AVJUSTICE LAW FIRM, PLC
Criminal Defense | Accidents | Employment Law | Consumer Protection
“Extraordinary people, extraordinary representation, extraordinary results.”
Everyone experiences moments of extreme adversity during their life, make impulsive and/or incorrect decisions, experience jealousy, divorce, adultery, economic pressure, depression, anxiety, and/or suffer from mental health conditions, battle the disease of addiction, find themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time or associating with the wrong people, and some are innocent but wrongfully accused. These circumstances result in arrests and criminal prosecutions for a wide variety of felony and misdemeanor charges that carry serious consequences. We believe these moments should not define a person’s character, cause them to lose their job, professional license or credentials, child custody, U.S. Residency, or their freedom. We believe in compassion, forgiveness, second chances, and the opportunity for redemption. The lawyers at AVJUSTICE LAW FIRM possess elite educations, elite experience, and stellar reputations within the Criminal Justice System given the extraordinary trial performances they have produced throughout their careers in the most difficult cases! We have consistently obtained NOT GUILTY verdicts by repeatedly defeating the government in jury trials. In other cases, we expose the weakness of the government’s case during our investigation, preliminary hearings, and motions. We use our experience, education, talents, trial record, reputation, and resources to tilt the playing field in our clients’ favor despite the unlimited resources of the government. We resolve your most serious problems by making sure it causes the least amount of damage to your life. We have consistently proven that we are extraordinary people, extraordinary lawyers, that obtain extraordinary results.
ACCIDENTS | PERSONAL INJURIES
Thousands of folks are injured daily in accidents involving vehicles, LYFT, UBER, motorcycles, bicycles, commercial trucks, buses, trains, pedestrian accidents, dog bites, slip & fall incidents, and by defective sidewalks or parking lots, medical malpractice, defective products, teacher sexual abuse, and other negligent and/or criminal conduct of third parties. The injured find themselves dealing with America’s most powerful companies, insurance carriers, whose sole purpose is to maximize profits. Therefore, insurance adjusters are trained to deny coverage and/or pay the least amount possible regardless of how seriously folks are injured. Adjusters are also trained to contact the injured person(s) as quickly as possible to get them to settle for pennies or make damaging statements before the person obtains a lawyer. This is immoral, despicable, and unacceptable. Earlier in our careers we were lawyers at powerhouse national law firms representing these very insurance companies. We did so to take advantage of their training, learn their playbook, and their weaknesses, so we could one day use it against them by representing the people of our communities. Now we use that inside knowledge and experience to force insurance carriers to pay for our clients’ world-class healthcare and to obtain maximum compensation for pain and suffering, lost wages, and other damages.
It is unacceptable that corporations and other employers continue to engage in unlawful employment practices against employees at every level as employers unlawfully discriminate based on age, ancestry, color, creed, disability, marital status, medical condition, national origin, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and veteran status. Employers also engage in unlawful retaliation, denial of minimum wage, overtime pay, rest breaks, meal breaks, and denial of medical leave or medical accommodations. Female and male employees experience sexual harassment and/or assaults in the workplace. We know how you feel because earlier in our careers we were the targets of unlawful employment practices as Attorneys of Color ourselves, thus allowing us to empathize with our clients through our first-hand experience. Furthermore, we formerly represented and defended large corporations for their unlawful employment practices earlier in our careers when we worked at prestigious national law firms. We also know their playbook because we learned it from them! Now we use it against them by deploying our insider knowledge and experience to represent workers in obtaining extraordinary results by forcing employers to pay maximum compensation for their unlawful employment practices.
With complete disregard for your health, companies continue to manufacture products (consumer goods and food) that contain chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm because it is cost effective for them and retail stores continue to sell these products without properly warning consumers as required by a California law known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65. Chemicals such as lead have been found in food, chocolate, water, children’s toys, school supplies, and numerous other consumer products folks purchase daily. These corporations only care about profits; we care about people and their health. Therefore, AVJUSTICE LAW FIRM represents non-profit organizations and individuals who have purchased these dangerous products without being properly warned of the health risks by filing lawsuits against those responsible for exposing you and your children to these dangerous chemicals and compromising your health.
