Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in California

A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in California is the topic of this blog post.

A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is more limited in scope than a motion for a new trial.  However if it is used in the appropriate situations it is much more powerful due to the  fact that if you win the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the court will enter a new and different judgment in your favor.

A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in California (JNOV) challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence at trial.  A JNOV also differs from a motion for a new trial in that a JNOV motion consists of a single document.  The entire motion, including the notice of motion and memorandum of points and authorities, is due at the same time as the notice of intent to move for a new trial.

Law authorizing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in California.

A JNOV motion in California is authorized under Code of Civil Procedure section 629 which states in pertinent part that, “The court, before the expiration of its power to rule on a motion for a new trial, either of its own motion, after five days’ notice, or on motion of a party against whom a verdict has been rendered, shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for a directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made.”

Deadline to file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in California.

Because a motion for a new trial and a JNOV motion are often sought concurrently, the time limit for filing the JNOV motion is exactly the same as the time for filing a notice of intent to move for a new trial.  A JNOV motion must be filed and served on all adverse parties within the period for filing a new trial notice of intent under Code of Civil Procedure Section 659 which is within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court, or service upon the moving party by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest.   This time period cannot be extended by any court or any stipulation.

Since a JNOV motion contemplates entry of a new and different judgment, a proposed judgment should be included with the motion or be submitted at the time of hearing at the latest.  Prompt compliance is extremely important because the trial court has a very limited time in which to act on the JNOV motion.

Limitations on motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in California.

The main limitation to the JNOV motion is that the trial court’s power to grant a motion for JNOV is severely limited.  The trial court may not grant a JNOV motion unless there is an actual verdict.  If the jury returns no verdict or an incomprehensible verdict, a JNOV is not appropriate. See Mish v. Bruckus, (1950) 97 Cal. App. 2d 770, 776.

However if no substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict a JNOV motion must be granted as one California Court of Appeal has stated in a published decision that the purpose of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not to afford a review of the jury’s deliberation but to prevent a miscarriage of justice in those cases where the verdict rendered by the jury is without foundation.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether filing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is appropriate.

Nathan Mubasher earned a post-doctorate LL.M. in International Financial Transactions with emphasis on Money Laundering and Compliance at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, a J.D. at American College of Law, and his B.A. at University of California, Riverside. He is a member of the State Bar of California and is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California. He is also an active member of the American Health Lawyers Association and the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys. He has performed over 1,000 mediations and has Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) training from the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).

Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

A motion for nonsuit in California

A motion for nonsuit in California is the topic of this blog post.

A motion for nonsuit in California can be very useful if it is filed in the appropriate situations.  This is due to the fact that a motion for nonsuit allows a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence offered by a plaintiff at an early stage of the trial while still preserving the right to present their defense if the motion for nonsuit is denied.  It should be noted that a defendant may not move for nonsuit until after plaintiff has completed their opening statement, or has presented their evidence in a jury trial.

Several California Court of Appeal published decisions have held that a motion for nonsuit functions as a demurrer to the evidence offered by plaintiff.

Law authorizing a motion for nonsuit in California.

Code of Civil Procedure section 581(c) is the statutory authority for filing a motion for nonsuit in California.

Code of Civil Procedure § 581c states that,

“(a) Only after, and not before, the plaintiff has completed his or her opening statement, or after the presentation of his or her evidence in a trial by jury, the defendant, without waiving his or her right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a judgment of nonsuit.

(b) If it appears that the evidence presented, or to be presented, supports the granting of the motion as to some but not all of the issues involved in the action, the court shall grant the motion as to those issues and the action shall proceed as to the issues remaining. Despite the granting of the motion, no final judgment shall be entered prior to the termination of the action, but the final judgment in the action shall, in addition to any matters determined in the trial, award judgment as determined by the motion herein provided for.

