You should file an appeal within 20 days of the agency’s decision.  The appeal should concisely outline all relevant facts.  If you know case law or statutory authority to support your argument, those should be included as well, but they aren’t relevant.

If you would like more information about filing a FOIA appeal, you should contact our firm to discuss your options today.  We always offer free initial evaluations, and we are happy to discuss your particular situation with you.

1.   Immigration Status. Although aliens are not entitled to unemployment benefits, an exception arises when the alien is a permanent resident or lawfully admitted to the United States to work.   Unemployment Insurance Code §1264.

2.   Strikers. An employee is ineligible for unemployment benefits as long as he or she is striking, and voluntarily refusing to work.  Unemployment Insurance Code §1262.

3.   Employee is Receiving Disability through Workers’ Compensation Benefits. If an individual is receiving temporary total disability through a workers’ compensation injury, then they are not entitled to additional benefits through unemployment.   Unemployment Insurance Code §1255.5.

4.   Employee is Convicted of Making False Statements. If an individual is convicted of making false statements (including using a false name or social security number) in order to receive benefits, they are not entitled to benefits beginning the week the criminal complaint was filed and lasting an additional 51 weeks.  Unemployment Insurance Code §1263.

5.   Employee Voluntarily Quit. If an employee leaves his or her job voluntarily and without good cause, the employee is not entitled to unemployment benefits.  Unemployment Insurance Code §1256.

6.   Employee was Discharged for Misconduct. In order for an employee’s unemployment benefits to be barred for misconduct, the action must show willful and wanton disregard for the employer’s interests, and the employee must have had some sort of material duty to the employer that was breached.   Unemployment Insurance Code §1256.  The misconduct standard is a very high one to reach.  Mere inefficiency, ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion do not rise to the level of barring unemployment benefits. Rowe v. Hansen, 41 Cal. App. 3d 512.

If you have been denied unemployment benefits, you should speak with an experienced employment law attorney right away.   You have a right to appeal the denial of your benefits, but there are strict time limits involved.  The attorneys and counselors at Deering & Valle are here to assist you and to help you get the benefits that you deserve.  Our initial consultations are always free.  Contact us to schedule your evaluation today so that we may begin working on your case right away.

Under California Vehicle Code §23612, the mere operation of a vehicle indicates that you have given “implied consent” to either a breathalyzer or chemical testing.  Refusing to be tested for drugs or alcohol will result in a “refusal enhancement,” which is an additional charge on top of your DUI.   However, if you refuse the initial breathalyzer at the scene, but do submit to the blood test at a hospital or a police station, this is not considered to be a refusal enhancement.

An arresting officer is required to inform you that refusal of the DUI test will result in a license suspension.  Punishment for a DUI refusal enhancement varies depends on your history of failing to submit to the test.

• 1st Offense:  Up to 48 hours of jail time, 1 year license suspension
• 2nd Offense:  Up to 96 hours of jail time, 2 year license suspension
• 3rd Offense:  Up to 10 days of jail time, 3 year license suspension

It’s important to note that DUI refusal enhancement charges are in addition to any charges from the DUI.

If you have been charged with a DUI or a DUI refusal enhancement, you should speak with an experienced DUI lawyer as soon as possible.  The attorneys and counselors at Deering & Valle are here to assist you with aggressive defense of your case.   Our attorneys work on flat rates for all DUI and traffic cases.   Contact us today to schedule your free initial consultation so that we can get started defending your rights as soon as possible.

Ordinarily, you cannot recover temporary disability payments for the first 3 days of your disability.  Labor Code §4652.  This is often referred to as the “waiting period” for temporary disability.   If your employer paid your full wages on the date of your injury, then this date is not included in the 3 day waiting period.

However, with every rule there are always exceptions, and workers’ compensations laws are no different.   The 3 day waiting period does not apply if:

• The temporary disability continues for more than 14 days.  Labor Code §4652.
• The employee requires inpatient hospitalization. Labor Code §4652.
• The employee is a qualifying state employee and the disability results from a criminally violent act.  Labor Code §4650.5 and 4652.

If your injury causes disability for more than 14 days, then the employer (or insurance company) must go back and retroactively pay lost wages for the 3 day waiting period.  Labor Code §4652.

