The Mellor Law Firm, APLC - Riverside, California 92506

 The Mellor Law Firm, APLC Contact Details »

Address:
6800 Indiana Avenue, Suite 220 Riverside
California 92506

Phone:
951-221-4744

Email:
info@mellorlawfirm.com

Website:

Facebook:

Twitter:

Linkedin:

Mobile:
-

Fax:
-

Transport Links:
(train, bus, motorway & major roads)
Brockton FS Indiana - 0.1 miles south west

 The Mellor Law Firm, APLC Map »

 Information About The Mellor Law Firm, APLC »

An Ivy League graduate of Cornell University, Mark Mellor leads The Mellor Law Firm. With a diverse practice and backgrounds, we practice civil litigation in all state and federal courts in all counties of Southern California (Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County and Ventura County) and the District of Columbia. We specialize in Real Estate, Business Law, Construction, Personal Injury, Insurance Defense, and Civil Litigation.

California real estate attorneys at The Mellor Law Firm, located in Riverside, are focused on providing exceptional legal services to businesses and individuals in Real Estate, Business, Construction, Bankruptcy and Insurance matters throughout the greater Riverside area, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County and Bernardino County.

California attorneys at The Mellor Law Firm in Riverside are focused on providing exceptional legal services to businesses and individuals in Real Estate, Business, Construction, Bankruptcy, Injury

personal injury, real estate, business law, family law, litigation, lawyer, attorney, law firm, law office, legal advice, riverside, california , ca, los angeles, san bernardino, los angeles county, orange county, riverside county, san bernardino county.

The Mellor Law Firm, APLC is located in the Riverside area of California. There are at least 20 other listings in the 92506 postcode area.

Lawyers in California 92506

 Twitter Feed »

mellorlawfirm
$160,000,000 Judgment Tossed In A Trade Secrets Misappropriation Case. - via @mellorlawfirm https://t.co/rCBPGlGZVX
Sun Oct 22 12:00:25 +0000 2017
mellorlawfirm
Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Has Standing To Sue Developers. - via @mellorlawfirm https://t.co/RjtlMYq2qu
Sat Oct 21 19:00:04 +0000 2017
mellorlawfirm
Class Action Fairness Act Case Properly Removed. - via @mellorlawfirm https://t.co/X967RtZVup
Sat Oct 21 13:00:24 +0000 2017
mellorlawfirm
Blanket Enforcement Of Jessica’s Law Hampers Supervision Of Sex Offenders. - via @mellorlawfirm https://t.co/wiaayzcJyD
Sat Oct 21 12:00:22 +0000 2017
mellorlawfirm
Too Sick To Work For You. - via @mellorlawfirm https://t.co/UqIMdhapYT
Fri Oct 20 19:00:02 +0000 2017
mellorlawfirm
Insurance Company Ordered To Turn Privilege Documents Over To Its Own Attorneys. - via @mellorlawfirm https://t.co/Ztu52pcM6q
Fri Oct 20 13:00:06 +0000 2017
mellorlawfirm
“I Think I’ll Sue My Client For Fees.” - via @mellorlawfirm https://t.co/tbajLUNW7Y
Fri Oct 20 12:00:22 +0000 2017
mellorlawfirm
@miakhalifa Great pic @miakhalifa
Fri Oct 20 01:19:29 +0000 2017
mellorlawfirm
Arbitration Agreement May Not Delegate Issue Of Arbitrability To The Arbitrator. - via @mellorlawfirm https://t.co/xG04KhVLoB
Thu Oct 19 19:00:16 +0000 2017
mellorlawfirm
@curtsmith Nice Kicks @curtsmith ! Thanks for you and Roland signing my Hurting album way back! You guys were great at Staples!
Thu Oct 19 18:58:12 +0000 2017

 Facebook Feed »

