First, this is an educational forum. We not allowed to solicit clients.
Second, look on AVVO, Google, or contact the Los Angeles County Bar for referrals.
Third, speak with directly attorneys, who have experience in this area. See my case, Carter v. Cohen, 188 Cal. App. 4th 1038 (2010). Most provide free consultations.See question
If you paid rent, you are a tenant and your parents cannot evict you without notice and filing an unlawful detainer in court.(Your sexuality is irrelevant.) Further, there is currently an eviction moratorium in the City of Los Angeles for evictions with very limited exceptions. You should have a claim for wrongful eviction.
You should immediately contact the Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department and file a complaint for wrongful eviction.
You should also contact the local police. Some officers will tell your parents to let you back in, others will only help you retrieve your belongings, and others will tell you it is a civil matter.See question
Those letters sound like law firms offering to represent you.
I would notify your insurance carrier of the claim. You should be able to download a copy of the complaint for the Los Angeles Superior Court Website after using a defendant case name search.See question
Check with the California State Contractor's Licensing Board to see if your contractor is licensed. If not, you may wish to consider suing for negligence, breach of contract and violation of Business and Professions Code 7031(a) and (b), which are very powerful if they apply. Under section 7031(a), an unlicensed contractor cannot sue to recover any money under law or equity for services and/or materials provided. Thus, the unlicensed contractor should not be able to recover the unpaid balance of the contract from you on a cross-complaint. In addition, under section 7031(b), an unlicensed contractor must return all money paid, even if they did a good job. In addition, the court will have discretion to award treble damages up to $10,000.00 and reasonable attorney's fees. Finally, you may also wish to file a complaint with the California State Contractor's Licensing Board. They may help you mediate your dispute with the unlicensed contractor.See question
You have employment claims for unpaid overtime, failure to provide wage statements, and misclassification. There may also be a failure to pay minimum wage. You should speak with an employment attorney. Most provide free consultations.
As to your personal injuries, if the employer does not have worker's comp, there is a presumption that your injuries occurred on the job and the employer is responsible. In addition, the employer loses the benefit of the worker's compensation system and you can recover the normal tort remedies, which are much better. You should consult a personal injury attorney, who will likely be much more interested in your case than a worker's comp attorney.See question
First, by accepting rent for the other person, you are potentially creating a landlord tenant relationship. If the City of Los Angeles RSO applies, then if you do not object within 6 months the person will be your tenant as a matter of law.
Second, this is not a do it yourself job. Save yourself a lot of stress and aggravation by hiring an attorney to serve a 3 Day Notice to Cure or Quit for material violations of the lease to stop the misconduct, then proceed with an unlawful detainer. There are many large volume eviction mills out there that can handle this a relatively low cost.See question
Under Civil Code 789.3, if you landlord turned off your utilities with the intent to force you to vacate the unit, you would be entitled to the greater of $100 per day in statutory damages (per utility) or your actual damages plus reasonable attorney's fees.
Under the RSO, you may also be able to recover the relocation assistance plus reasonable attorney's fees, if you can prove that you would have remained but for the landlord's intimidation.
You may also have tort claims for wrongful eviction, assault and conversion. Whether attorney's fees are recoverable will be depend on the lease.
Finally, there are two critical question. First, the landlord sounds dangerous. Do you really want to get involved with the landlord all over again. Second, does the landlord have collectable assets? Does the landlord still own the property and is there equity in the property.See question
Courts do not consider late fees during an eviction for unpaid rent, when determining if the notice to pay or quit is legally adequate. However, late fees are often legal and enforceable in residential leases assuming they are not an illegal penalty and bear a reasonable relationship to the landlord's additional costs.
In your situation, a landlord would likely be estopped or prevented from charging late fees, when the landlord was refusing your rental payments.See question
Under Civil Code 1950.5, the landlord may only make deductions from your security deposit for unpaid rent, cleaning and damages beyond normal wear and tear. The landlord is also supposed to return your security deposit within 21 days of termination of the rental agreement and provide an itemized breakdown of any deductions, including receipts for any materials or third party services plus the hours and rates for the landlord's employees used. If the landlord retains your security deposit in bad faith, you can recover treble damages.
You should strongly consider documenting the landlord's failure to timely refund your security deposit by sending the landlord a letter pointing out the fact the more than 21 days has passed since you moved out, but you have not received your security deposit or itemized breakdown of any deductions with receipts.
If the landlord fails to comply with Civil Code 1950.5, the landlord is required to refund your entire deposit. Granberry v. Islay Investments, 9 Cal.4th 738, 745 (1995). However, the landlord can still sue you for damages to the property and/or unpaid rent.
Ultimately, the landlord fails to refund your deposit, you may have to sue the landlord in small claims.See question
There is a split of opinion in the legal community concerning the permissibility of
employer-mandated vaccination with the currently available COVID-19 vaccine regimes. The
uncertainty stems from (1) the ambiguity of controlling federal statute; and (2) the dearth of
current on-point case law.
The three currently available COVID-19 vaccines were authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), and any person carrying out any activity for which an EUA is issued must inform individuals receiving the drug of their “option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, or refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and their benefits and risks.” The open questions is whether the Act’s language solely addresses the actions of federal officials or also private employers.
Given the current dearth of controlling case law and a plain reading of the Act, a prudent California employer should only require employees to provide EITHER (i) a recent negative test result (with the employer paying for the tests) or (ii) proof of vaccination.See question