Ourfalian & Ourfalian Attorneys At Law

Ourfalian & Ourfalian Attorneys At Law "Ask our clients about us ... We are a firm for all your legal needs." For nearly 30 years Ourfalian & Ourfalian has successfully represented thousands of individuals and small businesses throughout Southern California.
(7)

Formerly known as the "Law Offices of Rafi Ourfalian", Ourfalian & Ourfalian is a small boutique civil litigation firm that has distinguished itself through its professionalism and commitment to its clientele. The partners, associate attorneys and the professional staff at Ourfalian & Ourfalian take pride in their work and have built a thriving practice by helping families and businesses cope with our complex legal world, while at the same time affording them first class legal representation which ordinarily is only available to large corporations. Ourfalian & Ourfalian has a vast network of associates in many specialties to help support its clients' needs. True to their avowed goals and principals, Ourfalian & Ourfalian presents the best legal services available with the state of the art technology at a very reasonable cost. The firm continuously strives to the highest standards in the profession. The firm specializes in Personal Injury/Civil Litigation, General Business/Business Litigation and Trademarks/Copyrights.

Operating as usual

California Considers Allowing Law Graduates To Skip Test Due To COVID-19.➖➖➖It’s a ticket to a potentially lucrative car...
07/13/2020

California Considers Allowing Law Graduates To Skip Test Due To COVID-19.
➖➖➖
It’s a ticket to a potentially lucrative career as a lawyer — and a grueling, dreaded rite of passage that can defeat even the most promising young legal mind.
-
Now, with the COVID-19 pandemic raging, there’s a chance thousands of recent law school graduates could become lawyers in California without having to take the bar exam.
-
Hundreds of recent graduates, along with the deans of some of California’s most prestigious law schools, are asking the California Supreme Court to cancel the upcoming exam. Instead of having to pass the exam, the graduates would automatically be licensed in California under a system used in other states and known as “diploma privilege.”
-
The issue is coming to a boil. The exam, initially set for late July, has been postponed to early September by the State Bar of California, which administers the tests. The State Bar’s backup plan is to hold the test online in October. About 9,500 students are teed up to take the exam, said State Bar spokeswoman Teresa Ruano.
-
But now the law school deans and recent graduates are pressing the Supreme Court to get rid of the test for this year. A group of deans made their case in a Zoom hearing before the court last week, and hundreds of graduates had their say in a Zoom meeting with the justices Tuesday. While the State Bar runs the exam, the court has final say.
-
When the court will make its decision isn’t clear, but recent graduates say they need an answer quickly. Many have landed jobs with law firms, but the offers are contingent on them passing the exam. The postponement, and the uncertainty about whether the exam will be held this fall, is complicating their efforts to launch their careers.
-
“The students are basically sitting in limbo,” said Kevin Johnson, dean of the UC Davis School of Law. “It’s no fault of the students who are all prepared to take the exam.”
-
Graduates who are pushing for diploma privilege insist that they aren’t simply looking to skip a difficult test. Given the risks of a pandemic that’s gotten worse in recent weeks, they feel being excused from the exam is only fair.
-
“We’re not looking for an easy way out, we’re looking for a just resolution,” said Meghan Shiner, who graduated this spring from the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. “Diploma privilege is really the only equitable option right now.”
-
Three states — Washington, Oregon and Utah — have substituted diploma privilege for the bar exam this year, and several more are considering it. Wisconsin did away with the bar exam requirement years ago.
-
California has never used diploma privilege before, but “we’re really in this unprecedented moment,” said Michael Hunter Schwartz, the dean at McGeorge and an advocate of diploma privilege. As he sees it, the education his students receive “is sufficient to make them ethical and competent.”
-
While it’s still making plans for administering the exam this fall, either in person or online, the State Bar said it hasn’t taken a position on the deans’ proposal. “The State Bar defers to the Supreme Court on the policy questions,” Ruano said.
-
Per Barrons

Supreme Court Prohibits Mobile Phone Robocalls To Collect Federal Debt.➖➖➖The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 2015 law...
07/10/2020

