You Have The Right To Choose Where To Go For Vehicle Maintenance And Repairs After A Collision.
You Have The Right To Choose Where To Go For Vehicle Maintenance And Repairs After A Collision.
The California Insurance Code Section 758.5 is a consumer protection law that prohibits insurance companies from requiring their policyholders to repair their vehicles in a particular body shop. The law was enacted to safeguard the rights of vehicle owners and allow them the freedom to choose the best and most reliable body shop for their vehicle repairs
Prior to the enactment of California Insurance Code Section 758.5, policyholders were often required to have their vehicle repaired in a specific auto body shop in order to avail insurance benefits or receive full reimbursement for the repairs. Insurance companies would tie the payment of benefits or the reimbursement to the choice of an auto body shop recommended by them. This practice was often detrimental to the interests of the policyholders as they were restricted from selecting the best repair facility and were sometimes directed to substandard shops.
Section 758.5 of the California Insurance Code clearly states that no insurance company shall require that an insured have repairs made to their vehicle in any particular shop or location. This means that the policyholder has the complete autonomy to choose any licensed repair facility or shop for their vehicle repairs. The law also prohibits an insurance company from suggesting or recommending a particular shop when the policyholder makes a claim for the repair of their vehicle.
The enactment of the California Insurance Code Section 758.5 was a significant development in the consumer protection laws for vehicle owners in the state. The law provides the necessary protection and autonomy for policyholders to make informed decisions about their vehicle repairs and ensures that they are not misled or directed to substandard repair facilities. The law has helped to enhance competition among auto body shops and repair facilities, resulting in better quality repairs at more competitive prices. The law has also helped to streamline the claims process, reducing disputes between policyholders and insurance companies.
In conclusion, the California Insurance Code Section 758.5 is a critical consumer protection law that has had a significant impact on the auto insurance industry in California. The law protects the interests of policyholders and ensures that they have the autonomy to choose the best repair facility for their vehicle repairs. The law has improved competition, resulting in better quality repairs and more affordable prices. It is essential that policyholders are aware of their rights under the law and take full advantage of the protection it provides. Insurance companies should also abide by the law and avoid any attempts to direct policyholders to specific repair facilities.
Eduard Braun, ESQ
Law Office of Eduard Braun, P.C.
877-533-4529
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE INJURED WHILE HIKING?
Public Immunity In Recreational Areas
Premises liability refers to the responsibility of property owners or occupiers land to ensure the safety of visitors, guests, or other individuals who enter the premises. California laws provide specific guidelines on premises liability, including immunity clauses for public recreational areas. The purpose of this blog is to explore the concept of public immunity from premises liability in recreational areas in California, with a focus on the legal framework, case law, and practical implications.
This blog reviews existing literature on premises liability and public immunity, examines relevant laws and regulations, and analyzes key court rulings in California. The findings indicate that public entities, such as parks, playgrounds, and beaches, are generally immune from liability for injuries or damages caused by natural conditions or recreational activities. However, the immunity is not absolute, and public entities can still be held liable for negligence, dangerous conditions, or failure to warn. The public immunity from premises liability in recreational areas is an important legal safeguard for promoting public access to natural and recreational resources, but it also requires careful balancing of competing interests, including safety, accountability, and public policy.
In California, millions of people enjoy recreational activities in public spaces every year, including parks, beaches, hiking trails, and playgrounds. However, these activities are not without risks, as accidents, injuries, or property damage can occur due to natural hazards, weather conditions, or human behavior. Premises liability is a legal doctrine that imposes a duty of care on property owners to maintain their premises in a safe condition and to warn visitors of any potential hazards. However, California laws provide certain immunity protections for public entities that operate or maintain recreational areas.
California’s Tort Claims Act (CTCA) provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for public entities, such as state, county, or municipal governments, for tort liability arising from their activities. However, the CTCA also contains several immunity provisions for public entities in specific circumstances, one of which is public recreational immunity. The Public Liability Immunity Law (PLIL) (Cal. Gov’t Code § 831.2) provides that a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by a natural condition of any unimproved public property or any property that has been improved with natural features, such as a park or a beach. The PLIL also immunizes public entities from liability for injuries resulting from risks inherent in a recreational activity, such as swimming, hiking, or camping. However, the immunity is not absolute and only applies if the public entity did not create the hazard, did not increase the risk of harm, and did not act with gross negligence or willful or wanton conduct. Additionally, the public entity must have posted warning signs if the hazard was not obvious.