If you have questions about whether your injury qualifies for the 3 day waiting period for temporary disability benefits, you should speak with an experienced workers’ compensation lawyer.  The attorneys and counselors at Deering & Valle are here to help you navigate the red tape that is often associated with the California workers’ compensation system.   There is no out of pocket cost for our legal services — if we do not collect for you, you do not pay.   Contact us today for your free legal consultation so that we can get starting fighting for your benefits as soon as possible.

• The patient must have a serious medical condition for which medical marijuana is appropriate, such as:  AIDS, cachexia, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, migraines, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, severe nausea, or other other medical condition that limits the ability of the patient to conduct major life activities.
• The patient must be a resident of the county where he or she applies for the MMP and be able to supply proof of residency.
• The patient must show valid photo identification.
• The patient must have written documentation in his or her medical records stating that because of a serious medical condition, medical marijuana is appropriate.
• The patient must complete a MMP application.
• The county program will take a photo of you to place on your identification card.
• The patient must pay the application fee, which varies by county of residence.

The medical marijuana card is valid for one year.  After that time, the patient must return to his or her physician and begin the process all over from scratch.   The only way to renew a medicinal marijuana card is to repeat the entire application process.

Without a medical marijuana card, possession of over 1 oz. of marijuana is a crime under Health & Safety Code §11350 and/or §11377.    Possession of less than 1 oz. of marijuana has been decriminalized since 2010, and thus is no longer a misdemeanor.    Instead, possession of such a small amount of marijuana is now an infraction only, with no jail time attached.   These infractions are punished with a maximum $100 fine, and are treated more like a traffic ticket.  Possession of larger amounts of marijuana can be treated as misdemeanors or felonies depending upon the amount of marijuana in possession at the time of the arrest.

If you have any questions about California’s Medical Marijuana Program or about criminal marijuana charges, you should speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer today.  The attorneys and counselors at Deering & Valle, LLP are available to answer your questions during a free evaluation.  Contact us to schedule your consultation today.

In U.S.v. Kent, the defendant was indicted for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), and 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) after he delivered cocaine to an FBI source.   The government did not initially file an information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 alleging Kent’s prior felony convictions.  Without the allegations of prior felonies, the defendant faced 5 to 40 years in prison, but with the prior felonies, Kent’s possible sentence was increased to 10 years and life imprisonment.

Kent’s attorney discussed possible plea bargains with the prosecuting attorney from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.   The U.S. Attorney wanted Kent’s participation as an informant, and Kent was informed that if he pushed his case toward trial, a § 851 information would be filed against him.   Kent asked if the § 851 information would be filed against him if refused to be an informant and instead plead guilty to the charges against him.   The U.S. Attorney responded that he believed his office would not pursue the § 851.

At the next hearing in the matter, Kent’s attorney attempted to plead guilty to the original charges, and at the same hearing the U.S. Attorney filed the § 851 information requesting the enhanced charges.

The matter was appealed.   The 9th Circuit relied on United States v. Simpson which stated that “judges exercise substantial discretion over what happens inside the courtroom.”  927 F.2d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 1991).  When considering decisions such as accepting the filing of a document, the Court’s standard of review is for abuse of discretion.   Ultimately, the Court held that the judge’s decision to allow in-court filing of the § 851 information was permissible.

In regard to whether the prosecuting attorney acted with permissible vindictiveness when enhancing the charges, the Court applied a de novo standard of review.  Prior cases held that “vindictiveness will not be presumed simply from the fact that a more severe charge followed on, or even resulted from, the defendant’s exercise of a right.” U.S. v. Gamez-Orduno, 235 F.3d 453, 462 (9th Cir. 2000).  Kent argued that vindictiveness should be presumed because the § 851 information immediately followed his choice to enter an unconditional guilty plea.  The Court disagreed with Kent’s argument and instead stated that prosecutors may add pretrial charges for a number of permissible reasons, and the prosecutor is given deference in his or her decisions to do so.

What impact does this decision have on criminal cases? Now it is entirely possible for district attorneys and prosecutors to enhance criminal charges until the court enters a guilty plea.   Criminal defense attorneys must work closely with their clients to ensure that he or she is fully aware of any enhancements to their current charges, and the likelihood of the prosecuting attorney to actually proceed down that route.

