We cannot be any
happier today for our client, and to have the pleasure of representing him
against one of the biggest Universities in the country. We look forward to the
trial on this case, which is currently set to begin on September 29, 2017.
This morning San Diego Superior Court ruled that our client’s case against Regents of The University
of California, San Diego, would be heard by a jury. One step closer to
justice for our client against the Universities disgraceful attack on his disabilities.
The name of the case is Jazirian v.
Regents of the University of California San Diego. SDSC Case#: 2016-00007684.
It has been quite some time since I have been wanting to write about this topic. As a disability advocate and one who suffers from a disability, I have found it to be my calling to assist people who are in a similar situation.
As a student in college and later law school I did not receive any type of accommodation, despite having been diagnosed with a mental disability in my junior year of college. Simply put, I was ignorant and did not know anything about ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) or its counterpart the 504 Rehabilitation Act.
Both of these laws are federal laws that were passed by congress to level the playing field for people with disabilities in their use and enjoyments of services that a business offers. In its most broad...
Penal code 1473.7
which went into effect on January 1, 2017 will afford non-citizens a mechanism
to fight conviction obtained against their rights.
The code allows
non-citizens to file motions alleging at least three distinct causes of action
that may be raised independently or together on the basis that: 1) defense
counsel violated the duty to investigate and accurately advise the defendant
about the specific immigration consequences of a plea; 2) defense counsel
failed to defend against immigration consequences of a plea by attempting to
plea bargain for an immigration-safe alternative disposition; and 3) the
defendant failed to meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of a
This law will affect
hundreds of t...
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the NCAA's policy of excluding anyone
with a felony conviction from coaching at NCAA-certified youth athletic
tournaments violates Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
2000a(a). Section 2000a(a) prohibits racial discrimination in places of public
accommodation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the NCAA and
held that even if disparate-impact claims were cognizable under Title II,
plaintiff has not shown that an equally effective, less discriminatory
alternative to the NCAA's felon-exclusion policy exists, as he must do under
the three-step analysis for disparate-impact claims set forth in Wards Cove
Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989). The panel noted that it need not
decide whether to endorse or ...
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled for a green card holder who received faulty immigration advice from an attorney, determining he was able to show prejudice against him since it was reasonable to think he could have avoided deportation through plea negotiations or a trial."
In a 6-2 decision, the high court ruled for a green card holder named Jae Lee, a restaurant owner who has been in the U.S. for 35 years, but who faced the prospect of deportation after his attorney incorrectly told him his plea for a drug crime wouldn’t result in removal.
Lee, a lawful permanent resident from South Korea, came to the U.S. in 1982 when he was 13, and as an adult he went on to operate two restaurants near Memphis, Tennessee. But h...