Supreme Court Prohibits Mobile Phone Robocalls To Collect Federal Debt.
➖➖➖
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 2015 law allowing federal debt collectors to make robocalls violates the Constitution. That's because those debt collectors were allowed to make automated calls while other groups weren't given the same treatment.
-
Congress generally isn't allowed to favor certain speech over others, but that's precisely what Congress did, wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the six-member majority. "A robocall that says, 'Please pay your government debt' is legal," Kavanaugh wrote. "A robocall that says, 'Please donate to our political campaign' is illegal. That is about as content-based as it gets.
"Congress has impermissibly favored debt-collection speech over political and other speech, in violation of the First Amendment," Kavanaugh wrote. Political groups "still may not make political robocalls to cell phones, but their speech is now treated equally with debt-collection speech."
-
For nearly 30 years, robocalls have generally been prohibited under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. But in 2015, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, amending the law to let debt collectors make automated calls to collect money owed to the federal government, including many student loan and mortgage debts.
-
The Supreme Court challenge was brought by political advocacy groups who didn't think it was fair that only those debt collectors could make robocalls to cellphones. The groups, including the American Association of Political Consultants, wanted to make robocalls to discuss candidates and issues, solicit donations, and encourage voter participation. So they tried to argue that the entire robocall ban was invalid, a suppression of otherwise permissible speech.
-
The court allowed the general robocall ban to stand. But the 2015 exception for debt collectors was a violation of the First Amendment, the court said.
-
"Although collecting government debt is no doubt a worthy goal, the Government concedes that it has not sufficiently justified the differentiation between government-debt collection speech and other important categories of robocall speech, such as political speech, charitable fundraising, issue advocacy, commercial advertising, and the like," Kavanaugh wrote.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they thought the government had justified special treatment for federal debt collectors. "The speech-related harm at issue here — and any related effect on the marketplace of ideas — is modest," Breyer wrote for the dissenters.
-
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai commended the court's ruling. "Thanks to the Supreme Court, the carve-out is no more," he said in a statement. "Today, the Court found that the last Administration's attempt to create a special exemption for favored debt collectors was not only bad policy but unconstitutional. I am glad to hear that Americans, who are sick and tired of unwanted robocalls, will now get the relief from federal-debt-collector robocalls they have long deserved."
-
NPR

07/08/2020

For over 40 years Ourfalian & Ourfalian have successfully represented thousands of individuals and small businesses throughout Southern California.⚖️

07/06/2020

PERSONAL INJURY/CIVIL LITIGATION
➖➖➖
Ourfalian & Ourfalian specializes in a wide variety of Personal Injury and Civil Litigation, including Auto Accidents, Premises Liability, Products Liability and Medical Malpractice actions. The firm has had a highly distinguished record of representing clients from inception to litigation to judgment, simple as well as complex cases.
-
A highly skilled legal team with extensive experience assures the best possible outcome for the firm's clientele.
-
Ourfalian & Ourfalian has developed an extensive network of experts in many fields to assist in its efforts. The firm is held in the highest esteem among its peers and the legal profession in general.

U.S. Supreme Court Eases Trademark Rules For Online Companies.➖➖➖A generic word combined with ".com” can create a federa...
07/04/2020