If you or a loved one have been accused of a crime, you should speak with an experienced and knowledgeable criminal defense lawyer.  The attorneys at Deering & Valle can assist you in navigating the complexities of the criminal court system.  Our initial evaluations are always free, so contact us today to schedule your consultation.

Typical non-compete clauses restrict the employee’s ability to find employment in a similar field.  Some clauses impose geographical limits such as 50 to 100 miles, and others expand to the entire state.   It is also typical for non-compete clauses to also have time limits ranging from six months to several years.

In California, there is a strong public policy in favor of open competition on the job market.  Thus, noncompete clauses are prohibited under Business & Professions Code §16600.   Specifically, “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”   According to the California Supreme Court, even narrowly-drawn noncompete clauses are unenforceable.  Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937, 948.

Although Bus. & Prof. Code §16600 clearly states that the contract is void, it should be noted that most contracts will have severability clauses.  These clauses are drafted in anticipation of cases such as this one where one more more clauses are judicially determined to be unenforceable.  The severability clause generally allows for the nonenforceable contract provision to be stricken, while the rest of the contract will continue to stand as written.

There are very limited exceptions to California’s prohibition on non-compete clauses.  If the noncompete clause is narrowly written to protect trade secrets, and it is necessary for the employer to utilize this type of agreement in order to protect its trade secrets, then the noncompete clause may be enforceable.  Muggill v Reuben H. Donnelley Corp., 62 C2d 239, 242 (1965).  However, these exceptions are limited because trade secrets are already afforded protection under unfair competition laws.

If you have questions about the enforceability of noncompete clauses, you should speak with an experienced employment law lawyer.  The attorneys and counselors at Deering & Valle can assist you in determining your rights under your employment agreement, and how to best protect your interests.  Our initial evaluations are always free.  Please contact our office today to schedule your consultation.

The purpose of the arraignment is to inform an individual of the charges against them and to allow them to enter a plea. It is important to have an experienced California criminal lawyer represent you throughout the entire criminal process, including arraignment.

Along with being informed of the charges against them, an individual will be given an opportunity to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Normally, judges will provide individuals with indicated sentences prior to allowing an individual to enter a plea. An indicated sentence is the sentence the Judge would impose if an individual were to plead guilty to the charges at the time of the arraignment.

If you are not represented by a criminal attorney at the time of the arraignment it is a good idea to either ask for a continuance in order to obtain counsel or to enter a plea of not guilty.  After pleading not guilty, the court will ask an an unrepresented individual if they wish to represent themselves or seek counsel.

Another advantage to having counsel at the time of your arraignment is that for most misdemeanors your attorney can appear at the arraignment without you having to appear at court.  After the arraignment proceedings your case will be set for its next court date. Normally matters must be set for trial within a certain time period after arraignment, but the reality is that most matters are not set for trial after the arraignment. During and after the arraignment hearing an experienced criminal attorney can ensure that your rights are protected.

For more information about California arraignment hearings, or to discuss your criminal case confidentially with one of our highly-skilled criminal defense attorneys, please contact us today. Se habla Espanol.

When EDD issues its Notice of Determination, you are given 20 days to appeal the decision.  EDD will mail you the proper appeals forms when it issues its Notice of Determination.

The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) website has a video that walks you through the unemployment appeals hearing.  Your “real life” hearing will be very similar to that shown on the video.

Your appeal with CUIAB will be held in front of an administrative law judges (ALJ).  Proceedings at the CUIAB are less formal than a hearing at your local superior court.  The ALJ will begin by reciting all the information about the hearing, such as the case numbers and the reason for the appeal.  Although each judge is different, many ALJs will begin by asking questions of the employee first, and then allow the other side to ask any relevant follow up questions.  If there are any other witnesses at the proceeding, the ALJ will likely follow this same procedure for those witnesses as well.  After both parties have been allowed to speak, then the ALJ will allow both parties to give their “closing arguments.”   This should be a short restatement of the facts and how it directly applies to the appeal.  Long-winded statements that bring up irrelevant points should be avoided.

After the hearing, the ALJ will issue a written decision.  The decision will also include information about filing an appeal to CUIAB with a panel of ADJs who will review the original ALJ’s ruling.

Do you need an attorney? Most people do not have an attorney present, but you are able to have an attorney present if you wish.   An attorney can help you present your case in a concise manner to the judge, which is often very beneficial to the process.