Several court cases in California have clarified the scope and limitations of public immunity from premises liability in recreational areas. In Knight v. State of California (1992), the California Supreme Court held that a public entity is not liable for injuries caused by a natural condition of public property unless the condition is not obvious or the entity has notice of the condition and sufficient time to take preventive measures. In Ortega v. Kmart Corporation (2001), the court applied the PLIL to a private property owner who allowed the public to use a decorative planter as a bench, causing the plaintiff to fall and injure herself. The court found that the property owner was immune from liability because the injury resulted from a recreational activity and not from a dangerous condition of the property. In Messick v. California Department of Parks and Recreation (2005), the court held that a public entity is not immune from liability if it creates a dangerous condition by facilitating a recreational activity, such as by placing a ladder near a beach cliff, which led to the plaintiff’s fall and injury.
The immunity provisions for public entities in recreational areas have practical implications for both visitors and property owners. Visitors should be aware of the potential risks of recreational activities and take reasonable precautions, such as wearing protective gear or following posted warnings. Property owners should also be aware of their duty to post warning signs for non-obvious hazards and to mitigate dangerous conditions that they create or maintain. Additionally, property owners can still be held liable if they act with gross negligence or engage in willful or wanton misconduct. For public entities, the immunity provisions serve the public policy objectives of promoting access to recreational areas and preserving natural resources.
The concept of public immunity from premises liability in recreational areas in California is a complex legal issue that involves balancing competing interests, such as safety, accountability, and public policy. While public entities are generally immune from liability for injuries or damages caused by natural conditions or recreational activities, the immunity is not absolute and depends on several conditions. The legal framework and court rulings provide guidance for visitors, property owners, and public entities to understand their rights and obligations regarding premises liability. The practical implications of these provisions call for responsible behavior, caution, and cooperation to ensure the safety and enjoyment of public recreational areas.
Eduard Braun, ESQ
Law Office of Eduard Braun, P.C.
877-533-4529
www.ebraunlaw.com
Legal Time Limitations for Claims Against Government Entities for Negligence
Legal Time Limitations for Claims Against Government Entities for Negligence
Claims against government entities for negligence can be challenging due to legal and procedural requirements. When an individual is injured as a result of government entity negligence, quick action is necessary to preserve the right to compensation.
When individuals sustain injuries due to negligence on behalf of the government, such as accidents caused by the poor maintenance of roads, an accident involving a public transportation company such as a public bus or train, or an accident that caused by a dangerous condition on a public road, Those injured individuals may be able to recover damages. However, it is essential to understand the legal time limitations and procedures for filing a claim against a government entity. The statute of limitations, or time limit, for filing a claim can vary based on several factors, such as the state in which the incident occurred, the nature of the claim, and other procedural requirements.
The statute of limitations for filing a claim against a government entity can vary depending on the state in which the injury occurred. California, for example, imposes a Six months or 180-day deadline from the date of injury to file an administrative claim with the relevant government agency. If the claim is not resolved within 45 days, the claimant may then file a lawsuit. In some circumstances, such as a wrongful death case, the deadline to file a claim is shortened to 90 days.
Similarly, the state of New York requires that a claim against a government entity must be filed within 90 days of the incident. However, the deadline may be extended if the claimant is incapacitated and unable to file a claim. In other states, such as Texas, the statute of limitations for making a claim against a government entity is two years.
It is crucial to note that there are also other procedural requirements for filing a claim against a government entity. For example, in some states, the claimant must provide notice of the claim to the government entity before filing a formal lawsuit. Failure to comply with these procedural requirements can result in the dismissal of a claim.
In conclusion, claims against government entities for negligence can be challenging due to legal and procedural requirements. The statute of limitations for filing a claim against a government entity can vary based on the state in which the injury occurred, the claimant’s age, and other procedural requirements. It is essential to consult with an attorney experienced in handling cases against government entities to ensure compliance with the legal requirements and time limitations.
