Mediation and Arbitration


maa_
Our Office handles mediations and arbitrations, which are popular forms of “alternative dispute resolution”. Michael L. Carver has extensive experience in mediation and arbitration. Mr. Carver has served as a Hearing Officer for the City of Chico, California. He has been a member of the Butte County Superior Court Mediation Panel, and is a current member of the California State Bar, California Employment Lawyers Association, Butte County Bar Association, Sacramento County Bar Association and the Los Angeles County Bar Association.

Mr. Carver serves as a mediator or arbitrator. Mr. Carver also represents parties in mediations and arbitrations. His litigation experience in mediations and arbitrations includes general civil litigation, business disputes, government liability, construction, personal injury matters, discrimination, employment law and complex class actions. His experience as an attorney for businesses and individuals enables his understanding of the issues facing parties in a dispute. As a complex case and class action litigator, Mr. Carver has handled well over a hundred class action cases. Having represented both sides as an attorney in multi-million dollar cases, allows Mr. Carver to bring innovation to the negotiation process.

Mediation

Mediation is the process of bringing the parties together in an informal setting, with a neutral third party in an attempt to resolve issues between the parties. Mediation is an effective tool in resolving disputes without resort to costly and time-consuming litigation in court. The parties typically hire a mediator for a half or full day. The mediation session is typically held at the mediator’s office or at the attorney’s office for one of the parties. On the day and location of the mediation, each party will generally meet in private with the mediator, explaining their positions, and making settlement offers.

Mediation can be a less expensive and quicker way to resolve a dispute without either side spending a great deal of money litigating in court. The parties may engage in mediation prior to the filing of a lawsuit, as a means of resolving the issues without court intervention. In other situations the parties may find it necessary to litigate in court, obtain evidence to support each party’s position, analyze potential liabilities and damages of the parties, then the engage in mediation.

The Mediation Process

Arbitration

An agreement to arbitrate is usually negotiated between the parties to the dispute. In many cases an arbitration agreement is signed by the parties at the beginning of their relationship, such as when an employer hires an employee or a consumer buys a product. If the parties have signed an arbitration agreement, when a dispute arises the dispute is resolved through the arbitration process.

This means that rather than filing a lawsuit the parties will have an arbitrator decide their issue. This may be result in a binding or nonbinding ruling by the arbitrator, depending upon the agreement of the parties. The arbitrator will hear the dispute, make findings of fact and law, and issue a written ruling. The ruling is then typically enforceable in court. The arbitration process is not as formal as a court hearing, and in most cases significantly less expensive than full blown litigation

The Arbitration Process

Employment Law

LLO

The Attorneys of the Law Office of Michael L. Carver handle a wide range of employment law issues. Our practice focuses litigation and has extensive experience in law matters, including discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, whistleblower, overtime claims, meal and rest break claims, and other violations of the California Labor Code.

We have successfully resolved over a thousand matters for our clients and have earned the respect of courts and other attorneys throughout California. We have record of success in negotiations and class action litigation.

Employment Law Focus

Due to the large amount of Labor and Employment Law issues we handle, we have created a separate site for that section of our pratice. Please visit us at the Labor Law Office for more information about Labor and Employment Law issues.

For a free consultation call 1-855-700-5678

Has a School or Training Program Promised You a Job and Failed to Deliver?

kloaThe advertisements sound so great. They show smiling, successful workers with great jobs and happy families. They can seem like the answer to all your problems, especially if you’re at home watching television because you are out of work, really unhappy with your current job, or just not sure what to do next with your life. They say if you go to this school, and complete the program, you’ll get a job that pays well and offers great benefits. You’ll be able to work in the medical profession, or other acclaimed and in-demand field. They show people who have attended the school extolling the benefits of the program –talking about their enviable promotion or new position and how it changed their lives. They are so glad they went to this program.

What they don’t always say is that these results are not typical. They also might leave out the fact that the school is a for-profit institution, and that their students are borrowing thousands upon thousands of dollars, and investing months of precious time for a degree or certificate that won’t guarantee them anything.

Such schools can be sued for false advertising, misrepresentation of job placement rates, or even fraud. In some cases, schools have been targeted by the attorney general’s office for preying on veterans, many of whom served in hopes of getting money for schooling they could not otherwise afford. Even when the victims involved are not veterans, they often involve the most sympathetic of victims, in that the students just want to pursue the American dream of doing better by improving themselves through hard work.

