Se habla español en la oficina de Beauchamp and Smith, donde ofrecemos servicios legales en nuestras ubicaciones de oficinas de la ley, incluyendo nuestra firma de abogados en Yuba City.

  • Home
  • Office Locations
  • More
    • Home
    • Office Locations
  • Home
  • Office Locations

    recent results: learn about recent Cases

    Hung Jury - No Conviction

    Hung Jury - No Conviction

    Hung Jury - No Conviction

    People vs. Kester, Butte County case involving charges related to a fight at a local bar. 

    Not Guilty All Charges

    Hung Jury - No Conviction

    Hung Jury - No Conviction

    People vs. Novoa-Carrasco, Yuba County case involving charges of attempted murder with the use of a semiautomatic firearm. 

    Hung Jury - No Conviction

    Hung Jury - No Conviction

    Hung Jury - No Conviction

    People vs. Flemming, Butte County case involving charges of sexual assault.

    Not Guilty All Charges

    Not Guilty All Charges

    Hung Jury - No Conviction

    People vs. Kolpack, Yuba County case involving charges of assault with a deadly weapon.

    Not Guilty All Charges

    Not Guilty All Charges

    Not Guilty All Charges

    People vs. Thomas, Butte County case involving charges of firearm possession.

    Not Guilty All Charges

    Not Guilty All Charges

    Not Guilty All Charges

    People vs. Magenheimer, Tuolumne County case involving charges of domestic violence

    Logo of The National Trial Lawyers featuring Lady Justice with scales and sword.

    Our Experience

    With over 20 years of varied legal experience, our team of criminal attorneys has successfully defended individuals charged with both federal and state criminal charges.

    $11,600,000.00 Settlement

    $11,600,000.00 Settlement

    $11,600,000.00 Settlement

    A large blue and red truck overturned on its side on the road.

    Yuba County, Wrongful Death Case

    $1,350,000.00 Settlement

    $11,600,000.00 Settlement

    $11,600,000.00 Settlement

    Construction workers assist an injured colleague lying on the ground wearing a safety vest.

    Colusa County, Wrongful Death Case

    $774,000.00 Settlement

    $11,600,000.00 Settlement

    $774,000.00 Settlement

    Woman takes photo of a severely damaged car after an accident.

    Sutter County, Traffic Collision Case

    $240,000.00 Settlement

    $1,000,000.00 Settlement

    $774,000.00 Settlement

    Dog biting a person's arm wearing a checkered shirt.

    Sacramento County, Dog Bite Case

    $1,000,000.00 Settlement

    $1,000,000.00 Settlement

    $1,000,000.00 Settlement

    Driver holding phone showing a rideshare app with a new request notification.

    Placer County, Wrongful Death Case

    As Featured In the Media

    Contact Us

    We want to hear about your legal matter. Be advised that contacting our office by this form does not create an attorney client relationship

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Better yet, see us in person by stopping by.

    We love our customers, so feel free to visit during normal business hours.

    Beauchamp and Smith Law Firm, P.C.

    500 Second Street Yuba City CA 95991

    (530)822-9500

    Hours

    Mon

    09:00 am – 05:00 pm

    Tue

    09:00 am – 05:00 pm

    Wed

    09:00 am – 05:00 pm

    Thu

    09:00 am – 05:00 pm

    Fri

    09:00 am – 05:00 pm

    Sat

    Closed

    Sun

    Closed

    Recently published case

    M.DOE vs. MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

    Here, Doe plaintiffs have sued in state court asserting only state law claims, and there is no “incompatibility between applying California claim-preclusion law with federal interests.” (Gray, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at p. 962.) In these circumstances, California’s claim preclusion law governs, allowing plaintiffs who voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice to refile, not federal law. The majority concludes that under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41 (28 U.S.C.), a second voluntary dismissal in federal court of a case involving federal question jurisdiction has claim preclusive effect in a third case filed in state court, relying on Taylor v. Sturgell (2008) 553 U.S. 880, 891 and Louie v. BFS Retail & Commercial Operations, LLC (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1553. But Taylor and Louie did not  involve Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41 (28 U.S.C.), particularly a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41(a) (28 U.S.C.) and did not consider the effect of such a dismissal on a state court action asserting only state claims. The majority also relies on Melamed v. Blue Cross (9th Cir. 2014) 557 Fed. Appx. 659 and Jian Ying Lin v. Shanghai City Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 329 F.R.D. 36. But those cases instruct that where a federal court is exercising federal question jurisdiction, the two-dismissal rule of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41 (28 U.S.C.) bars a third action in federal court. They do not instruct what happens when the third action is brought in state court asserting only state law claims.


    “The United States Supreme Court has never addressed the issue presented here[,]” specifically what law governs the claim preclusive effect of a federal court disposition of a state law claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41(a) (28 U.S.C.) in a case in which federal court jurisdiction over the state law claim was based on supplemental jurisdiction. (Herington, supra, 500 P.3d at p. 1176.) For these reasons, 


    I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and allow the Doe plaintiffs’ claims to proceed in state court.

    • Office Locations

    Beauchamp and Smith Law Firm, P.C.

    500 Second Street Yuba City CA 95991

    (530)822-9500

    Copyright © 2025 Beauchamp and Smith Law Firm, P.C. - All Rights Reserved.

    Powered by

    This website uses cookies.

    We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

    Accept