litig – Works Rights Compliance Alliance

Works Rights Compliance Alliance

California Sets Precedent: No More Hiding Behind Bogus PEOs – Workers Rights Compliance, Precedent Set: Employers Can’t Outsource Accountability – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Draws the Line: Fraudulent PEO Coverage Doesn’t Cut It – Workers Rights Compliance, New Legal Benchmark: PEO Schemes Won’t Shield Employers – Workers Rights Compliance, Garcias Pallets Case Becomes First-Ever DLSE Precedent – Workers Rights Compliance, Historic First: California Labor Commissioner Issues Precedent Ruling on PEO Fraud – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Makes It Official—No Valid Workers’ Comp, No Excuses – Workers Rights Compliance, Real Coverage for Real Workers: Fraud Won’t Fly in California – Workers Rights Compliance, Workers Deserve Real Protection—Bogus Insurance Doesn’t Count – Workers Rights Compliance, Precedent Protects Workers from Fake Insurance Scams – Workers Rights Compliance, 50+ Workers, No Coverage—California Says Never Again – Workers Rights Compliance, Labor Law Victory: Worker Safety Over Corporate Shell Games – Workers Rights Compliance, $1.3M Lesson: Ignorance of the Law Is No Defense – Workers Rights Compliance, Certificates Can Lie—Employers Are Still on the Hook – Workers Rights Compliance, Fraudulent Coverage = Real Fines – Workers Rights Compliance, The Bill Comes Due: $1.3M in Fines for Workers' Comp Evasion – Workers Rights Compliance, Subcontracting Liability Doesn’t Mean Subcontracting Responsibility – Workers Rights Compliance, A Win for Honest PEOs, a Loss for Cheaters – Workers Rights Compliance, Leveling the Field: Fraudulent Operators Face Real Consequences – Workers Rights Compliance, PEO Accountability Is Here—Honest Brokers Applaud – Workers Rights Compliance, No More Free Ride for Fraudulent PEOs – Workers Rights Compliance, Justice for Legitimate Employers—Fraudsters Pay the Price – Workers Rights Compliance, From CompOne to CompassPilot—The Shell Game Ends Here – Workers Rights Compliance, How a Bogus Insurance Scheme Cost One Company $1.3 Million – Workers Rights Compliance, Unmasking the PEO Scam: California Cracks Down – Workers Rights Compliance, One Employer, Three PEOs, Zero Coverage—The Precedent Tells All – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Precedent Highlights Deep Industry Scams – Workers Rights Compliance, Fake Insurance Certificates Are Not a Defense—They’re a Liability – Workers Rights Compliance, Employers: Verify Your Workers’ Comp Coverage—Before the State Does – Workers Rights Compliance, Don’t Get Burned—Understand Joint Employer Liability Today – Workers Rights Compliance, Legit PEO? Or Just a New Name for the Same Old Scam? – Workers Rights Compliance, Your PEO’s Certificate Might Be Fake—Know the Signs – Workers Rights Compliance, Before You Contract Labor, Read This Precedent Decision – Workers Rights Compliance.

Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase finally !!

From ChaseChase.org:

Federal District Court

Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase, Case No. CV10-8185 ODW

Otis D. Wright II, Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles
Douglas Gillies, attorney for Daryoush Javaheri

Plaintiff sued to halt a foreclosure initiated by JPMorgan Chase and California Reconveyance Co. Chase responded with a Motion to Dismiss. Two times the court granted Chase’s motion with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and Chase again moved to dismiss.

In opposing the motion, Plaintiff requested that the court take judicial notice of:

(1) the Congressional Oversight Panel November Oversight Report (COP Report) released on November 16, 2010 – http://cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-111610-report.pdf

(2) Federal Reserve System Consent Order in the Matter of JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Docket No. 11-023-B-HC and 11- 023-B-DEO, dated April 13, 2011 – www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/enforcement/enf20110413a5.pdf

Judge Wright denied Chase’s motion to dismiss five causes of action – wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, violation of Cal Civ. Code Sec. 2923.5, quasi contract, and declaratory relief.

Second Amended Complaint 4/12/2011
Chase’s Motion to Dismiss SAC 4/28/2011
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 5/16/2011
Request for Judicial Notice 5/16/2011
Chase’s Reply Memorandum 5/23/2011
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss 6/2/2011