’s Inc. A133411 Published, First District, Division 3
Court lacked jurisdiction of employer appeal of grant of motion to compel arbitration re: request to dismiss class allegations and PAGA claims because no final judgment on plaintiff’s claims.

2011-04-27T21:13:00.000-07:00

New Installation at the GE/MOBIL/BP/AT&T Sponsored Smithsonian Institute, formerly a museum.

Title of Installation: A Jury Box

Enter Docent:

“Children, there was a time when the very ground you are standing on was a Country. The Country had a Constitution. The Constitution granted citizens of what we used to call the United States certain things called rights and liberties. Some were even called fundamental rights. What you are looking at now is not a set of church pews in the GE/MOBIL/BP Church. No, this is something that used to be in a building called a Court House. It is called a “Jury Box” and citizens of the United States used to sit in it and decide disputes, instead of having a King decide or a Dictator, or GE/MOBIL/BP who pays something called an arbitrator to decide a dispute. As you all know, the arbitrators are paid by GE/MOBIL/BP because we do not have money, but I’m getting off track. So, I heard the reason that the United States used to have something called the “jury trials” is because this right was contained in a document called the Constitution. Everyone had a right to trial by jury, no matter who you were. Even people who were accused of crimes had a right to a jury trial and they were presumed innocent until found otherwise by a jury of their peers. Isn’t that weird? The idea was that a jury of ones peers could decide disputes and claims, especially since they were not financially interested in the outcome of a particular case. The Constitution had other rights too. People could bear arms to protect themselves. Remember that exhibit of guns we saw earlier. Those were the arms the Constitution was referring too. People also had something called “privacy rights” which is hard to explain, basically, unlike today, a person could keep their private lives private, and make their own decisions about their bodies and things like that. I know, it is radical, isn’t it? I’ll have to do a little more research on that. Anyway, before companies owned the United States, people owned their own homes, and had something called personal property. It used to be illegal for another person or a company to take someone’s property! Oh, and citizens of the United States used to do something called vote. That’s spelled V.O.T.E. Citizens would vote other citizens into office. Those people would represent them and help to enforce the Constitution. Then, one day, one of the Courts, called the “Supreme Court” became sponsored by the companies. They started taking away a lot of the rights in the Constitution. Anyone who protested the taking away of rights by the Supreme Court was called unpatriotic. They began to give the companies more and more power. For example, they decided that the corporations could donate money to citizens being elected. They began to decide elections. (Whispering---I really don’t think that was right. My grandmother told me that things were better than. She voted once! And, she sat in a jury box! She told me she used to be something called an “American”)

(VOICE HEARD OVER THE PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM SPONSORED BY GE---COMRADE SMITH, MOVE ON NOW!!!!!)

Insert embarrassed look here…O.K. Children, let’s now move to the next exhibit. This is a something the Citizens used to call a park. We used to have these. The green stuff on the ground is called grass. The tall things with the round tops of them were called trees.

Today the United States Supreme Court Ruled Today That Companies Can Force Consumers to Give Up Their Right to a Jury Trial and Have Their Complaints Decided by an Arbitrator Paid by the Company. See, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

Disability Discrimination Verdict of $1,571,500 upheld in Los Angeles against City

2011-04-22T16:35:00.000-07:00

In RORY CUIELLETTE v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, B224303, the City appealed from a judgment of $1,571,500 in favor of Plaintiff, an LAPD Officer, on his claims of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900, et seq. (FEHA).[1] On appeal, the City contended that substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s liability determination because the evidence showed that plaintiff was unable to perform the essential duties of a police officer with or without a reasonable accommodation. However the court held that even if defendant could not perform all of the essential functions of a police officer, he could perform the essential functions of a position into which he had been placed by the LAPD as a reasonable accommodation in accordance with its then existing practice. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the City was liable for a FEHA violation, and affirmed the judgment against the City.