References:
– California Government Code § 911.2
– State of New York Court of Claims Act § 10
– Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code § 101.101
– National Conference of State Legislatures: Time Limits for Filing Claims Against Governments
– FindLaw: Time Limits for Filing Suit Against the Government
Eduard Braun, ESQ
Law Office of Eduard Braun, P.C.
877-533-4529
www.ebraunlaw.com
Slip and Fall Accidents in California
Slip and Fall Accidents in California
Slip and fall accidents are a reality, and they occur every day in California. These accidents can occur anywhere, from a grocery store to a public park. Slipping and falling can result in significant injuries, medical expenses, and lost wages.
What is the amount of settlement awarded to victims of slip and fall accidents in California ?
From my research, I discovered that the average settlement awarded to victims of slip and fall accidents in California is $30,000. However, the amount of settlement varies depending on the severity of the injuries, the circumstances surrounding the accident, and the evidence presented. Settlements can range from as low as $1,000 to as high as $250,000.
One notable case that drew national attention is the case of Pilar and Rafael Rodriguez. They were awarded $37.5 million by a Los Angeles jury after Pilar fell through a flight of stairs at an apartment complex. The settlement amount was one of the highest in California.
Another case, Zarrinnegar v. Laguna Surf Homeowners Association, Inc., resulted in a $1.4 million settlement. The victim, a seven-year-old child, sustained severe injuries to her spine after falling at a community park.
In conclusion, slip and fall accidents occur frequently in California, and they can result in significant injuries and medical costs. The average settlement awarded to victims of slip and fall accidents in California is $30,000, but the amount can vary depending on the severity of the injuries, evidence presented, and circumstances surrounding the accident. It is important to document any injuries or damages incurred in a slip and fall accident and seek medical attention immediately. Victims should also consult an attorney to help them navigate the legal process and obtain adequate compensation.
Eduard Braun, ESQ
Law Office of Eduard Braun, P.C.
877-533-4529
www.ebraunlaw.com
Wrongful Death — A Death as a Result of a Workplace Accident?
Wrongful Death — A Death as a
Result of a Workplace Accident?
Introduction:
Wrongful death is an unfortunate incident that can occur in any workplace. When an employee loses their life as a result of work-related injuries, the family of the deceased might be entitled to compensation under California workers compensation wrongful death law. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of California workers compensation wrongful death law. The paper will explore the criteria for filing wrongful death claims, the types of compensation covered, and the procedures for claiming compensation.
Criteria for Filing Wrongful Death Claims:
In order to file a wrongful death claim in California, the surviving family members must meet the following criteria:
1. The death of the employee must have occurred as a result of work-related injuries or illness.
2. The surviving family members must be legally recognized under California law as eligible claimants. This includes the surviving spouse, children, and/or dependents.
3. The claim must be filed within the statutory time frame, which is one year from the date of death.
Types of Compensation Covered:
The California workers compensation wrongful death law provides the following types of compensation to eligible claimants:
1. Funeral and Burial Expenses – The employer is responsible for paying for reasonable funeral and burial expenses up to a certain limit.
2. Death Benefits – The surviving spouse is entitled to receive death benefits for the rest of their life or until they remarry.. If the deceased worker has children, the spouse will receive additional benefits for each child that is under the age of 18.
3. Dependents Benefits – If the deceased worker has dependent children or other dependents, they will be entitled to receive benefits until they reach the age of 18 or become self-supporting.
Procedures for Claiming Compensation:
The procedures for claiming workers compensation wrongful death are similar to those for filing regular workers’ compensation claims. Families of the deceased must first file out the “Application for Adjudication of Claim” form (Form DWC-1) with the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Once the form has been filed, the family can proceed to file a workers’ compensation claim with the employer.
If the employer denies the claim, the family can petition the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board for a hearing. The board will review the claim and make a decision based on the evidence presented.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the California workers compensation wrongful death law provides for compensation to families of workers whose death was related to work-related injuries or illness. The criteria for filing wrongful death claims, types of compensation covered, and procedures for claiming compensation have been discussed in this paper. It is advised that families of deceased workers consult with an attorney to help navigate the process and ensure that they receive the maximum benefits they are entitled to under the law.
