Ron Mason was never able to get a lawyer to do a lawsuit regarding defamation of character, libel, breach of civil liberties and violation of various legal protocols. Apparently what happened to Mason happens all the time and unless you have money, they will not take the case on a contingency basis.
.
.
However, Mason did lose 25-30 cats by being killed after seizure. He lost several carriers and humane traps, medications, etc., as well as lost time off work.
.Therefore, with the help of a friend, he filed a Small Claims Court.
.
10 comments:
This continues to be a very sad case indeed. There must be a lawyer that can help him as statutes of limitations (SOL- no pun intended)are running. I think SOL for defamation is only a year.
I didn't have a lawyer for one of my dogs' cases and had to climb a steep learning curve to make my case for a Writ of Mandate overturning the LAAS decision to revoke my dog's license.
I wish I had a license to practice law. I'd help Mason.
This may be good for Mason. in that he can use my case to show that he is not the only victim of LAAS practice to deprive a citizen of his rights.
The other thing that's good for Mason is that the City cannot send a lawyer (the city attorney) to court to lie for the city and make ludicrous legal arguments which the judge slapped down over and over.
After two years in the Superior Court, though, I won on October 9 and that Stuckey decision will be set aside. Why did I win? They violated my rights to due process of law. To quote the judge, the Hearing Examiner was "flat wrong!"
Mason sued LAAS at the wrong address. He used City Hall and they will never receive the summons. He should amend his claim immediately to avoid a 2 or three month delay.
He must use this address:
221 N.Figueroa St.
5th Floor
L.A. 90012
Otherwise he will show up in court in Nov. and the judge/commissioner will raise the issue that the defendant has not been properly served (or at all).
I hope Ron wins. He certainly deserves it. Today is the anniversary. This is another reason Boks needs to GO!
California Government Code sections 810-996.6. With very limited exceptions, no lawsuit for money damages may be brought against a governmental entity unless a written claim has been properly filed within the six-month time limit.
Without first filing a written claim for damages with the City Clerk, Mason's small claims case (or any case) will be dismissed.
Mason may request leave of the City to file a late claim. He should contact the City Clerk's Office.
He filed before the 6 months were up--barely, by 2 days. At that time the intent was to sue for defamation, etc., but a claim for dollar value was included.
Because Mason sued the city, he had to serve the action at the city clerk's office. That's the law. He did file a claim against the city March 15, 2008. We made sure the paperwork was correct. He is suing for the "cost" of the cats, cages, medication, traps which they never returned. He's also suing for loss of wages. After he was defamed by the city in the newspaper and online, he lost his work. We'll be sure to send a copy to Boks for the heck of it.
If the city denied Mason's claim, what did they say in the denial letter?
Don't know. I never saw the letter.
It just said "denied." No explanation.
INTERESTING. I HAPPEN TO BE INVOLVED WITH THIS AND I HAVE SEEN THE DENIAL LETTER. IT DOES EXPLAIN TO MR. MASON THAT HE DID NOT FILE HIS CLAIM IN A TIMELY MANNER. PERHAPS ALL THAT POST HERE SHOULD HAVE THEIR FACTS STRAIGHT. MR. MASON FILED WITH THE CLERKS OFFICE ON APRIL 14. HE WAS ARRESTED ON THE 11TH OF OCT, SO, HE HAD TO HAVE FILED BY APRIL 11, WHICH WAS A FRIDAY.
Post a Comment