OUR VALUES & APPROACH
Throughout life’s journey everyone encounters unexpected adversity and traumatic events that are extremely difficult to successfully process and resolve. It’s called life. We believe in compassion, empathy, opportunities for redemption, and our version of justice for each one of our clients based on their unique circumstances. Our Attorneys have first-hand experience dealing with adversity, traumatic events, and difficult moments that provided us with opportunities to grow by converting our pain into purpose that allows us to provide extraordinary representation, advice and counsel from a position of first-hand experience successfully navigating extremely challenging moments. Combined with elite educations, we are nationally recognized Attorneys that previously worked for America’s most powerful national law firms and the government. Our stellar reputation and experience provide you with extraordinary lawyers that provide extraordinary results.
People v. P.S. - Not Guilty Verdict
Client charged with Penal Code 245(a)(1) assault with a deadly weapon, a knife, a Felony Strike. It was alleged that the Client pulled out a knife and assaulted the complaining witness at the corner of 5th Street and Broadway in downtown Los Angeles. Two LAPD officers happened to walk by and see Client with knife drawn and standing in front of complaining witness. Police arrested Client and recover the knife. The Prosecutor offered the Client 2 years in state prison. The Client rejected the offer, and the case proceeded to jury trial. The jury rendered a Not Guilty verdict and the Client was freed from custody.
People v. J.M. - Not Guilty Verdict
Client charged with violating Penal Code 664/211, attempted robbery, a Felony Strike. Complaining witness alleged that Client approached him with a knife and demanded money from him at corner of San Pedro and 9th Street in downtown Los Angeles. Client was arrested as he rode his bicycle away from the scene. Client was also on Formal Felony Probation on 2 separate cases at time of this incident. Client was offered 3 years in state prison and he rejected the offer. The jury rendered a Not Guilty verdict.
People v. C.L. - Deadlocked Jury – Case Dismissed
Charged with two counts of violating Health & Safety Code 11377, possession of methamphetamine and one count of violating Health & Safety Code 11350, possession of cocaine. Before trial the Defense motion to reduce all charges to misdemeanors was granted by the court. The Client was offered a drug diversion program, but he rejected it insisting that the LAPD had planted the drugs on him. After trial the jury was deadlocked 7-5 in favor of Not Guilty on all counts. The Court declared a mistrial and then dismissed all charges.
People v. L.C. - Not Guilty Verdicts
Client faced a life sentence on a third strike case where he was charged with Penal Code 211, 1st degree residential robbery, Penal Code 211, 2nd degree robbery, and Penal Code 245(a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon. He was also charged with special allegations/enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury, use of a knife, and an allegation that the victim was 76 years old. After a two-week trial, the jury returned Not Guilty verdicts on all counts and the client was released from custody within a few hours.
People v. A.B. - Case Dismissed – Speedy Trial Violation
Client charged with Penal Code 422.7, hate crime, Penal Code 69, resisting a police officer using violence, Penal Code 243(c)(1), battery on a police officer, and the Prosecutor alleged a prior strike of Penal Code 192(a), Voluntary Manslaughter. The Client had just finished serving 12 years in state prison and was facing an additional 8 years for the new case, which was alleged to have occurred during the time he was serving the 12 year sentence. After his was released from state prison he was brought to court in downtown Los Angeles to face prosecution for the new case. The Defense filed and argued a Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Defendant’s Speedy Trial Rights. The Court granted the Motion and the case was dismissed.
People v. M.E. - Case Dismissed
Client charged with 1st Degree Penal Code 459, residential burglary with a person present, a Felony Strike. Client allegedly entered the victim’s apartment through an open window and burglarized the apartment. The suspect was captured on video surveillance as he exited the apartment building. LAPD officers positively identified Client as the person on the video surveillance from their prior contacts with Client. Client faced 8 years in state prison. Client insisted he was innocent. Defense investigated the case and enhanced the video. On the day trial was about to start the Prosecutor agreed to dismiss the case. The Client was released from custody.
People v. D.W. - 2nd Strike Case Dismissed
Client charged with Penal Code 211, Robbery Felony Strike, and Penal Code 243(D) battery with serious bodily injury. There were also special allegations that Client inflicted great bodily injury on an elderly victim and an allegation that the Client had suffered a prior Strike conviction for violating Penal Code 211. Client was facing a maximum sentence of 19 years and a minimum sentence of 9 years. The Defense vigorously investigated the case and located a key witness who was homeless on the streets of skid row and wheelchair bound. The case was set for jury trial and the Defense arranged for the homeless wheelchair bound witness to be transported to court and made the witness available in court for an interview with the Prosecutor. Shortly thereafter, all charges were dismissed and Client was released from custody.