U.S. Supreme Court Eases Trademark Rules For Online Companies.
➖➖➖
A generic word combined with ".com” can create a federally protectable trademark, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In a case that was the subject of the high court’s first-ever remote oral argument, the Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that the combination of the generic word “Booking” with the generic top-level domain ".com” could receive federal trademark protection even if “Booking” alone could not.
-
The decision axed the PTO’s bright-line rule against registering a generic word plus top-level domain combinations, and it opens the door for the owners of others to apply for trademarks.
-
Several trademark attorneys agreed with the ruling, including the justices’ stance on the importance of consumer perception in trademark law.
-
“I think that the court totally got it right. I think that the majority sort of hit the nail on the head when it said because Booking.com is not a generic name to consumers, it’s not generic,” trademark attorney Fara Sunderji of Dorsey & Whitney LLP said. “It’s all about consumer perception. It’s sort of a hallmark of this case, and a hallmark of trademark law.”
-
Attorneys also said the ruling will encourage litigation. In a manner “typical” of the Supreme Court, the ruling stated the rule but not how to implement it, trademark attorney Tyler J. “TJ” Mantooth of Hall Estill said.
-
“If I have an applicant, I would like to be able to tell them, ‘This is what we need, this is the evidence we need to prove this is not generic.’ It’s relatively daunting for a practitioner like myself to advise clients until this gets sorted out through the trademark office,” Mantooth said.
-
Mantooth said that “havoc” would extend to courts as entities wield costly litigation as leverage. While the Supreme Court said protection for marks like Booking.com may be narrow, companies could still end up “throwing around lawsuits” because evaluating domain marks’ validity and similarity would be fact-heavy questions difficult to resolve before trial, he said.
-
Trademark attorney of J. Kevin Fee of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP agreed.
-
“Whenever the court rejects ‘per se’ rules and adopts fact-dependent analysis, it always invites litigation,” Fee said.
-
-
The case is U.S. Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., U.S., No. 19-46, 6/30/20.
-
Per Bloomberg Law

CA Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) Update➖➖➖As an employer in California, you should be aware of the new Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”)...
07/01/2020

CA Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) Update
➖➖➖
As an employer in California, you should be aware of the new Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”) which creates a new “ABC” test to determine whether a worker in California is classified as an employee or as an independent contractor under the California Labor Code. AB 5 goes into effect on July 1, 2020 and pertains to policies issued on or after July 1, 2020, as well as policies in force as of July 1, 2020. AB 5 is not based on policy effective date.
-
If you have 1099 subcontractors, you should familiarize yourself with the AB 5 requirements to help mitigate potential impacts to your business and your workers’ compensation policy and premiums.
-
According to the “ABC” test, a worker must meet all the following conditions to be considered an independent contractor:
-
A: The individual is free from control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
-
B: The individual performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
-
C: The individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
-
For your reference, here is a link to ADP®’s Eye on Washington you may find helpful.

You may also find California’s Labor & Workforce Development Agency site helpful, which includes an FAQ section on AB 5.
-
Please Note: To avoid any unexpected changes to your workers’ compensation coverage, it is important you make certain all payroll processed as of July 1, 2020 for all California employees meets the requirements defined by the “ABC” test.
-
Please reach out to your licensed agent at 800.524.7024 should you have any questions.
-
Per Automatic Data Processing Insurance Agency, Inc.

California To Escalate Legal Battle With Gig Companies Over Worker Classification.➖➖➖California Attorney General Xavier ...
06/27/2020

California To Escalate Legal Battle With Gig Companies Over Worker Classification.
➖➖➖
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra plans to file a preliminary injunction in his classification fight with Uber and Lyft, escalating a battle with major technology companies, based on a memo sent Wednesday morning from his office.
-
Becerra and the attorneys of major cities filed a lawsuit earlier this year to compel gig tech companies to treat their drivers as employees, not independent contractors, per a newly operative California law that creates a statewide labor standard tilted more toward classifying workers as employees who must receive wage and benefit guarantees.
-
The California Department of Justice did not respond to multiple requests for confirmation, but a department attorney notified parties to the lawsuit of the state's intent to seek the preliminary injunction, according to an email obtained by POLITICO. Becerra's office intends to file the preliminary injunction request Thursday and seeks a July 23 hearing date.
App-based gig work companies are battling the new law, CA AB5 (19R), arguing it would decimate their business models and deprive workers of flexible income. The companies have argued the law does not apply to their workers, which prompted the Becerra lawsuit.
-
If granted, a preliminary injunction could force the gig companies to comply with the law.
-
Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates and Instacart have committed more than $110 million toward passing a ballot initiative that would let their workers remain independent contractors.
The companies are looking to the electorate after they were unable to sway the Legislature, and the courts are increasingly applying pressure. San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin challenged DoorDash in court last week for illegally misclassifying its delivery drivers, another volley in a growing barrage of legal challenges to gig companies in California. Stacey Wells, a spokesperson for the industry’s ballot initiative, blasted Becerra’s latest move by characterizing it as “yet another malicious legal action against drivers that underscores exactly why we’re pursuing the ballot measure.”
-
“It is baffling that anyone would seek to end this critical work, threatening 900,000 jobs, especially now,” she said in a statement.
-
Similarly, Uber previewed its likely message to voters in a statement assailing Becerra's actions. "When over 3 million Californians are without a job, our elected leaders should be focused on creating work, not trying to shut down an entire industry," the company said.
-
Per Politico

