Many companies continue to struggle and fail financially in today’s economy. It is important for both parties to uphold their end of a contract and when something goes wrong, both parties suffer.

We found an article about a local company that had their own struggles financially. Unfortunately they ended up in bankruptcy and now their clients are left with unfinished work.

If you have a contract and you feel the other side is not holding up their end of the contract, WE CAN HELP. Call The Law Offices of Bowman and Associates at (916) 985-2600 TODAY! We offer free one hour consultations!

Imagine a scenario where a bicyclist is hit by a car and sustains around $20,000 in medical bills and damages. The bicyclist wants to sue the driver, and although the driver is undoubtedly at fault, it is difficult to find a personal injury attorney to take the case. The cost of litigation is too high for both sides. If this bill passes and becomes law, these victims may find relief in a much more cost effective way that is fair to both sides.

The Expedited Jury Trials Act would offer plaintiffs and defendants the choice to stipulate to these streamlined jury trials. They would be treated similarly to regular civil trials; a date would be set and the case would be heard before a judge. There would be a jury of eight or fewer, with each side limited to three preemptory challenges. Each side only has three hours, including opening and closing arguments, to put on their case. Verdicts need to be reached by at least six of the eight jurors, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, and they would be binding, with strictly limited appeals and post-trial motions. Standard rules of evidence would normally apply, unless the parties agreed and chose to relax the rules. Witness lists, exhibits, proposed jury verdict forms, juror questionnaires, etc. are exchanged 25 days prior to trial and any evidentiary objections would be addressed at a pre-trial conference.

A key difference from normal jury trials is the high/low agreement that plaintiff and defendant make before the trial begins. The plaintiff is guaranteed some recovery and the defense’s liability is capped, no matter what the jury’s verdict. This agreement is not disclosed to the jury.

Proponents of this bill believe that cases involving relatively small amounts of money, between $10,000 and $30,000 would receive the most benefit from these expedited trials—small personal injury, slip-and-falls, small auto accidents, etc. are prime candidates. But this bill does not specifically limit cases to type or amount of money. Other states are using expedited jury trials for high value cases of up to $1 million with results similar to verdicts awarded in longer jury trials.

If passed and signed by the governor (he has until the end of September), it authorizes the Judicial Council to create court rules that would be implemented January 1, 2011. The rules would apply to all counties, but each court would be able to decide how to offer quick trials.

This bill allows for plaintiffs and defendants to get their day in court much more quickly, with greater finality, using fewer court resources and providing greater access to justice.

Debra Baker – “at her own cost and expense” – must provide the Skype connection to insure former spouse James can speak with their offspring, state Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo ruled.

The dad, who opposed his children’s move south, is entitled to three one-hour Skype chats per week under the decision.

Debra Baker proposed the move to her parents’ Venice Beach, Florida., home after she lost her job and the family house went into foreclosure.

“Common sense, logic and a realistic view of life on Long Island clearly indicate that (Debra Baker) and children cannot maintain a residence, heat, clothe themselves … on the monies that are currently available,” Garguilo wrote.

But he created the Skype plan to ensure the father had long-distance access to the couple’s 9-year-old daughter and 6-year-old son. The children live with Mrs. Baker.

The ruling followed a two-day July hearing where James Baker “pled with the court not to take his children away, as he loves them dearly,” Garguilo wrote last week.

The decision, the first of its kind in New York state, was initially reported in the New York Law Journal.

The couple was married in 2000, and divorced eight years later.

The Sacramento Divorce Attorneys of Bowman & Associates have helped clients across California. If you or someone you know has legal questions, contact our experienced family law firm for a free consultation.

This article was reported by NYDailyNews.com

Chapter 11: A reorganization proceeding in which the debtor may continue in business or in possession of its property as a fiduciary. A confirmed Chapter 11 plan provides for the manner in which the claims of creditors will be paid in whole or in part by the debtor.

Chapter 12: A simplified reorganization plan for family farmers whose debts fall within certain limits.

Chapter 13: A repayment plan for individuals with debts falling below statutory levels which provides for repayment of some or all of the debts out of future income over 3 to 5 years. More in The Power of 13.

Confirmed: A plan of reorganization in Chapter 11, 12 or 13 approved by the court and binding on the parties is said to be confirmed.

Lien: An interest in real or personal property which secures a debt; the lien may be voluntary, such as a mortgage in real property, or involuntary, such as a judgment lien or tax lien.

Non dischargeable: A debt that cannot be eliminated in bankruptcy. Non dischargeable debts remain legally enforceable despite the bankruptcy discharge. The Code’s list of non dischargeable debts is found at 11 U.S.C. 523. The scope of the discharge in Chapter 13 differs from the discharge in Chapter 7. Discharges compared.

Secured debt: A claim secured by a lien in the debtor’s property by reason of the debtor’s agreement or an involuntary lien such as a judgment or tax lien. The creditor’s claim may be divided into a secured claim, to the extent of the value of the collateral, and an unsecured claim equal to the remainder of the total debt. Generally a secured claim must be perfected under applicable state law to be treated as a secured claim in the bankruptcy.

Fore more information regarding Bankruptcy and for assistance with your Bankruptcy in Folsom, contact The Law Office of Bowman and Associates TODAY!!! You will receive a FREE one hour consultation. 916-985-2600

Robert Cowart, a manager at FedEx, was also named as a defendant in the suit.