Buyers should definitely be aware of the fine print when choosing a vocational school or college. They should keep copies of anything they sign, and ask for written material regarding placement rates, average wages achieved in placement, and exactly what services are available to help those graduates get jobs. Bringing a private fraud case, or even a class action, is a possibility if sufficient evidence exists that promises were made but not kept. It is not uncommon for some schools too simply close their doors, leaving students without what they paid for.

Painkiller Maker Pays Massive Class Action Settlement in False Claims Case

321516A drug that may be a distant memory for users made headlines recently when a case against the manufacturer settled for more than $800 million recently. Although it hasn’t been on the market since 2004, the painkiller Vioxx is still making headlines and costing its maker millions of dollars.

The company pulled the pills from the market when it was determined it could increase stroke and heart attack risks in patients. The drug company agreed to resolve a class action lawsuit by paying $830 million to shareholders recently. The shareholders argued the drug maker made misleading statements about its safety while it was still being prescribed.

The drug was introduced in 1999. The lawsuits began in 2003. They were consolidated in a case under a New Jersey federal judge and the group was certified as a class – meaning it can proceed as one action on behalf of many different parties – in 2013.

Shareholders alleged the drug company knew of the safety risks before the drug reached the market, then tried to minimize risks as problems began to publicly emerge while the drug was still being prescribed. The drug company denied allegations in court documents. Part of the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was unanimously ruled that investors hadn’t waited too long to bring their cases.

The company also faced a list of product liability class action lawsuits alleging that patients suffered heart attacks or strokes due to the drugs, and that the company failed to warn them properly of the risks. Merck admitted no liability as part of the settlement.
The company also agreed to pay $950 million to resolve accusations by the U.S. Department of Justice and state governments alleging the company lied to governments about the drug safety, and marketed it for uses not covered by the approval of the Food and Drug Administration. Merck pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for violating federal drug laws by promoting Vioxx for use in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis before the FDA approved it to do so.

Class Action Settles for $2 Million for Consumers

FTCLumosity customers could be in for a $2 million windfall due to a settlement of a case against the San Francisco based company. A federal consumer protection agency accused the company of lacking the proof to back up claims about improving mental sharpness through the use of their project.

The developer of “brain training” games has settled federal allegations of misleading customers by agreeing to pay $2 million. Lumosity games, accessed through online applications and programs for which customers generally paid a subscription fee, were advertising as providing a list of cognitive benefits. But the company’s advertisements suggested that playing them a few times a week could boost productivity at work and school, and possibly delay dementia, according to the Federal Trade Commission’s allegations.

The federal agency regulates advertising to consumers, and has recently taken on products including dietary supplements which claim to make people more mentally sharp. The FTC representative said that the advertising Lumosity used preyed on people’s fears of getting older and not being able to think as well, and that the company lacked the science to back up their claims. People’s fear of memory loss, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease led them to buy the product, but there was no proof any of these problems could be helped by the products in question.

Consumers of the company’s product purchased either a monthly subscription or access for a lifetime. As a part of the class action settlement, Lumos Labs must offer customers an easy way to cancel subscriptions. A judgment in the amount of $50 million was originally obtained by the agency, but the company reportedly was unable to pay that amount.

Trade publications indicate the company is one of many in the “brain training” business – worth an estimated $1 billion in sales per year. However, the Lumosity company was one of the most highly visible in the exploding field, no doubt an area of growth due at least in part to the aging population in America and other similarly developed countries around the world.

Federal law states that the only products that can claim to treat or prevent a serious disease must be reviewed and approved by the food and drug administration for their effectiveness. However, the agency has yet to approve a single “brain training” program.

Consumer class action involve claims such as these – where a customer acts on behalf of a group of people who feel they have been wronged or defrauded by a product or service. Sometimes, this is the only way that some issues can be addressed, due to the simple fact that the claims involved can be far too small to justify the high cost of bringing an individual lawsuit. The consumers, if handled individually, could not hope to sensibly pursue the matter. In some cases, the customers involved spent an amount too small to be worth filing a small claims case. Class action cases are an efficient way to address such issues.

Class And Representative Action Cases

Our Attorneys have handled the following cases filed as Class or Representative Actions:

ATKINS v. PC MALL, INC.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case NO. BC346922.