Fire Damage - Fire Injury - Causation Good New Case

2011-04-08T20:10:00.000-07:00

In Garbell v. Conejo Hardwoods, Inc. - filed April 5, 2011, California, Second District, Div. Three - See, http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0411%2FB221482

The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence of causation of negligence where the jury found a fire started in a trashcan in garage, and the defendant's employees were found to have admitted that they threw cigarette materials into the trashcan shortly before the fire started.

Retaliated Against for Testifying Truthfully?

2011-01-19T18:12:00.000-08:00

RICHARD CLAIRMONT V. SOUND MENTAL HEALTH, 09-35856, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 1/19/11

For purposes of Summary Judgment, evidence supported plaintiff's assertions that he was fired as a result of his truthful testimony. The Government failed to demonstrate that plaintiff's speech disrupted the workplace or impeded his ability to perform his job or that plaintiff would have been terminated had he not testified.

-Free Speech
-1st Amendment
-Triable Issue(s) of Fact
-Retaliatory Termination for Testifying Truthfully
-Independent Contractor/Public Employee

Here is the decision:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000011143

Employee Email Sent To Attorney Via Company Server Not Private - Privacy Rights at Work

2011-01-16T18:45:00.000-08:00

Anything you send via a company computer network/server can be discovered. In this case, the Court held that communications to an employee's attorney were not confidential. If you do not want your employer to see who you are emailing or what you are saying, do not email anything through the server, even if the communication is on your own "private" email account, for example yahoo, aol, gmail, etc.

An employer/person may not tape record you with out your consent.

Here is the link to the decision:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C059133.PDF

Summary: e-mails sent by the Plaintiff to her attorney regarding possible legal action against defendants did not constitute “confidential communication between client and lawyer” within the meaning of California Evidence Code section 952.

This is so because Holmes used a computer of defendant company to send the e-mails even though (1) she had been told of the company‟s policy that its computers were to be used only for company business and that employees were prohibited from using them to send or receive personal e-mail, (2) she had been warned that the company would monitor its computers for compliance with this company policy and thus might “inspect all files and messages . . . at any time,” and (3) she had been explicitly advised that employees using company computers to create or maintain personal information or messages “have no right of privacy with respect to that information or message.”

Your Employer May be Liable for Honoring An Unenforceable Non-Compete Agreement With A Prior Employer -- Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc.

2010-09-11T12:52:00.000-07:00

My associate, Christina M. Coleman of the Law Offices of Lisa L. Maki recently argued and won this appeal.

In California, non-competition agreements are generally unenforceable and against public policy under Business and Professions Code section 16600 and have been since 1972.

Nonetheless, employers continue to include these provisions in employment and separation agreements, perhaps believing that the illegal clause will deter competition by the departing employee.

In this case, the Court made clear that an explicit no-hire agreement between a former and past employer would be illegal and illegal and unenforceable. The Court further concluded that terminating Ms. Silguero "out of respect for" an illegal non-compete agreement with her prior employer would amount to achieving the same result in an indirect matter. The Court held that if Ms. Silguero could prove her allegations, her new employer would be liable for the common law tort of Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

Court: Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District
Opinion Date: 7/30/10
Cite: Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. July 30, 2010)

Recording Phone Calls and Conversations Illegal in California?

2010-09-11T12:30:00.000-07:00

California and 11 other states are "two-party consent states." They require the consent by both parties to the call or conversation prior to recording the communication. The other 11 states requiring 2 party consent are Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

California Penal Code § 632(c) defines a "confidential communication" as any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

Violation of California Penal Code § 632 subject the violator of fines between $2,500 to $10,000 per recording, and imprisoment.

Welcome!

2010-08-24T21:33:00.001-07:00

The Los Angeles-based Law Offices of Lisa L. Maki is a nationally recognized litigation firm focused on offering confidential legal guidance and dedicated representation in plaintiff, complex business and personal injury litigation, employment law, class action, wage and hour, discrimination and harassment, and unfair business practices claims.