Citations:
– California Department of Industrial Relations. (2019). Workers’ Compensation in California: A Guidebook for Injured Workers. Retrieved from https://www.dir.ca.gov/Injure…/InjuredWorkerGuidebook.html
– Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. (2008). Employee’s Guide to the Workers’ Compensation System in California. Retrieved from https://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/EmployeeGuide.htm
– Office of the Attorney General. (2010). California Workers’ Compensation Law: A Guidebook for Injured Workers. Retrieved from https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/comp.pdf
Eduard Braun, ESQ
Law office of Eduard Braun, P.C.
877-533-4529
www.ebraunlaw.com
California Proposition 213
Proposition 213
The California Proposition 213, also known as the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, was a ballot measure that passed with a 76% majority vote in November of 1996. This proposition amended the California Civil Code, section 3333.4, and limited the ability of uninsured motorists to recover non-economic damages in case of car accidents. This proposition has a significant impact on compensation for those involved in car accidents while driving without insurance even if the accident occurred at no fault of their own.
On November 5, 1996, Californians voted on Proposition 213, which aimed to limit the amount of compensation that an uninsured motorist could recover in a civil lawsuit after being involved in a car accident. The proposition was backed by insurance companies and proponents of tort reform, who argued that uninsured motorists should not be allowed to collect non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering or emotional distress, which could result in higher car insurance premiums for everyone.
Background
Proposition 213 was a response to the rising cost of car insurance, particularly in California, which had one of the highest rates in the nation. It was sponsored and funded by the insurance industry, which spent millions of dollars on a campaign to promote the initiative. The proposition also had the support of Governor Pete Wilson, who signed it into law on November 26, 1996.
The proposition amended the California Civil Code, section 3333.4, and limited the ability of uninsured motorists to recover non-economic damages in case of a car accident. It stated that any driver who did not have liability insurance at the time of the accident would not be entitled to collect non-economic damages from the other driver, even if the other driver was found to be at fault. The law also extended to passengers who were uninsured at the time of the accident.
Impact
The passage of Proposition 213 had a significant impact on those involved in car accidents, particularly uninsured motorists. It meant that these drivers would be unable to collect non-economic damages from the other driver, even if they had suffered serious injuries or emotional distress. Instead, they would only be able to recover economic damages, such as medical expenses and lost wages.
The proposition also had a significant impact on the insurance industry in California. Insurance companies could use the law to deny claims for non-economic damages by uninsured motorists, reducing their exposure to payouts. It also resulted in lower premiums for insured drivers, who would no longer have to pay higher rates to cover the costs of uninsured drivers who sued for non-economic damages.
Controversy and Challenges
Proposition 213 faced numerous legal challenges, particularly from plaintiffs’ attorneys and consumer advocates who argued that it violated the California Constitution’s equal protection clause. They argued that the proposition unfairly discriminated against uninsured drivers, denying them the same legal rights as insured drivers. However, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 213 in a 6-1 ruling in 1999, stating that it was a valid exercise of the state’s police powers.
In conclusion, Proposition 213 remains a controversial ballot measure that has had a lasting impact on car insurance and personal injury claims in California. Despite its legal challenges, it remains on the books and limits the ability of uninsured motorists to recover non-economic damages in case of a car accident. It is an important reminder of the ongoing debate between tort reform advocates and those who believe in protecting consumers’ rights.
Eduard Braun, ESQ
Law Office Of Eduard Braun, P.C.
877-533-4529
www.eBraunLaw.com
Can a landlord in California be responsible for a tenant’s dog bite?
Can a landlord in California be responsible for a tenant’s dog bite?
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year, there are approximately 4.5 million reported dog bite cases in the United States, and one in five of those cases result in serious injury. This issue raises questions about the responsibility of landlords in California in cases where a tenant’s dog bites someone.
California Civil Code
California Civil Code section 3342 provides that in any case where someone is bitten by a dog in a public place or while lawfully on private property, the owner of the dog is liable for damages. The word “owner” applies not just to the person who has legal title to the dog, but also to any person keeping, harboring, or having care or custody of the dog. Under the Code, a landlord may also be considered an owner if they had knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities and allowed the dog to remain on the property.