People v. C.C. - Not Guilty Verdict
Client charged with Penal Code 417.8, exhibiting a deadly weapon against a police officer with intent to resist arrest, a Felony. Three Amtrak police officers testified that Client pulled the knife and attacked one of the Amtrak officers at Union Station. Client was the only witness on his own behalf. The jury returned a Not Guilty verdict.
People v. D.V. - Case Dismissed
Client charged with Penal Code 245(c) Assault Upon Peace Officer (Felony Strike), and Penal Code 69, Resisting Police Officer using force and violence (Felony) based on fact Client stabbed a police Officer as he attempted to enter her apartment without a search warrant. All charges dismissed after vigorous cross-examination at preliminary hearing and further investigation by the Defense.
People v. D.K. - Not Guilty Verdicts
Client and a co-defendant were charged with violating Penal Code 487(a) Grand Theft and Penal Code 484(a) Petty Theft. Client had prior convictions for theft and was on probation at the time of trial. Bloomingdale’s employees testified that both men were observed entering Bloomingdale’s at the Beverly Center and they both selected men’s designer clothing, both men then entered the same dressing room, and once in the dressing room both were observed switching price tags on the clothing with tags they had in their pockets. They both exited the dressing room and purchased the designer clothes at a significantly lower price than the actual marked price for the items. For example, Client purchased a sweater with an actual cost of $300 for only $15 and a $150 shirt for only $34. The co-defendant accepted a plea deal before trial. Client rejected a deal that included county jail time and probation and insisted on proceeding to trial. Client decided not to testify at trial. Two Bloomingdale’s loss prevention officers testified for the Prosecution and were the only witnesses at trial. The jury returned Not Guilty verdicts on both counts.
People v. M.P. - Deadlocked Jury – Case Dismissed
Client was charged with violating Penal Code 242 (battery on civilian), and two counts of Penal Code 148(a)(1) resisting arrest. Three LAPD Officers testified for the Prosecution and were the only witnesses at trial. Our Client decided not to testify as he had over 20 criminal convictions on his record. The jury deadlocked on all counts and a mistrial was declared. Mr. Villegas reset the case for a re-trial and on the eve of the second trial the case was dismissed.
People v. L.R. - Not Guilty Verdicts
Client was charged with violating Penal Code 314(1), Indecent Exposure, and Penal Code 647(a), Lewd Conduct. The allegations were that at 4:00 a.m. Client was driving on Sunset Blvd. and stopped at a bus stop where a 21 year-old female foreign exchange student was waiting for the bus after leaving a nightclub. The complaining witness claimed that Client pulled up in a car and tried to get her to enter his vehicle, but she refused and he drove away and parked down the street. A few minutes later Client allegedly approached complaining witness as she sat at the bus stop and exposed himself to her as he stood directly in front of her. The complaining witness started running down Sunset Blvd. and Client allegedly followed her. As she ran away an LAPD patrol car stopped them both and arrested Client.
Client’s version was that he was drunk, and he was lost. He pulled over to urinate. After urinating he noticed complaining witness and approached her to ask for directions. Upon approaching her she immediately screamed and began walking away. Client admitted his penis was exposed but it was by accident as he had just urinated and forgotten to zip up his pants as he was extremely intoxicated. The jury returned Not Guilty verdicts and Client was able to avoid being a registered sex offender for the rest of his life, Penal Code 290, Client was only 23 years old and had no record.
People v. C.I. - Not Guilty Verdict
Client charged with violating Penal Code 409, Refusing to Disperse from Scene of a Riot/Unlawful Assembly, as crowds gathered to celebrate a Los Angeles Lakers Championship on the Streets of East Los Angeles. The Deputy Sherriff’s involved in this case also alleged that Client threw glass bottles at Sherriff’s skirmish line. The jury returned a Not Guilty Verdict.