Does CUIAB provide interpreters? Yes.   If your Notice of Hearing does not state that an interpreter will be present, you should contact CUIAB at the phone number listed on your notice to advise them that you will need an interpreter to be present.  Do not wait until the date of the hearing to notify someone that you need an interpreter to be present.

Do I need to bring evidence? Yes.  If you have written evidence or a witness that supports your side of the story, you should provide this information to the court.  Oftentimes these hearing become a “he said, she said” in terms of issues such as voluntary quit or last day of work.  Having evidence in support of your version of events will aid the ALJ in seeing your side of the story more clearly.

Should I tell the ADJ about how stressed out my boss made me and how difficult it was to work at my job? No.  The ALJ has to hear several other cases the morning of the hearing.  It is best to stay on the judge’s “good side” by sticking to the facts that are relevant to your claim.  The judge only wants to hear things that directly relate to your argument.  Being direct and to the point allows the judge to see a clear picture of your claim and your arguments in regard to your appeal.

My boss is lying to the judge.  Should I say something to her? Under no circumstances should you ever address anyone but the ALJ during your hearing.  Your remarks should only be addressed to the judge.  Even if you know that someone is lying through their teeth and you want to shout it from the rooftops, you should resist the urge.  Every side is given an opportunity to speak and ask questions of one another.  You may use your time period for questioning to address any discrepancies in the other side’s testimony.  Being respectful to the other side – and the ALJ – goes a long way in this type of proceeding, so do your best to remain professional and courteous to everyone involved in the proceeding.

If you have an unemployment appeal and you would like to speak with an experienced employment law attorney about your case, please contact Deering & Valle right away.  Our attorneys are dedicated to helping California’s employees get the benefits they deserve.  We offer affordable, flat rate pricing for all our legal services.  Contact us today to schedule your free initial evaluation with one of our attorneys.

One of the key elements in a California DUI arrest is whether or not you were actually driving a vehicle at the same time that you were drunk.  Thus, if the police didn’t actually observe you driving (i.e., the arresting officer approached your vehicle while you were behind the wheel and the vehicle was idle), depending on the evidence, an experienced California DUI may be able to request that your case be summarily dismissed.

In California, an adult who drives with a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .08% or above may be charged with a DUI.  For California drivers under the age of 21, California law sets the BAC limit at .01%.  Chemical testing in California DUI cases involves the testing of bodily fluids, such as breath, blood or urine.  The results of these tests are usually a crucial part of the prosecutor’s DUI case against you.  Fortunately for individuals accused of DUI in California, a chemical test that indicates a driver was over the legal limit doesn’t necessarily result in an automatic conviction.  If your California DUI attorney can successfully challenge the accuracy of these tests, a judge may rule that the test results are inadmissible at trial.

Chemical testing in California DUI cases is of such importance that if you refuse to take a chemical test, you could face enhanced penalties, such as a longer license suspension, required installation of an ignition interlock device or jail time.  If the arresting police officer fails to advise you of this, the results of the chemical test may be inadmissible in court or in the DMV license suspension hearing.

California also has certain requirements as to how chemical tests must be administered and how the machines are calibrated and maintained.  If your California DUI attorney can prove that the police officer did not comply with these requirements, that the machine was faulty or that the technician was not competent, you may be able to get the test results thrown out.

A lot of breath-testing machines will register any number of foreign chemical compounds in human breath as alcohol.  This includes some types of food, as well as certain non-impairing medications or drugs.  Eating foods or taking drugs within certain time frames prior to the test may result in a false reading.

Depending on certain variables, such as your metabolic rate, stomach contents and drinking patterns, it can take anywhere from 45 minutes to several hours for alcohol to become fully absorbed into your body.  This means that if you “have one more drink for the road,” your California DUI attorney may argue that were not legally impaired while driving, even if a chemical test administered later shows a BAC over the legal limit.

Each and every California DUI case is unique, and in order to determine the best course of action for you to take, it’s important that you immediately discuss your case with an experienced and aggressive California DUI attorney.  At Deering & Valle, LLP, we provide free initial consultations.  After one of our experienced attorneys has a chance to meet with you to fully discuss the facts of your case, our team highly-skilled California DUI attorneys will work closely with you – and within your budget – to resolve your case.  Contact us today to schedule your free initial consultation with one of our experienced and aggressive California DUI attorneys.