BRITT v. UNIFIED PROTECTIVE SERVICES.
Stanislaus County Superior Court Case NO. 2018612.

BOTSKO v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case NO. BC300136.

BOUKNIGHT v. OAO HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 04AS00572.

BRUTON v. ROUND TABLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
Tehama County Superior Court Case NO. 59106.

BUTLER-MITCHELL, ET AL v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP.
Coordinated In Los Angeles Superior Court, Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 01AS06879.

CHARPENTIER v. FRITO-LAY.
United States District Court, Central District Of California, Case NO. CV06-1215 DOC (ANX).

CHATFIELD v. HERTZ LOCAL EDITION.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 02AS0604.

CICERO v. MOUNTAIN CENTER, INC, IRONWOOD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
San Bernadino County Superior Court Case NO. VCVVS 043274.

CLOK v. CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 06AS00933.

COE v. ANNA’S LINENS.
Orange County Superior Court Case NO. 04CC00660.

CROSBY v. CHEVY’S.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 06AS02420.

CUNNINGHAM v. AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES.
Coordinated In Santa Clara County Superior Court, Orange County Superior Court Case NO. 03CC00174.

DELCOL v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.
Coordinated In Santa Clara Co, Ventura County Superior Court Case NO. SC044343.

DENNO v. GMRI, INC. (RED LOBSTER).
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 04AS004294.

DOGLIETTO v. AT SYSTEMS WEST, INC.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 04AS02796.

DUNBAR v. FREDERICKS OF HOLLYWOOD.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 04AS02797.

DUVALL v. DEWEY SERVICES, INC.
Coordinated In Los Angeles Superior Cour, Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 03AS05484T.

EMOND v. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 04AS02627.

EVETS v. GUESS?, INC.
San Francisco County Superior Court Case NO. CGC 05-438332.

FERRIS v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.
Coordinated In Los Angeles County, Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 06AS04001.

GALLAGHER v. SCARBROUGH MANAGEMENT CO.
Contra Costa County Superior Court Case NO. CO5 01028.

GARCIA v. DENNY’S.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case NO. BC350157.

HARWAY v. HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORPORATION.
Federal Court NO. E.D. CAL 2:07-CV-00760.

HAWTHORNE v. THE LANDING RESORT AND SPA.
El Dorado County Superior Court Case NO. PC 20150181.

HERNANDEZ v. MONUMENT SECURITY.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 34-2015-0179527.

HERRON-ELZIE v. SPRINT.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 02AS0605.

HUDDLE v. CENTRAL CONCRETE.
Alameda County Superior Court Case NO. RG08365263.

KEPLINGER v. CALIFORNIA PIZZA, LLC.
Fresno County Superior Court Case NO. 07 CE CG 01534.

KIMOTO v. MCDONALDS CORPORATION.
United States District Court, Central District Of California, Case NO. CV 06-3032 GPS (FMOX).

KINZ-SCHMITT v. SPENCER GIFTS LLC.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 07AS03539.

KRAFT v. J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC., DBA TACO BELL.
Tehama County Superior Court Case NO. 55038.

LACHAPELLE v. DAVITA INC., TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC.
Solano County Superior Court Case NO. FCS028959.

LEE v. FOSTER DAIRY FARMS.
Stanislaus County Superior Court Case NO. 2006542.

LIPSCOMB v. HOOTERS.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 34-2008-9515.

LUCCKETTA v. BMW MANAGEMENT, INC. DBA SIZZLER.
Yuba County Superior Court Case NO. CVCS04-1147.

MAKOWIECKI v. PG&E.
Butte County Superior Court Case NO. 165409.

MARTIN v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.
Federal Court, NO. N.D. CAL 06-CV06883.

MCCARTY v. C.J.K. ASSOCIATES, LLC. DBA APPLEBEES.
Solano County Superior Court Case NO. FCS 028379.

MCCLURE v. JOS A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.
Solano County Superior Court Case NO. FCS026631.

MERCADO v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS.
San Joaquin County Superior Court Case NO. STK-CV-UOE-2016-0000139.

MICKELSON v. WORLD OF GOOD TASTES, INC.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 07AS02431.

MOLINAR. v. GOLDEN WEST RESTAURANTS, INC. DBA APPLEBEES.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case NO. BC350154.

MONTELONGO v. WENDY’S OF THE PACIFIC.
Stanislaus County Superior Court Case NO. 2015769.