In the case of Johnson v. City of South San Francisco (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 425, the court held that a landlord must take reasonable steps to protect invitees from foreseeable dangers arising from keeping a tenant’s dog on the premises. In that case, the plaintiff was bitten by a tenant’s dog on the landlord’s property. The court found that the landlord had knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities, as it had chased one of the landlord’s employees on a previous occasion. The court therefore held that the landlord was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
In Kim v. W. S. Hampshire, Inc. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1561, 1565, the court held that a landlord is not liable for a tenant’s dog bite if the landlord does not have knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. In that case, the court found that there was no evidence that the landlord knew or should have known that the tenant’s dog was dangerous.
In conclusion, if a landlord is aware of a tenant’s dog’s dangerous propensities and fails to take any action to protect others on the property, then the landlord may be held liable for damages caused by a dog bite. Landlords in California can protect themselves from liability by including a lease agreement that prohibits tenants from keeping dangerous dogs on the property. Landlords can also ask tenants about the nature and history of their pets before allowing them to move in. Proper steps taken by landlords will not only protect them from potential liability but also ensure the safety of all those who enter their property.
Eduard Braun, ESQ
Law Office Of Eduard Braun, P.C.
877-533-4529
www.eBraunLaw.com
The Importance of Having an Automobile Uninsured and Underinsured Policy in California.
The Importance of Having an Automobile Uninsured and Underinsured Policy in California.
Every state in the US requires drivers to have automobile insurance. In California, drivers who are involved in an accident or caught driving without insurance may lose their driving license. Despite this, a lot of drivers in California still choose to forgo insurance or choose the minimum coverage required by law. Therefore the importance of having an uninsured and underinsured policy for automobile drivers in California cannot be overemphasized.
An uninsured policy is an optional policy in California that covers bodily injury and property damage that you or your passengers suffer in a car accident caused by an uninsured motorist. An underinsured policy, on the other hand, covers you and your passengers when you are in an accident caused by someone who has insurance, but their policy limits are not enough to cover the damages. With millions of drivers in California, it is essential to have an uninsured and underinsured (UM/UIM) policy to protect you from accidents caused by uninsured or underinsured drivers.
UM/UIM
1. It Helps You Cover Your Medical Expenses when the party at fault had no insurance or minimal insurance.
Medical expenses can be overwhelming after a car accident. If the at-fault driver does not have insurance, you may end up paying for your medical expenses out of pocket. With an uninsured policy, your medical expenses will be covered by the insurance company, even if the driver who caused the accident does not have insurance.
2. It Covers Your Car Repair Costs.
Car damages can be expensive to repair, and if the at-fault driver does not have insurance, it can be challenging to cover the repair costs. With an uninsured policy, your car repair costs will be covered by the insurance company.
3. It Provides Financial Protection
In the event of a car accident caused by an uninsured driver, an uninsured policy provides financial protection for you and your family. You will be protected from any financial burden or bankruptcy that may arise as a result of the accident.
4. It Helps You Get Compensation
If you sustain injuries in a car accident caused by an uninsured driver, it can be challenging to get compensation. The driver may not have the financial resources to pay for the damages, and you may end up losing your compensation. With an uninsured policy, you can receive compensation for your medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.
In conclusion, having an uninsured and underinsured policy in California is crucial for every automobile driver. It provides financial protection and ensures that you are adequately compensated for damages incurred in an accident caused by an uninsured or underinsured driver. It is essential to research and compare policies from various insurance companies to find the right policy that fits your needs and budget. In summary, having an uninsured and underinsured policy is like having an extra layer of protection that ensures you are adequately covered in the event of a car accident.
Eduard Braun, ESQ
Law Office Of Eduard Braun, P.C.
877-533-4529
California Dog Owners Strict Liability Law
California Dog Owners Strict Liability Law
In California, dog owners are held strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs. This means that regardless of the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities, they will be liable for any harm caused by their dog. The purpose of this paper is to explore the California Dog Bite strict liability law, its history, and how it differs from other states.