The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
The Psychic Readers Network is suing Rockstar Games for using a character in GTA 2 they claim has striking similarities to their TV personality Miss Cleo. The character Auntie Pullet from GTA remains at the center of the lawsuit. It's easy to find this laughable given the Psychic Scammers Network has been busted and sued for bilking the public out of hundreds of millions of dollars, yet they're now whining they're being ripped off. Lindsay Lohan previously tried to sue Rockstar as well for similar reasons, none of which panned out in her favor.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReoOdfHenFo
8/4/2017 6:07:44 PM
The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
Lawsuit: Usher Gave Woman Herpes, Paid Her $1.1 Million | JDJournal http://buff.ly/2uiUxZL
7/21/2017 6:12:08 PM
The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
During the early 1900s, manufacturers and wholesalers of alcoholic beverages “tied” retailers to them by providing them with loans, reduced rents, free equipment and other means. Such “tied-house” arrangements caused a vast growth of the number of saloons and bars, resulting in various social evils. Accordingly, California passed Business and Professions Code section 25503(f)-(h), forbidding giving anything of value to retailers for advertising their alcoholic products. Thus, for example, a liquor store owner in California can hang a Captain Morgan Rum sign in the store’s window, but the Captain can’t directly or indirectly pay for that advertising. In 1986, in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh (9th Cir. 1986) 830 F.2d 957, the court held that section 25503 was consistent with the First Amendment, but now states: “As a content-based restriction on non-misleading commercial speech regarding a lawful good or service, section 25503(f)-(h) now must survive heightened judicial scrutin
3/25/2016 11:54:18 PM
The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
A 15-year-old boy brought a civil rights claim against the county and a sheriff’s deputy. Just prior to being shot, the 15-year-old was playing “cops and robbers” with friends while riding his bicycle and carrying a replica of a semiautomatic pistol. Two deputies spotted him, made a U-turn and approached him from behind. The deputies ordered the boy to stop, which he did. What happened next is disputed. Either the boy complied with the directive to drop the imitation gun or he turned toward the deputies with the replica in his hand. In either event, one of the deputies fired a single shot, wounding the boy in the chest. The boy was subsequently charged with three misdemeanor counts of brandishing an imitation firearm. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the boy admitted he had been brandishing and was placed on six months probation. It was after that guilty plea that he brought his civil suit for violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Finding the deputy used excessive
3/25/2016 11:49:22 PM
The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
The trial court declined to issue a domestic violence restraining order for two reasons. First, it determined that mental abuse was insufficient, and, second, that past physical abuse was insufficient. The court of Appeal reversed. With regard to mental abuse, the appellate court stated: “In this case, the testimony that the trial court did permit revealed significant acts of emotional abuse, well beyond accessing and disseminating texts and email. The acts of isolation, control, and threats were sufficient to demonstrate the destruction of Rodriguez’s mental and emotional calm.” With regard to physical abuse, the appellate court stated: “No showing of the probability of future abuse is required to issue a DVPA restraining order: ‘A trial court is vested with discretion to issue a protective order under the DVPA simply on the basis of an affidavit showing past abuse.”’ (Rodriguez v. Menjivar (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 7; December 16, 2015) (Ord. Pub. January 7, 2016)
3/15/2016 4:50:36 AM
The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
In an action by an insured against an insurance company which denied a claim, plaintiff requested that the trial court give a standard jury instruction explaining that, when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and excluded risks, the loss is covered if the most important or predominant cause is a covered risk. (CACI No. 2306.) Defendant instead proposed a special jury instruction placing on plaintiff the burden of proving the collapse of the house was “caused only by one or more” of the perils listed in the policy, and that there was no coverage if the cause of the collapse involved any peril other than those listed. When the trial court indicated its intention to give part of defendant’s proposed special instruction, plaintiff indicated that giving such an instruction was tantamount to directing a verdict in favor of defendant, because there was no dispute the damage to the house was caused by perils in addition to those listed in the policy. Defendant then moved for a
3/11/2016 8:03:30 PM
The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
A worker’s compensation doctor provided a man with a psychotropic medication. Another doctor, an anesthesiologist, who had never seen the patient, determined the drug was unnecessary and decertified it for use. Typically a person gradually withdraws from the drug, but in the present case, it was suddenly stopped and the man suffered four seizures, resulting in additional physical damages. The man and his wife sued the review company and the reviewing doctor for negligence. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that to the extent the plaintiffs are faulting the reviewing doctor for not communicating a warning to the man about gradual withdrawal, their claims are not preempted by the Workers Compensation Act [WCA] because that warning would be beyond the “medical necessity” determination made by the reviewing doctor. But to the extent the plaintiffs are faulting the reviewing doc
3/10/2016 1:56:21 AM
The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
A judgment creditor of a $47 million judgment, as part of its efforts to enforce the judgment, propounded requests for production of documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.030 and later brought a motion to compel. The trial court granted the motion to compel and the judgment debtor appealed. After deciding it is not clear whether or not the order granting the motion to compel is appealable, the Court of Appeal treated the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate because the judgment debtor would have no adequate remedy if the order granting the motion to compel is not appealable. The Court of Appeal then denied the petition, stating: “We conclude the trial court had authority under section 708.030 to compel [the judgment debtor] to produce documents in its possession or control regarding third parties, and we reject [the judgment debtor’s] contentions that [several of the requests] violate the privacy rights of third parties and that [other requests] are overb
3/10/2016 1:51:25 AM
The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
In Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 310 [130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S. 73], (Citizens United), a divided United States Supreme Court invalidated federal election law restrictions on the political speech of corporations, holding that a speaker’s identity as a corporation, as opposed to natural person, could not justify greater regulation of speech than the First Amendment would have otherwise permitted. In 2014, the California Legislature sought to place on the general election ballot a nonbinding advisory question, Proposition 49. The measure would have asked the electorate whether Congress should propose, and the Legislature ratify, a federal constitutional amendment overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, supra, 558 U.S. 310 [130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S. 73]. Petitioners, a taxpayer’s organization, petitioned for a writ of mandate, urging the unconstitutionality of the Legislature’
3/8/2016 3:56:20 AM
The Mellor Law Firm, APLC
One shareholder sued another shareholder and a small construction firm over a dispute in the operation of the construction firm. Defendant was represented in the suit by a law firm which had been retained by the construction company in 2006 and never discharged; nor had the law firm ever withdrawn from representing the company. Plaintiff moved to disqualify the law firm. The trial court denied the motion to disqualify. In reversing, the Court of Appeal stated: If a party moving to disqualify an attorney establishes concurrent representation, the court is required, in all but a few instances, to automatically disqualify the attorney without regard to whether the subject matter of the representation of one client relates to the representation of a second client in the lawsuit. [] Thus, the law firm should have been automatically disqualified. (M Guinness v. Johnson (Cal. App. Sixth Dist.; December 30, 2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 602 [196 Cal.Rptr.3d 662].)The post Law Firm Automatically Disq
3/8/2016 3:51:28 AM

 Opening Hours »

Monday:
9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Tuesday:
9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Wednesday:
9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Thursday:
9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Friday:
9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Saturday:
Closed
Sunday:
Closed

 Reviews And Comments »

 Leave a comment or review about this company. We reserve the right to moderate any offensive comments.

Your Name: *
Your Email: *
Your Comments: *
What is 3 + 2?
Comments Temporarily Disabled
* Required Fields
 
User's Comments and Reviews
No users have submitted their reviews or comments yet. You can be the first!