Stay updated with the latest legal news, expert analysis, and firm updates from KAASS LAW.
Whether you're facing a legal challenge or seeking proactive counsel, our award-winning team is ready to defend your interests.
According to California Product Liability Laws, any person who designs, produces or sells a defective product is strictly liable for the damages by the product. This will further explain the following in motorcycle parts product liability.
Generally, a plaintiff must be able to establish the following elements, to prevail on a claim for products liability in California,
Under the strict liability law, it is not a requirement for the plaintiff to demonstrate the defendant’s negligence. Under the law, if the plaintiff got any injuries as a result of the defendant, then the defendant is labile for the injuries, with or without negligence.
There are essentially three types of claims under strict product liability:
In manufacturing defect claims, if you can compare the product in question with another product in the same line within the manufacturer, the product falls into manufacturing defect claim. So, the product presented a harm which actually was a result of the manufacturing defects.
If the plaintiff asserts that the defect is in all the same product line, then it falls under design defect claims. In California, there are two test in defective design product liability claims:
According to this test, after the plaintiff shows that the defective product design caused the injuries, the burden of proof completely shifts to the defendant. The defendant must prove that the utility of the defective product design outweighs the risk of the design and in case he fails to do that, then the plaintiff will win the case.
According to this test a product’s design will be considered defective in case it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect it to perform.
According to California strict product liability, a defendant who is aware that the consumer is using the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner that exposes him to a risk of injuries is obliged to warn the consumer of the risk of injury or harm. The defendant can be liable for a failure to warn when such failure to change the outcome. So, in case a typical consumer is aware of the risk of injuries or harm on his own, then the defendant can’t be found liable for failing to warn of an already-known hazard. Get in touch with our Los Angeles motorcycle accident attorneys for more information and a free consultation! [contact-form][contact-field label="Name" type="name" required="true" /][contact-field label="Email" type="email" required="true" /][contact-field label="Website" type="url" /][contact-field label="Message" type="textarea" /][/contact-form]
In California malicious prosecution is a civil cause of action aimed to go after individuals who file frivolous lawsuits and cause damages as a result. Malicious prosecution claims are having a chilling effect on an ordinary citizen’s readiness to bring a dispute to the court, and are often characterized as a “disfavored cause of action.”
An injured person must be able to prove all the elements for this claim. Failing to prove any one of the elements of this cause of action will result in a loss at trial.
According to CACI 1501 to prove a claim of malicious prosecution the plaintiff must be able to show the following:
Defamation involves a false statement made by one person about another person which causes harm to a person’s property, profession, business, or occupation.
The plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish a defamation claim in California:
Defamatory statements are made using two methods: slander or libel
Intentional interference with economic relations is an unfair business practice in California which includes three types of actions:
Elements of a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations According to CACI 2201, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:
In California, victims who suffer emotional distress as a result of another person’s conduct can file a lawsuit for the intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. There is no need that a victim suffers a physical injury.
The plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements for a successful claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress:
Under California law, outrageous behavior means that the conduct is so extreme that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency. Conduct is considered outrageous when a reasonable person finds the behavior uncivilized, goes beyond minor annoyances and poor manners that must be anticipated in day-to-day activities. As defined by CA case law, outrageous conduct can be shown in different ways including showing a pattern of behavior and not just an isolated incident, abusing the position of authority, using the victim’s vulnerability to emotional distress, or acting with knowledge that the conduct would likely cause emotional distress.
Wrongful termination occurs when an employment relationship is ended by an employer in violation of the employee’s legal rights.
In California, wrongful termination claims can arise when an employer violates a federal or state statute, the worker’s employment contract, general principles of public policy, or some other aspect of the law.
The majority of employees in California are considered to be “at-will” employees. This means the employees are free to end the employment relationship at any time they want and likewise the employers are free to fire them at any time for any legal reason, or even without any reason. Employment is presumed to be at-will, in case there is no specific contractual relationship between the employee and employer which bounds the employer from firing the employee.
Not all employees are considered at-will and some of them have contracts which limit the employer’s ability to fire them without a reason. For example, when the employee is hired for a specific period of time, but the contract doesn’t specify the circumstances under which the employee can be terminated, he can only be fired under the following circumstances:
Bribery is an act of offering giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value for the purpose of influencing the acts of a public official in discharge of his legal or public duties.
Defendant is guilty of bribing a public official in case he directly or indirectly gives or promises to give something of value to the public official with intention to corruptly influence the public official to omit or perform an official act in violation of the official’s public duty. Corrupt action is any intentionally performed action with an illegal purpose. Public official is any officer, agent or employee of the US or any agency, department, or branch of the federal government who is acting in an official capacity. For the purposes of this crime jurors sitting on a federal jury will also fall within the definition of the public official. According to 18 U.S.C. § 201(a) official act is any action or decision that may be brought before a public official in his official capacity.