(c) If the motion is granted, unless the court in its order for judgment otherwise specifies, the judgment of nonsuit operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

(d) In actions which arise out of an injury to the person or to property, when a motion for judgment of nonsuit was granted on the basis that the defendant was without fault, no other defendant during trial, over plaintiff’s objection, may attempt to attribute fault to or comment on the absence or involvement of the defendant who was granted the motion.”

Limitations on a motion for nonsuit in California.

It should be noted that a motion for nonsuit has some limitations as the judge hearing the motion for nonsuit in California has very limited discretion as the court must rule solely on the basis of the evidence offered by plaintiff.  In ruling on a motion for nonsuit in California after the opening statement, the court can only consider only the matters stated by plaintiff in the opening statement and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn.

The California Supreme Court stated in a published decision from over 100 years ago that granting nonsuit after an opening statement is disfavored and should be avoided unless the evidence clearly shows that no case can be made out.

The discretion is very similar in ruling on a motion for nonsuit after plaintiff has presented their case, in that case only the evidence submitted by plaintiff and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn can be considered.

Many motions for nonsuit in California are made orally and without any prior notice being provided to plaintiff.  Although supporting papers are not generally required, a motion for nonsuit in California is more powerful if it is based on points and authorities.  A motion for motion after plaintiff has presented their case may be based on exhibits received in evidence and transcripts of testimony.

The party filing a motion for nonsuit in California must state the precise grounds on which the motion is made, and should indicate the defects in the plaintiff’s case clearly and with particularity.

As should be obvious by now, the requirements for a motion for nonsuit are quite restrictive.

Advantages of a motion for nonsuit in California.

However a motion for nonsuit does have one huge advantage in that it operates as an adjudication upon the merits “unless the court in its order for judgment otherwise specifies.” See Code of Civil Procedure § 581c.

A defendant who prevails on a motion for nonsuit is entitled to recover their costs. See Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.

There is one key point to remember which is that anyone considering a motion for nonsuit after plaintiff’s opening statement should consider the fact that, if the defects identified are easily correctable, plaintiff will not only be alerted, they will simply oppose the motion and stress that motions for nonsuit are disfavored which they clearly are.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine if filing a motion for nonsuit is appropriate for your case.  Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

 

Request for a continuance of a trial date in California

A request for a continuance of a trial date in California is the topic of this blog post.

This blog post will provide a general outline of the common grounds that may support a request for a continuance of a trial date in California.

A request for a continuance of a trial date in California may be made by filing a noticed motion but is typically done with an ex parte application. This is due to the fact that the circumstances that necessitate a request for a continuance of a trial date often arise when there is not sufficient time for a noticed motion for a continuance to be heard before the trial date.

Any request for a continuance of a trial date in California should be filed as soon as possible once you have discovered that you need to request a continuance in order to increase the chances that the Judge will grant your request.

Law governing a request for a continuance of a trial date in California.

California Rule of Court 3.1332 governs a request for a continuance of a trial date in California and states that,

“(a) Trial dates are firm

To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.

(b) Motion or application

A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.

(c) Grounds for continuance

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5) The addition of a new party if:

(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case;

(6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.

(d) Other factors to be considered

In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.”

It should be noted that the trial court is given a lot of discretion in ruling on a motion for a continuance of a trial date, however if the trial court denies the request for a continuance and that results in the denial of a fair hearing, the California Courts of Appeal have stated in published decisions that the discretion is abused when the lack of a continuance results in a denial of a fair hearing.

A California Court of Appeal has stated in a published decision that the strong public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits outweighs other policies such as the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act which stress judicial efficiency.

Another California Court of Appeal has stated in a published decision that that the unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances under normal circumstances should qualify as “good cause” for a continuance.

It should be stressed that waiting too long to request a continuance may result in the request for a continuance being denied.

If you need to request a continuance of a trial date in California you should contact an experienced litigation attorney that can review your situation and determine if you have sufficient grounds for a continuance, and if so, the length of the continuance that should be requested.

Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

 

Requesting a statement of decision in California

Requesting a statement of decision in California is the topic of this blog post.

A request for a statement of decision in California is authorized pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 632.

Code of Civil Procedure § 632 states that,

“In superior courts, upon the trial of a question of fact by the court, written findings of fact and conclusions of law shall not be required. The court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial. The request must be made within 10 days after the court announces a tentative decision unless the trial is concluded within one calendar day or in less than eight hours over more than one day in which event the request must be made prior to the submission of the matter for decision. The request for a statement of decision shall specify those controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of decision. After a party has requested the statement, any party may make proposals as to the content of the statement of decision.

The statement of decision shall be in writing, unless the parties appearing at trial agree otherwise; however, when the trial is concluded within one calendar day or in less than 8 hours over more than one day, the statement of decision may be made orally on the record in the presence of the parties.”

A statement of decision is where the Judge states the legal reasoning for its decision on certain contested also known as controverted issues.  A statement of decision can be requested in a civil, family law or probate case in California.

Importance of requesting a statement of decision in California.

Requesting a statement of decision is critical due to the fact that a failure to request a statement of decision on all of the controverted issues in a case will prove fatal to any possible appeal of the case as the reviewing court is required to presume that every fact essential to the judgment was proved and found by the trial court if no statement of decision has been requested.

If no statement of decision has been requested, the reviewing court is required to presume that every fact essential to the judgment was proved and found by the trial court. Review in these circumstances is limited to a determination as to whether there is any evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the judgment.  See Agri-Systems, Inc. v. Foster Poultry Farms (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 1134-1135.

Any party that appeared at the trial can file and serve a request for a statement of decision in California.  If the trial is concluded within one calendar day, or in less than eight hours spread out over more than one day, the request must be made before the matter is submitted for decision.  If the trial is longer than that, the request must be made within 10 days after the court announces a tentative decision.

A trial shall be deemed to actually commence at the beginning of the opening statement or argument of any party or his or her counsel, or if there is no opening statement, then at the time of the administering of the oath or affirmation to the first witness, or the introduction of any evidence.  See Code of Civil Procedure § 581(a)(6).

Judicial time off the bench does not count in determining how long a trial lasts.  See Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corporation (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 44, 61-63.

The 10-day period for making the request commences at the time the clerk mails the copy of the minute order or decision.  See Hutchins v. Glanda (1990) 216 Cal. App. 3d 1529, 1531.

If counsel makes a timely request for the statement, the court’s failure to prepare the statement is reversible error.  See Social Service Union, Local 535 v. County of Monterey (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 676, 681.

It is very important to be very specific in drafting a request for a statement of decision as the request for a statement of decision must specify the controverted issues for which a statement of decision is requested.  The trial judge is not required to sift through a host of improper specifications in search of a few arguably proper ones. Although a party cannot be prevented from using the request as a way of arguing with the court rather than clarifying the grounds of its decision, a party who makes that choice is not entitled to rely on the resulting document to insulate the judgment from the presumption of correctness.  See Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 547, 558-559.

When there has been a request for a statement of decision, the statement of decision may be limited to only those issues specified in the request if less than all material issues are specified See Harvard Investment Co. v. Gap Stores, Inc. (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 704, 709 n.3.

If an issue was not brought up at the trial, the reviewing court is under no obligation to address it. See Colony Ins. Co. v. Crusader Ins. Co. (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 743, 750-751.

A party waives any objection on appeal based on the trial court’s failure to file a written statement of decision when trial lasts less than one day and that party fails to make an oral request, and when language in that party’s points and authorities that were alleged to be a written request was not specific, but merely asked court to find in her favor.  See Martinez v. County of Tulare (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 1430, 1434-1435.

Requesting a statement of decision should be done in every contested litigation case.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine the appropriate course of action.  Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a  consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

Peremptory challenge in California

A peremptory challenge in California is the topic of this blog post.