MUNIZ v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC.
Us District Court, Ed Calif, Case NO. 2:07-CV-89.

NASH v. GMRI, INC. DBA RED LOBSTER.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 04AS01949.

PAGE v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, INC.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case NO. BC341118.

PANTALION v. ROSS STORES, INC.
Alameda County Superior Court Case NO. RG 06–286752.

PETERSON v. BIANCHI PLUMBING, INC.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 04AS02628.

PHELEN v. ATI SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 34-2014-00171707.

SAMPSON v. HEALTHNET.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 34-2015-00183785.

SANTOS v. NORTH STATE GROCERY, INC.
Shasta County Superior Court Case NO. 154505.

SHAWVER v. EXCALIBUR PIZZA, LLC.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 02AS06425.

SILVA v. CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. DBA COCO’S AND CARROWS.
San Diego County Superior Court Case NO. GIC866861.

SORENSON v. PETSMART, INC.
Us District Court, Ed Calif Case NO. 2:06-CV-02674.

SPINKS-ANDERSON v. EJ’S PIZZA CO., DBA ROUND TABLE PIZZA.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 04AS04773.

STENROOS v. CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
San Mateo County Superior Court Case NO. CIV 451198.

TAYLOR v. FEDEX FREIGHT WEST.
Santa Clara Superior Court Case NO. CV088145.

TAYLOR v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
United States District Court, Eastern District Of California Case NO. 1:13-CV-01137 LJO-BAM.

THOMPSON v. CULVER PERSONNEL AGENCY, INC.
San Diego County Superior Court Case NO. GIC 870940.

THU v. AFC SUSHI COMPANY.
Stanislaus County Superior Court Case NO. 2018129.

VITT v. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS (EDS).
Orange County Superior Court Case No 04Cc00661, Transferred To Butte County Superior Court Case NO. 134247.

WESCOM v. BRINKS.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case NO. 07AS03552.

WILLIAMS v. WHEELER LOGGING, INC.
Tehama County Superior Court Case NO.59035.

YANG v. JELLY BELLY CANDY COMPANY.
Solano County Superior Court Case NO. FCS 027019.

For a free consultation call 1-855-700-5678

Class Actions

cl_15011990
Our Attorneys have handled well over a hundred class and representative actions representing consumers and employees. A Class Action is a lawsuit that allows the rights of a large number of people to be decided in one court action. See what requirements must be satisfied to bring a class action suit. A class action can be a means of making change. For example, if one person sues alone to allege they’ve been overcharged on bank fees, for example, then the bank can pay that person off and go right back to doing business as usual. However, if filed as a class action, the rights of a group of people are being defended, and it can sometimes be enough to make a company change their policies or method of doing business. In short, it can make a big company take notice and make meaningful change, in the way an individual suit cannot.

What is a Class Action?
A class action is a lawsuit that allows a large number of individual claims and the rights of a large number of people to be decided in one court action. Oftentimes, by combining many claims into a single class action suit, class members with relatively small claims can have their rights protected economically.
A class action plaintiff represents the interests of persons not before the court. As a result, not all potential class members must become parties to the lawsuit to have their rights decided. Typically, only a few representatives of the class actually appear in court.
In order to be certified as a class action, these general requirements should be satisfied:

  1. Numerous class members. There must be enough people to justify bringing the suit as a class, rather than having each person participate as a named plaintiff. Class actions have been brought with as few as 20 or 30 people and as many as millions.
  2. Common facts among the class members. There must be questions of law or facts common to the potential class members, meaning similar unlawful or unfair conduct by the defendants, such as violations of labor laws, failure to pay overtime compensation, etc.
  3. Similar claims or defenses. Each person in the class must be making allegations typical to the other class members. The plaintiffs must show that common questions predominate over individual questions. If there are a lot of individualized issues among the potential class members, a class action may not be the best way to proceed. The named class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class members.
  4. The named Plaintiff must have similar claims as the potential class members. The attorneys representing the case must also be adequate, and must be no conflicts of interest in representing the potential class members.

Please look at our office Case History for some of the cases our Attorneys have handled.