Defendant is guilty of providing illegal gratuity to a public official in case he directly or indirectly offers or gives something of value to a public official because of an official act performed by the public official. For proving the violation the prosecutor must establish that there is a relationship between the “something of value” and the official act for which it was conferred. Defendant is guilty of bribery of a bank officer in case he offers or gives something of value to a bank officer with intention of influencing the bank officer and in connection with a business transaction. Bank officer is any director, agent, employee, or other office of a financial institution.
Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 371 criminalizes both conspiracies to defraud the US as well as conspiracies to violate any other provision of federal law. According to the statute it is illegal for two or more persons to conspire either for committing an offense against the US, or to defraud the United States, or any agency in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of these persons act in a way that furthers the conspiracy.
The prosecution must establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt for convicting the defendant in violation of 18 U.S.C Section 371
For the purposes of this statute term “to defraud” in the United States means:
According to 18 USC Section 1001 it is illegal to knowingly and willfully making any materially fictitious, false, or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, judicial and legislative branch of the United States.
The government must be able to establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt for convicting the defendant under 18 USC 1001.
In the context of 18 USC 1001 a statement, can be either be in writing or oral. The representation or statement is not a requirement to be a legal mandate or be under oath to violate 18 USC Section 1001. It also doesn’t have to receive by the government or made directly to the government.
Under Federal Health Care Fraud, per 18 US Code Section 1347 it is prohibited to knowingly and willfully execute, or attempt to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud any health care benefit program; or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit program.
The prosecutor must establish the following elements to convict the defendant under Federal Health Care Fraud US Code Section 1347:
According to 18 US Code Section 1347, an attempt to commit health care fraud is punishable to the same extent as the commission of fraud. An “attempt” is consist of intention to commit illegal conduct and a “substantial step” toward its commission.
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/output_HD720.mp4"][/video] Do you feel as though you or a loved one have been a victim of malicious prosecution in California? KAASS Law would be happy to take a look into your situation to see what we can do to help you out. Give us a call now at (310) 943-1171 or get in touch by filling out the form below. [contact-form-7 id="5673" title="KAASS LAW Contact Form"]
A statement is a defamation per se in case there is no need for extrinsic evidence to explain the statement's defamatory nature. A plaintiff doesn’t need to show special damages as damages to the plaintiff's trade, business, property, profession or occupation if the statement is defamation per se.
Defamation per quod means that the statement is not defamatory on its face and requires proof and allegations of special damages. Examples of special damages can include lost profits and adverse employment consequences.
According to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, when a public figure brings an action for defamation, in addition to all mentioned elements, he should also prove that the statement was made with actual malice. Thus, the public figure must prove that the person who made the defamatory statement knew that is was false. Here are some examples of a public figure under California law:
There are different types of compensation available to the victims, who win defamation lawsuits. These include:
There are several defenses available in defamation cases. Here are some of them:
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Defamation-claim-in-California.mp4"][/video] Do you have any additional questions or concerns regarding defamation claims in California? Get in touch with KAASS Law for more information now.
The claim of intentional interference with contractual relations requires the existence of an underlying enforceable contract. In case there is no contract or the contract is unenforceable, then the plaintiff will have a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage.
Elements of a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage According to CACI 2202, The plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:
Though generally, a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage includes the defendant’s interference with a prospective contract, liability can be based on interference with any economic relationship containing a probability of future benefits to the plaintiff, including interference with any lawful trade, business, or occupation. Some common examples of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage include conduct constituting libel fraud, or misappropriation of trade secrets.
Elements of a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage According to CACI 2204, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:
Damages for interference with economic relations can include recovery for all resulting harm, including expenses, damage to business reputation, mental distress. The victim can also recover punitive damages in case the defendant acted with fraud, malice, or oppression. [video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/output_HD7202.mp4"][/video]
Severe emotional distress means that the distress is so lasting or substantial that no reasonable person could be expected to bear it. It includes highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as shame, fright, worry, grief or anger.
Unexpected accidents may cause life-altering physical injuries, disabilities to people or make a victim suffer from emotional distress. A victim can be entitled to recover compensation in case another person’s negligent conduct has caused him to suffer from emotional distress.
The plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements for a successful claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress:
Negligence takes place when one person has and breaches a duty of care that he owes to another person. A victim must be able to establish the following elements to prove the negligence.
In California law, a bystander who witnesses an accident when another person is injured or killed, may also be able to recover damages for emotional distress. The bystander must be able to prove the following elements for a successful claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress:
Some examples of situations when a bystander can be eligible for monetary damages
Are you in need of legal assistance regarding emotional distress? Our litigation attorneys in California can provide you with services involved with personal injury, employment law, and many other practice areas of law. No need to fight a battle on your own. Get in touch right away to find out how KAASS Law can help you!
These types of employment contracts can be entered into in writing or verbally, but it must be specified that the agreement is for a set period of time.