People v. A.R. - Not Guilty Verdicts
Client charged with violating Penal Code 470(d), Forgery, Penal Code 459, Second Degree Commercial Burglary, and Penal Code 664/484(a) Attempted Petty Theft. Client walked into a Chase Bank and attempted to cash a check for $320.00. The checked turned out to be stolen and originally made out by account holder to California Edison for $32.00. Client decided not to testify at trial. The jury returned Not Guilty Verdicts on all counts.
People v. J.M. - Not Guilty Verdict
Client charged with violating Health & Safety Code 11550(a), Being Under the Influence of Cocaine. Client allegedly admitted to Deputies that he had just used cocaine and the Deputies testified that Client then refused to submit to a urine test. During trial the Judge allowed the clients two prior convictions for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Client testified at trial, so did his girlfriend, and the Defense also called an expert witness. The jury returned a Not Guilty verdict after only 34 minutes of deliberation.
People v. C.O. - Not Guilty Verdicts
Client charged with violating Penal Code 243(e)(1), Domestic Battery. Despite my vehement objections the Judge allowed the Prosecutor to introduce evidence of Client’s prior domestic battery case from three months earlier even though it did not result in a conviction. The evidence of the prior was in the form of pictures of the complaining witnesses’ bruises and testimony that the Client had choked her, pulled a knife on her, and beat her after he slammed her on the floor. Client claimed she was the aggressor and she was fabricating the charges because the Client was leaving her for another woman. During his investigation, Mr. Villegas discovered a 911 call placed by Client that supported his claim that she was the aggressor and Client had called police to seek help.
The jury returned a Not Guilty Verdict.
People v. S.C. - Case Dismissed During Trial
Client charged with Domestic Violence for violating Penal Code 273.5. During trial the complaining witness testified that she fabricated the fact that the client had hit her because the Deputies that responded to the neighbors 911 call, reporting arguing and screaming by neighbors, threatened to take her children away if he didn’t change her original story that she and Client were just arguing. The defense asserted that the Deputies believed a battery had occurred because she had swelling over her eye which was caused by one of her children throwing a toy train at her, which led to the argument between Client and wife over disciplining the children.
During trial Mr. Villegas crossed examined Deputy Castro about his alleged interview of the complaining witness and he performed terribly and could not answer most of the detailed questions regarding his alleged interview of victim. Based on his poor performance on the stand, the District Attorney sought to call Deputy Robledo to the stand to bolster their case. Mr. Villegas interviewed Deputy Robledo before he took the stand and discovered that Deputy Castro did not actually interview the complaining witness, Deputy Robledo had interviewed her and Deputy Castro had waited outside detaining Client in a patrol car during the entire interview. The District Attorney decided not to call Deputy Robledo, but Mr. Villegas threatened to put Deputy Robledo on the stand to show through his testimony that Deputy Castro had likely committed perjury during his testimony. The District Attorney dismissed the case in the middle of trial.
People v. E.V. - Not Guilty Verdicts
Client charged with violating a domestic violence restraining/protective order on three different dates by coming within 100 yards of the protected person, his ex-girlfriend and mother of his child. The complaining witness and her mom testified regarding the Clients alleged conduct on the three different dates in question. Client refused to testify because he did not want the jury to hear about his felony convictions. The defense was that complaining witness was fabricating the incidents to use the police reports to prevent Client from obtaining visitation rights in civil court case to see his child. The jury returned Not Guilty Verdicts on all three counts.
People v. N.J. - Not Guilty Verdicts
Client accused of domestic violence for violating Penal Code 243(e)(1), Domestic Battery, and Penal Code 647(f), Public Intoxication. Client was at a McDonald’s with wife and their children. Client was drunk and wife and him began to argue. Manager at McDonald’s tried to calm Client down and calls 911 when Client allegedly hits wife.
At trial the McDonald’s Manager testified that Client pushed the victim and that victim also slapped Client. Client decided not to testify. The jury returned Not Guilty Verdicts on all counts.
People v. V.P. - Not Guilty Verdicts
Client accused of punching a 68 year old man at a reception hosted at Client’s home. The complaining witness suffered facial fractures and underwent various surgeries for his injuries. Client was charged with violating Penal Code 242/243(d), Battery Causing Serious Bodily Injury and a lesser charge of Penal Code 242, Battery. Client’s position was that complaining witness was intoxicated and rushed at Client and Client punched him in self-defense. Client was 25 years old and complaining witness was 68. The jury found Client Not Guilty of all charges.