A peremptory challenge in California can be used to disqualify a judge, court commissioner, or court referee whom an attorney or party has reason to believe is prejudiced against them or their interests.

While the majority of judicial officers in California are free of bias and prejudice there are a small minority of judicial officers that have a reputation for being biased.  An experienced attorney who has personal experience with the judicial officer assigned to your case, or who knows other attorneys that have appeared before them can determine whether or not to file a peremptory challenge to the judicial officer assigned to your case.

Failing to timely file a peremptory challenge to a judicial officer can have serious negative consequences that can result in you having to have your trial or hearing heard by a judicial officer that is clearly biased or prejudiced against you or your attorney.

Statutory authorization for a peremptory challenge in California.

A peremptory challenge in California is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.

Any peremptory challenge must be filed and served within the time limits specified in section 170.6 and only one peremptory challenge may be filed by any attorney or party pursuant to section 170.6.  Filing a peremptory challenge against a judicial officer is often referred to in the legal profession as “dinging” or “papering” a judge.

Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 states in pertinent part that,

“(a) (1) A judge, court commissioner, or referee of a superior court of the State of California shall not try a civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein that involves a contested issue of law or fact when it is established as provided in this section that the judge or court commissioner is prejudiced against a party or attorney or the interest of a party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.

(2) A party to, or an attorney appearing in, an action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without prior notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, or an oral statement under oath, that the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the action or proceeding is pending, or to whom it is assigned, is prejudiced against a party or attorney, or the interest of the party or attorney, so that the party or attorney cannot, or believes that he or she cannot, have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee. If the judge, other than a judge assigned to the case for all purposes, court commissioner, or referee assigned to, or who is scheduled to try, the cause or hear the matter is known at least 10 days before the date set for trial or hearing, the motion shall be made at least 5 days before that date. If directed to the trial of a cause with a master calendar, the motion shall be made to the judge supervising the master calendar not later than the time the cause is assigned for trial. If directed to the trial of a criminal cause that has been assigned to a judge for all purposes, the motion shall be made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge by a party within 10 days after notice of the all purpose assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then within 10 days after the appearance. If directed to the trial of a civil cause that has been assigned to a judge for all purposes, the motion shall be made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge by a party within 15 days after notice of the all purpose assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then within 15 days after the appearance. If the court in which the action is pending is authorized to have no more than one judge, and the motion claims that the duly elected or appointed judge of that court is prejudiced, the motion shall be made before the expiration of 30 days from the date of the first appearance in the action of the party who is making the motion or whose attorney is making the motion. In no event shall a judge, court commissioner, or referee entertain the motion if it is made after the drawing of the name of the first juror, or if there is no jury, after the making of an opening statement by counsel for plaintiff, or if there is no opening statement by counsel for plaintiff, then after swearing in the first witness or the giving of any evidence or after trial of the cause has otherwise commenced. If the motion is directed to a hearing, other than the trial of a cause, the motion shall be made not later than the commencement of the hearing. In the case of trials or hearings not specifically provided for in this paragraph, the procedure specified herein shall be followed as nearly as possible. The fact that a judge, court commissioner, or referee has presided at, or acted in connection with, a pretrial conference or other hearing, proceeding, or motion prior to trial, and not involving a determination of contested fact issues relating to the merits, shall not preclude the later making of the motion provided for in this paragraph at the time and in the manner herein provided.”

A peremptory challenge does not have to be filed when a defendant makes what is known as a “special appearance” it only has to be filed after a defendant has made what is known as a “general appearance”.

A California Court of Appeal has stated in a published decision that the time to file a Section 170.6 peremptory challenge does not commence when defendant makes a special appearance to contest the court’s jurisdiction such as a motion to quash service of a summons but instead begins only when a defendant makes their first general appearance in the action.  A defendant has the option to peremptorily challenge the judge scheduled to hear the motion to quash but they are not required to do so.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether filing a peremptory challenge to the judicial officer assigned to your case is appropriate.

Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.