Skip to main content
Niranjan Fred Thiagarajah
Avvo
Pro

Niranjan Thiagarajah’s Legal Cases

197 total


  • People v. J.A. (Shoplifting)

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Outcome:
    Case dismissed
    Description:
    Client was accused of shoplifting and confessed to the crime. Client was in the finance industry and her employer performed background checks every three months. Although the evidence was strong, Client could not afford to plead guilty. After extensive negotiations with the DA's office, Fred Thiagarajah managed to get the charge dismissed without Client pleading guilty to anything.
  • People v. H.M. (Sex Crimes)

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Outcome:
    Case dismissed
    Description:
    Client had previously been convicted of a sex crime where he was required to register as a sex offender for life. Client was then arrested for failure to register as a sex offender. Client hired Fred Thiagarajah who knew the prosecutor assigned to the case. Mr. Thiagarajah negotiated a deal with the prosecutor before charges were even filed and on the day of the client's arraignment, the case was dismissed.
  • People v. K.K. (Drunk in Public)

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Oct 03, 2011
    Outcome:
    Convinced the DA's office not to file charges
    Description:
    Client was under 21 and walking home from a fraternity party when he was stopped by the police and arrested for being drunk in public. Fred Thiagarajah agreed to handle the case pro bono and convinced the DA's office not to file charges.
  • People v. A.L. (Assault) (Motion to Sever)

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    May 24, 2011
    Outcome:
    Charges dismissed
    Description:
    Client was accused of assault and battery in a group fight along with three other co-defendants. Most of the evidence was against the co-defendants, but because Client was part of the same group, that evidence still put her in a bad light. Fred Thiagarajah prepared and filed a motion to sever his client's case from the other defendants. After reviewing his motion, the prosecutor not only conceded the motion, but then immediately dismissed the case against the Client because they didn't think they could prove the case without the other co-defendants.
  • In re B.Y. (Felony DUI) (DMV Hearing)

    Practice Area:
    Administrative Law
    Date:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Outcome:
    Won the DMV Hearing
    Description:
    Client was driving under the influence and involved in a major accident where multiple people died. Fred Thiagarajah subpoenaed the investigating officer to the DMV hearing and cross-examined him extensively. The hearing lasted three days and based on Fred Thiagarajah’s grueling cross-examination, the DMV dismissed their case.
  • P.K. v. J.W. (Restraining Order Hearing)

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jun 01, 2012
    Outcome:
    Client prevailed
    Description:
    Fred Thiagarajah successfully defended JW in a restraining order hearing. JW was fighting PK's teenage son. PK tried to pull JW off his son and JW punched PK hard enough to knock out his tooth. The police were called and JW was arrested and cited with battery on both PK and PK's son. Even though the police arrested JW, PK sought a civil restraining order against JW. At the restraining order hearing, Fred Thiagarajah aggressively cross-examined PK and proved that PK was the aggressor and JW was acting in self-defense. Restraining order was denied.
  • People v. A.H. (Assault & Battery) (Jury Trial)

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jan 09, 2012
    Outcome:
    Dismissal of All Charges
    Description:
    Client was a union leader participating in a strike. There was a major altercation between employees who wanted to strike and those who wanted to work. Client was accused of assault and battery against three separate "victims". The prosecutor was willing to reduce the charges to disturbing the peace since Client didn't have a criminal record, but Client insisted that she was innocent. Fred Thiagarajah forced the case to trial. A week before the trial, the prosecutor called Mr. Thiagarajah to discuss the case and Mr. Thiagarajah pointed out all the holes in the prosecution's case. On the first day of jury trial, the prosecutor dismissed all charges.
  • People v. C.D. (Possession of Deadly Weapons)

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jul 09, 2012
    Outcome:
    Convinced City Attorney not to file charges
    Description:
    Client had ninja throwing stars in his backpack when he went through the metal detector at LAX.
  • People v. T.B. (2nd DUI)

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Mar 09, 2012
    Outcome:
    Negotiated Plea
    Description:
    Client was charged with a second DUI. The initial offer by the City Attorney was 23 days jail in addition to the standard terms for a second DUI. We negotiated the jail time down from 23 days to 4 days, and Client was allowed to serve those 4 days as back-to-back weekends at a private jail.
  • People v. P.C. (Theft)

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Aug 06, 2012
    Outcome:
    Dismissal of all charges
    Description:
    Charges -- 3 counts of Penal Code section 488 (petty theft) and 1 count of Penal Code section 496 (possession of stolen property) Facts -- Client embezzled merchandise from the store he was working for on three separate occasions; total value of stolen items was just under $1000 Initial Offer -- 3 years probation, 10 days jail

Disclaimer

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. The outcome of each legal case depends upon many factors, including the facts of the case, and no attorney can guarantee a positive result in any particular case. The attorneys at the Law Offices of Fred Thiagarajah make no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about the outcome of your legal case. We also make no representations that the quality of legal work to be performed is greater than the quality of legal work performed by other lawyers. Our prior results, including successful trials and settlements, do not guarantee a similar outcome.