Bayer To Pay More Than $10 Billion To Resolve Cancer Lawsuits Over Weedkiller Roundup.➖➖➖Bayer will pay more than $10 bi...
06/25/2020

Bayer To Pay More Than $10 Billion To Resolve Cancer Lawsuits Over Weedkiller Roundup.
➖➖➖
Bayer will pay more than $10 billion to end thousands of lawsuits filed over its Roundup weed killer, the company announced Wednesday. The settlement also resolves many other cases filed against Bayer over dicamba herbicide and water contaminated with toxic PCBs.
-
Roundup's active ingredient is glyphosate, which many plaintiffs blame for causing them to develop cancer. It is produced by Bayer's Monsanto subsidiary.
-
The decision to resolve the Roundup cases, Bayer CEO Werner Baumann said, will "return the conversation about the safety and utility of glyphosate-based herbicides to the scientific and regulatory arena and to the full body of science."
-
The Monsanto settlement does not cover three cases that have already gone to trial and which will now continue through the appeals process. In one of those cases, a California jury awarded a couple more than $2 billion in damages, before a court sharply lowered the amount.
-
The settlement is pending approval from Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
-
Five years ago, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans." Some government health agencies have determined glyphosate is safe to use, but plaintiffs in more than 100,000 lawsuits say the chemical harmed them, including allegations that it caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
-
The settlement calls for Bayer to pay from $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to resolve current Roundup lawsuits. The company will also set aside $1.25 billion to fund payouts for potential claims in the future.
-
In addition to claims over the Roundup product, the agreement will also settle many cases filed over the drift of dicamba. Farmers say that when the chemical is sprayed it drifts into neighboring fields and gardens, inflicting broad damaging there.
-
Bayer says it will "pay up to a total of $400 million to resolve the multi-district litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and claims for the 2015-2020 crop years" related to dicamba claims.
-
That portion of the deal does not include a decision from earlier this year, when a jury ordered Bayer and its codefendant, BASF, to pay a Missouri peach farmer more than $250 million.
The settlement also includes some $820 million in payments over claims that Monsanto polluted public waters with PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls.
-
As State Impact Pennsylvania has reported: "In 1979, the EPA banned the use of PCBs, but they still exist in some products produced before 1979. They persist in the environment because they bind to sediments and soils. High exposure to PCBs can cause birth defects, developmental delays, and liver changes."
-
Monsanto legally manufactured PCBs, before halting production in 1977. The company will pay $650 million to settle local lawsuits, and $170 million to the attorneys-general of New Mexico, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
-
Per NPR

Address

700 N Brand Blvd, Ste 1150
Glendale, CA
91203

General information

From its inception Ourfalian & Ourfalian has opted to focus upon a few practice areas believing that it is better to excel in a few areas than being mediocre in many! Historically and consistently Ourfalian & Ourfalian has focused its attention upon three major areas: 1) Personal Injury/Civil Litigation, 2) General Business/Business Litigation, and 3) Trademarks/Copyrights. The firm has an extensive network of professional attorney referrals as well in other areas of legal practice to assist its clientele.

Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 17:00
Thursday 08:00 - 17:00
Friday 08:00 - 17:00

Telephone

(818) 550-7777

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Ourfalian & Ourfalian Attorneys At Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Ourfalian & Ourfalian Attorneys At Law:

Videos

Nearby law practices


Other Criminal Lawyers in Glendale

Show All