Exceptions to “at-will” employment give to allow the employees to sue their employers for wrongful termination.
Even though employers can fire at-will employee for seemingly arbitrary reasons, they are still prohibited from terminating employees for illegal reasons. According to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, it is illegal for employers to discriminate in employment decisions on the basis of the following factors:
In case the decision to terminate the employee was motivated by any of the above-mentioned reasons, the termination is unlawful under the law. Employees that have become the victims of wrongful termination have the right to file a lawsuit against their former employers and seek monetary damages.
According to the law, wronged employees can recover:
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Wrongful-Termination.mp4"][/video] Are you in need of additional information about wrongful termination in California? Our employment law attorneys in Los Angeles at KAASS Law should be able to answer and specific questions that you have. Feel free to get in touch with us anytime at (310) 943-1171 or fill out the form below. [contact-form-7 id="5673" title="KAASS LAW Contact Form"]
For convicting the defendant the prosecution must prove beyond the reasonable doubt all elements of crime. In case there is a lack of evidence proving the defendant’s fault he can’t be found guilty of federal bribery.
In federal bribery cases, the prosecutor must establish that the defendant had the criminal intent to commit the crime. One of the most difficult areas of the government’s case is proving intent, and if the defendant can present arguments and evidence to show that he did not possess the intent to commit the alleged criminal activity, he won’t be found guilty of this crime. Penalties for Federal Bribery Penalties for violating 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)
Penalties for violating 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A):
Penalties for violating 18 U.S.C. §215(a) (1): If the amount of the “something of value” offered or provided to the bank officer is more than $1000, the penalties are the following:
If the amount of the “something of value” is less than $1,000, the defendant will receive up to one year in federal prison and fines.
The prosecution must establish that the defendant had some knowledge of the conspiracy’s objectives. But for being considered a participant in a conspiracy defendant doesn’t have to know about every objective of the conspiracy, or be aware of the identities of other conspirators. Overt Act is any act or statement that is knowingly done by one or more conspirators with intention to further the aim of the conspiracy. It is important to mention that a conviction for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C Section 371does not necessarily require underlying criminal act to be completed.
According to 18 U.S. Code 371, for being found guilty defendant must intend to agree, and have intention to commit the crime. A forced agreement made under threat or duress or is not enough for convicting the defendant.
According to 18 U.S. Code 371 there must be an overt act to further the conspiracy. So if a conspiracy agreement was found, but no act was made to further the alleged agreement, defendant should not be convicted of federal conspiracy. Penalties for violating 18 U.S.C Section 371
In the context of 18 USC Section 1001 charge, willfulness means that the defendant intentionally and voluntarily provided facts that were incorrect. Untrue statements or incorrect facts provided result of misunderstanding, confusion, honest mistakes, or faulty recollection don’t rise to the level of willfulness.
Prosecution for a violation of 18 USC Section 1001 requires proof of materiality. The statement or representation must have a tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing the decision making body to which it is addressed. There is no requirement to prove that the decision maker body was in fact of influence or diversion.
Jurisdictional element means that the government must establish that the false statement or representation is in regard to a matter within the US government’s jurisdiction. Courts have given broad interpretation to “jurisdiction” in this context to mean any area where the government has power to act or enforce regulations. Jurisdiction includes the healthcare, economy, education, and many other areas.
It is a valid defense if the defendant made a false statement because of an honest mistake, or confusion. A simple misunderstanding can also be a defense.
The defense challenges whether a statement or representation is relevant or important enough for being considered material to a federal matter. A defense also applies when the false statement is not made within the government’s jurisdiction or to a government agent. The penalties for violation 18 USC Section 1001
To be found guilty of health care fraud under 18 US Code Section 1347, it is necessary to knowingly and willfully execute an illegal scheme. While presenting proof of actual knowledge is one way that the prosecution can get a conviction, sometimes, constructive knowledge can be enough to establish criminal culpability for health care fraud. In case the defendant was aware of a high potential for fraudulent conduct and took steps to intentionally avoid learning about it, in some cases this can be enough to establish knowledge.
18 US Code Section 1347 applies to fraud targeting all health care benefit programs. According to 18 US Code Section 24(b), a “health care benefit program” is any public or private plan or contract, affecting commerce, under which any medical benefit, item, or service is provided to any individual, and includes any individual or entity who is providing a medical benefit, item, or service for which payment may be made under the plan or contract.
Health care fraud covers many white collar crimes and it can include the following types of conduct:
18 U.S. Code Section 1347 imposes severe penalties for health care fraud. The penalties are the following:
If the fraudulent actions resulted in serious bodily injury the defendant can face of up to 20 years in federal prison. If the fraud resulted in death the defendant can face a life sentence.
Contact the criminal defense attorneys at KAASS LAW if you or a loved one has been arrested for Federal Heath Care Fraud charges. Call (310) 943-1171 or set up an appointment to set up a free consultation with a Federal health care fraud attorney.