Common Misconceptions about Class Actions

  1. A large group of plaintiffs is not required to put their names on the lawsuit before the suit is even filed. If you know that, for example, the baby formula that you received was contaminated, you don’t need to know a lot of other people in the situation by name and telephone number. It’s your lawyer’s job, during the discovery practice, to get that information. In short, if you were a victim of a common practice or event that happened to others, you may be all that is needed to represent a class.
  1. You don’t need to have suffered a large amount of damages to bring a class action lawsuit. Often, lawyers can’t take cases with a small amount of damages to court because the filing fees and other costs are worth more than what the victim has a chance to recover. Not so with class actions. Just because your damages are small doesn’t mean a recovery isn’t possible through a lawsuit when that suit is filed as a class action. One of the chief benefits of these suits is that they allow people who normally could not get a lawyer to take their case (especially without paying lawyers fees upfront) to get experienced representation.
  1. You don’t have to pay the lawyer’s fees for your case upfront if you want to bring a class action. There are typically two types of fee arraignments for lawyers, generally speaking:  contingency and those who charge upfront hourly fees and/or require retainers. Those with upfront fees can require a big check for thousands of dollars from their clients, out of which the lawyer takes his/her fees and costs as the case progresses, whether or not the client get results. Our office is a contingency fee office. That means we collect a share of what is recovered as part of the lawsuit. That means there are no upfront costs or fees for people who need legal help.

How do I know if I have a good case?
A lot of people who call our office just want to know if they have a good case or not. They don’t want to waste their precious time if there is no point. Because we are a contingency fee office, that means we’re investing in your case from the very beginning. We advance costs and filing fees, often amounting to thousands of dollars, on the belief that your case has merit. Because of our investment of time and money in your case, we are selective in filing a cases that we believe has a substantial chance of success. We only get paid if there is a positive result in the case. We only take select cases in the first place.

For a free consultation call 1-855-700-5678

FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION CALL1-855-700-5678

separator


MichaelCarver

The Law Offices of Michael L. Carver is a California law firm handling a wide variety of legal issues, including class actions, unfair competition, unfair business practices, victims’ rights, discrimination and civil rights infringements. We represent clients in the California Courts, United States District Courts of California and the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We have multiple office sites in California.

What Our Office Does

We fight for those who have had their constitutional and legal rights violated by corporate entities. We are a plaintiff’s law firm that prosecutes civil cases under the ADEA (age), the ADA (disability), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Business and Professions Code (fraud and unfair competition) and other civil rights statutes to vindicate you and your rights in state and federal court.

When your rights have been violated, you need strong representation. Our attorneys fight to protect your legal and constitutional rights violated by corporations engaging in unlawful practices.

Why Should you Call us?

We provide quality, professional representation for our clients at reasonable fees. With many years of hands-on experience handling business enterprises, we combine aggressive representation with a problem-solving approach to resolve legal issues. We believe in honestly informing our clients if we believe that litigation is not in their best interests. We work closely with our clients, so they are an integral part of their case.

This site provides general information about our law practice regarding civil rights, unfair business practices, victims’ rights and class action suits. Visit Practice Areas for general information about the areas of law in which we handle cases. Our site has been prepared using California and Federal law, and may generally answer many common questions regarding legal rights and remedies. However, in most cases, our website will not provide complete answers to your legal questions, because each person’s situation is different and there are numerous exceptions to every rule of law. The law is changed frequently by the legislature and is interpreted by the courts.

Experienced Attorney

To discuss your legal needs and how the law may apply to you, please contact our office for a free case evaluation: 1-855-700-5678

PRACTICE AREAS

California Reports

We represent clients in cases in the California Courts, the United States District Courts of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Mr. Carver is a member of the Butte County Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Sacramento County Bar Association, and the California Employment Lawyers Association. We represent the victims of abuse and prosecute cases under state and federal civil rights laws, anti-discrimination laws, victims’ rights acts and unfair competition laws.

Our office handles cases in the following areas:

For a free consultation call 1-855-700-5678

ABOUT US

Michael Carver

Carver Law was founded by Senior Attorney Michael L. Carver.

Mr. Carver has handled well over a thousand matters as an Attorney, including over 120 cases filed as class actions. Our office handles matters including civil rights violations, class actions, construction law, personal injury, unfair business practices and victims rights. We represent clients in cases in the California Courts, the United States District Courts of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
Mr. Carver is a member of several Attorney organizations: the Butte County Bar Association, Sacramento County Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association and the California Employment Lawyers Association. We understand that injury-related problems can be stressful. We carefully examine each client’s situation and determine the most appropriate course of action.

For a free consultation call 1-855-700-5678