Home / Attorney Profiles / Thomas E. Beltran

Thomas E. Beltran

Partner

213-617-6126 phone

Email Thomas E. Beltran ›

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law
  • Appellate Practice
  • Education Law
  • Elder Law
  • Estate Litigation
  • Estate Planning
  • Guardianship and Conservatorship
  • Inheritance
  • Medicare and Medicaid
  • School Law
  • Social Security Disability
  • Special Education
  • Trusts and Estates
  • Wills and Probate

Position

  • Partner

Admission Details

  • Admitted, California (Bar Roster Number: 171884)

Additional Payment Information

  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Can Discuss Alternative Fee Arrangements

Birth Information

  • Born in 1954

Representative Cases

  • Harbor Regional Center v. Office of Administrative Hearings, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 293. Second District Court of Appeal. Obtained an affirmance. The court held that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) had jurisdiction over consumer’s claim that a temporary worker should receive a pay raise from regional center when acting as a replacement for the child’s caregiver during the primary caregiver’s maternity leave.
  • Samantha C. et al. v. The Office of Administrative Hearings et al., (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 1462; 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 415, Second District Court of Appeal. Obtained a reversal of the trial court order, finding Samantha C. did not have a developmental disability. The importance of this case was further explained in Samantha C. v. State Dept. of Developmental Services, (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 71.
  • Vaughn v. Marable, (2009), Case № B199564 (LASC LP010470) Second District Court of Appeal. The trial court’s decision was affirmed in part, finding there substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s decision that the decedent’s son misappropriated one of two parcels of property from the estate.
  • Peter S. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, (2008) Case № 09-55248 (D.C. № 2:03 -cv-06798-FMC-CWVaughn v. Marable, (2009), Case № B199564 (LASC LP010470) Second District Court of Appeal. The trial court’s decision was affirmed in part, finding there substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s decision that the decedent’s son misappropriated one of two parcels of property from the estate.

    X

    Contact Form

    We will respond to your inquiry in a timely fashion. Thank you.

    Quick Contact Form