History
The California Dog Bite strict liability law was enacted in 1931, after a series of court decisions had established the principle of “scienter” liability. The scienter liability rule required the plaintiff to prove that the owner had knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities, and had failed to take adequate precautions to prevent injuries. However, the California court recognized that the scienter liability rule was inadequate in protecting plaintiffs from dog bite injuries, and they needed a better legal protocol to protect the victims.
In 1931, the California legislature enacted the Dog Bite statute, which provides that “the owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog. The statute applies regardless of whether the owner knew of the dog’s viciousness or had taken any measures to prevent the dog from harming others.”
Strict Liability
Under the California Dog Bite strict liability rule, the plaintiff does not have to prove the dog owner’s knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. The plaintiff must prove that the dog bit them, and they suffered damages as a result. The dog owner is presumed to have knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities, regardless of their past behavior, and the plaintiff does not have to prove that the dog was actually vicious.
Exceptions
However, there are exceptions to the California Dog Bite strict liability rule. If a person is bitten while trespassing on private property, or while provoking the dog, the strict liability rule will not apply. Additionally, the strict liability rule does not apply to police or military dogs that bite while performing their duties.
Comparison with Other States
Many other states have adopted strict liability rules for dog bite injuries, but some states have enacted more restrictive laws. In some states, the strict liability rule only applies when the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities. In other states, the strict liability rule only applies to certain breeds of dogs, such as pit bulls or Rottweilers.
Conclusion
The California Dog Bite strict liability law provides an easier path for victims to obtain compensation for injuries caused by dog bites. While it is not perfect, the strict liability law provides a clearer standard for accountability than the former “scienter” liability rule. It is important for all dog owners to take responsibility for their animals, and take precautions to prevent dog bite injuries. With this law, victims can get justice even if it means the owners being held accountable for their animals.
Eduard Braun, ESQ
Law Office of Eduard Braun, P.C.
What Should I Do if an Attorney Tells Me They Cannot Take My Case?
Call the Law Office of Eduard Braun, P.C. for a second opinion.
Here is what you should know if the attorney firm you call tell you that your case is too small for them to handle. First, ask questions about why they think it is too small because you need to know what you are dealing with when it comes to your case. It is always a good idea to get a second opinion. Here are some possible answers you might get:
- Your damages are too small for the attorney to get involved.
- Although you claim to be injured, the auto body damage is very minor to justify a claim.
- The party at fault does not have insurance.
- You are at fault and you got injured, but you do not have automobile insurance.
- Your case is a small claims case. You will need to represent yourself as attorneys are not allowed,
- The amount of money asked for in case compensation is not enough to cover attorney fees as well as your own compensation,
- The attorney firm you called is already booked to the brim with high-profile cases and they cannot take any other cases (also a polite way of saying “no” to you),
- You do not have money to outright hire an attorney to help and the attorney does not do Pro Bono work,
- Your case may be too weak to ensure success in the court system.
Small claims court deals only with cases where the parties involved, represent themselves. No attorneys are allowed. Whenever you plan to take on a case by yourself, you must spend time researching similar cases to see what the processes and outcomes were. The financial limitations for recovery is between $10,000 in a California Small Claims court, depending on the entities involved.
Setting Your Strategy
- Write down all the facts of your case, such as a time outline, where who did what, and when,
- Collect all your evidence and if there were any witnesses to an event in the case, then get signed statements from them and get them notarized,
- Go to the closest law library and talk with a librarian who can show you where to look for the information you need to review for your case,
- Make copious notes, scan journal and book pages with your smartphone (you’ll need an app for that), and search on the internet for legal information and cases,
- Call a local law college to see if anyone might be interested in helping you. Speak to a law professor who might have a law student willing to help for free in exchange for extra credits and a case study write-up,
- Know what is expected of you in a California court of law. California Rules of Court.
California has several free resources you can access at the following links:
- Self-Help Centers - https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-selfhelpcenters.htmFamily Law Facilitators - https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-facilitators.htm
- Small Claims Advisors - https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-advisors.htm
- Pro Bono Opportunities Directory - https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Access-to-Justice/Pro-Bono
- Representing Yourself - https://www.courts.ca.gov/1076.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en
Español de México 
English