Lavon Pauley began working for FedEx as a package handler in August 1998, according to a complaint filed July 6 in Cabell Circuit Court.

Pauley claims she is openly gay and that all of the FedEx employees she worked with knew she was gay.

For approximately the last three years of her employment, Cowart supervised Pauley, according to the suit, and in the first two years of his supervision, he had little contact with her, but that in the last year of her employment he had more frequent contact with her.

Pauley claims during the last year of her employment Cowart intentionally harassed her by repeatedly belittling her about her performance in front of other male employees; completely ignoring her on a route when they rode together; repeatedly yelling at her on the job site and calling her lazy; refusing to discipline and/or address issues between Pauley and male employees with male employees; placing Pauley in dangerous situations when she requested he not place her in jeopardy; and placing her in fear of physical harm.

On March 4, Pauley reported her concerns about Cowart to Robert Center, the managing director for the district, according to the suit.

On March 16, Pauley claims her employment was terminated by Cowart while her complaint against him was still pending. She claims the defendants did not pay her full wages within 72 hours, which is in violation of the West Virginia Wage Payment & Collection Act.

Pauley claims her employment was terminated because she had complained about Cowart.

Pauley is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. She is being represented by Hoyt Glazer.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge David M. Pancake.

There is no individual law in California covering wrongful termination. Instead there are a variety of state and federal statutes, as well as state and federal court decisions, that provide some protections (sometimes very limited) to at-will employees, and allow them to pursue “wrongful termination” cases under certain circumstances. Wrongful termination generally means an unfair employment discharge.

The Sacramento Wrongful Termination Attorneys of Bowman & Associates have helped clients across California. If you or someone you know has legal questions, contact our experienced employment law firm at (916) 923-2800 for a free consultation.

As first reported by the West Virginia Record.

If you are unsure whether Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 would be better, or if you can qualify for Bankruptcy, do not hesitate to contact us! We will provide you with a free one hour consultation and we will assist you every step of the process!

CALL TODAY!

California State Supreme Court

If you are struggling to keep your home, car, and pay off credit card debts, this might be the right time to consider filing for bankruptcy.

In order to eliminate your unsecured debt in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you must pass a “means test”. This test takes into consideration your family size, income, and expenses over the past six months. For furloughed employees, this means that you are more likely to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy because of the decrease in your income this year.

Don’t let furloughs ruin your financial future. Contact Sacramento bankruptcy attorney Tonya J. Hernandez to determine the best solution to your debt problems.

Under the settlement, no employee or applicant will be asked if she is pregnant or anticipates being pregnant. Also, the department cannot assign an officer to desk duty because she is pregnant unless she requests it. In addition they cannot force a pregnant woman to go on unpaid leave.

The lawsuit was filed in October 2008 in federal court in Detroit against the department and the City of Detroit. Following the settlement agreement, U. S. District Judge Sean F. Cox on Monday issued an order of dismissal.

Sacramento Employment Discrimination Attorney David Foos and the Pregnancy Discrimination Lawyers of Bowman & Associates have won millions for clients across California. If you or someone you know has legal questions, contact our experienced Sacramento employment law firm for a free consultation, or you can email David Foos directly at dfoos@bowmanandassoc.com.

Still, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume in the state as the judge decides whether his order should be suspended while proponents pursue their appeal. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue. In Wednesday’s ruling, Walker says the ban, “does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”

The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue. “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

His verdict came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 following the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

The ruling put Walker at the forefront of the gay marriage debate. The longtime federal judge was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

Anticipating such a scenario, lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 in 2008 filed a legal brief Tuesday asking Walker to stay his decision if he overturns the ban so same-sex couples could not marry while an appeal was pending.

“Same-sex marriages would be licensed under a cloud of uncertainty, and should proponents succeed on appeal, any such marriages would be invalid,” they wrote.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

In an unusual move, the original defendants, California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court.

“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement released Wednesday. “At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.”

“This ruling is an historic milestone for millions of loving families, for all who have fought torealize the dream of equality under the law, and for our nation as a whole,” Courage Campaign Chairman Rick Jacobs said in a prepared statement Wednesday.

California Assembly Speaker John Perez, who is openly gay, issued a statement Wednesday after the announcement that Proposition 8 was overturned.

“Judge Walker’s thoughtful, eloquent decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a powerful validation of our nation’s tradition of full equality in the eyes of the law. This is a decision which reaffirms the principles and ideals enshrined in our Constitution, and only serves to underscore the fact that recognition of full equality for LGBT Americans is simply a matter of time,” Perez said in a statement.

The Sacramento County Clerk/Recorder’s Office said Wednesday that it would not be issuing same-sex marriage licenses until it gets further clarification from counsel.

Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.”

The Folsom Family Law Attorneys of Bowman & Associates have over 30 years of experience. If you or someone you know has legal questions, contact our experienced Folsom Law Firm for a free consultation. You can speak to a lawyer today!

This story is from the Associated Press.

This distinction isn’t just handed out to anyone. The peer nominated and independently researched candidates are hand picked by the legal experts of SuperLawyers.com.

Our congratulations to Robert and the team at Bowman & Associates for their continued hard work helping clients across California! Keep up the good work…