On July 24th, 2014, our clients (“Plaintiffs”) submitted her engagement diamond to be graded and inscribed (for insurance purpose) to the world’s most trusted diamond grading expert, directly to their headquarter located in Carlsbad, California. They would have been better off not paying for their grading services, and going to another gem lab. It has now been one year to the date and not only has the Gemological Institute of America (“GIA”) withheld their diamond for the past year; GIA has now found themselves in two bicoastal lawsuits. Our clients have also had an extremely complicated litigation that has taken them from California to New York and is still nowhere to be finished.
After submitting their diamond for grading to GIA, Plaintif...
A noncitizen who pleads guilty to California illicit substance charges is likely to stoke a conflict between federal immigration laws and California criminal law as it relates to whether a guilty plea will implicate the possibility of a noncitizen being deported or simply subjected to a host of federal immigration law consequences. To say the least, this makes for a rather unpredictable situation.
Recently, drug-based offenses have been a powerful tool in the deportation of non-citizens, but a proposed California law is seeking to change that by offering relief to noncitizens charged with minor drug crimes.
California State ...
Have you been ordered removed and reentered the U.S. without inspection? Read this blog and contact San Diego Immigration Lawyer, Omid Rejali, Esq. for a free evaluation of your case.
Under INA §212(a)(9)(A)(i) Persons who have been ordered removed (through expedited removal or through removal proceedings initiated at the time of the person’s arrival in U.S.) after April, 1, 1997, and who seek admission within 5 years (or 20 years if second or subsequent removal, or at anytime if convicted of an aggravated felony) are inadmissible, unless prior admission has been granted to them.
A person who is barred from admission under INA §212(a)(9)(A) may apply for readmission prior to the period of inadmissibility by seeking a waiver. A waiver is a formal request fr...
Suppression of Evidence under Penal Code Section 1538.5(a)(1)
Under Penal Code Section 1538.5(a)(1), a defendant may move for the return of property or to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of a search or seizure on any of the following grounds:
A warrantless search or seizure was unreasonable;
A search or seizure with a warrant was unreasonable because:
a. The warrant is insufficient on its face;
b. The property or evidence obtained is not that described in the warrant;
c. There was not probable cause for issuing the warrant;
d. The method of execution of the warrant violated federal or state...
There has long been confusion among the legal community as to the application of California Rules of Court 3.1320(j) and California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 471.5(a)as they relate to the time a defendant has to respond to a complaint following the courts decision to sustain its demurrer.
California Rules of Court 3.1320(j) states: Unless otherwise ordered, defendant has 10 days to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint or the remaining causes of action following: