Mario Tafur

I have built a career and a reputation by advocating for the rights of the accused. At Bulldog Law, my team and I have defended thousands of clients throughout the United States in various criminal cases across both state and federal courts, encompassing trials and appeals. Additionally, we manage personal injury and cryptocurrency cases.

My lawyers and I have been described as "bulldogs" for our tenacious and successful representation in legal proceedings. We vigorously defend our clients, fully aware of the high stakes and our potential to significantly impact their lives.

• Free Consultation

California

State Bar of California

Attorney - Founder

Bulldog Law

Current

James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona

J.D. (1998)

1995 - 1998

Northern Arizona University

B.A. (1994) | Philosophy

1990 - 1994

California State Bar  # 329899

member

Current

Q. Seeking strategy after spouse refuses divorce settlement terms, demands new conditions, and faces potential DV TRO trial.

April 28, 2025

A: To enforce the original terms, filing a motion to enforce the order is a primary strategy. This motion would compel compliance with specific obligations, such as the return of your belongings and the child’s passport. Alternatively, initiating contempt proceedings may be appropriate, as non-compliance with a clear and unambiguous court order, when the party has knowledge and ability to comply, warrants such action (Pretrial Injunctive Relief: Seeking and Enforcing a Temporary Restraining Order (CA)). Contempt requires proving willful disobedience, and the court will scrutinize the clarity of the order’s terms.

Regarding the spouse’s demand for a mutual non-CLETS agreement in lieu of the agreed four-year non-CLETS provision, you can argue that the original stipulation, as incorporated into the court order, remains binding. Their claim that the order is unenforceable is unlikely to succeed unless they can demonstrate legal grounds, such as fraud or lack of jurisdiction, which appears unsupported based on your description. For the impending DV TRO trial, preparation is critical. You should gather evidence to refute any allegations of domestic violence, as courts assess the credibility of claims and past acts of abuse when deciding whether to issue a TRO (Family Code Section 6309; Nicole G. v. Braithwaite, 49 Cal. App. 5th 990; In re Marriage of Davila & Mejia, 29 Cal. App. 5th 220). Proceeding with the trial while simultaneously enforcing the settlement terms may be necessary to protect your rights.

Given the tight deadline and complexity of these issues, Bulldog Law, with its extensive experience in family law and domestic violence matters, recommends pursuing a dual approach: filing a motion to enforce the order (and potentially contempt proceedings) while preparing a robust defense for the DV TRO trial. Prompt action is essential to meet court deadlines and safeguard your interests. ... Read More

Q. How can I resolve a bench warrant for failure to appear due to work conflicts in California?

April 28, 2025

A: Addressing a bench warrant issued for failure to appear due to work conflicts in Visalia, California, requires prompt and strategic action to mitigate potential legal consequences. Under California law, a bench warrant is issued when a defendant fails to appear as required, pursuant to Penal Code Section 978.5 (Valderas v. Superior Court, 72 Cal. App. 5th 172). However, Penal Code Section 1305.1 allows courts to consider a sufficient excuse for non-appearance, potentially delaying enforcement of the warrant or continuing the case if a reasonable justification is presented (People v. Frontier Pac. Ins. Co., 63 Cal. App. 4th 889; People v. Ranger Ins. Co., 108 Cal. App. 4th 945).

Your work obligations may qualify as a sufficient excuse, particularly if you can demonstrate that missing the court date was necessary to avoid job loss. Engaging an attorney is critical to present this argument effectively, as they can file a motion or appear on your behalf to request a continuance or recall of the warrant, citing your circumstances and the court’s discretion under Section 1305.1 (California Rules of Court, Rule 4.6). Courts may view voluntary efforts to address the warrant favorably, which could minimize penalties (People v. Sue Sarkis Bail Bonds, 182 Cal. App. 3d 650). While resolving the matter without a personal court appearance is challenging, an attorney may negotiate with the court to handle preliminary proceedings on your behalf, depending on the case specifics and judicial discretion.

Taking immediate action is essential to avoid further complications, such as arrest or additional charges. Bulldog Law, with its commitment to defending clients facing criminal law challenges, strongly advises working with experienced counsel to navigate this process and protect your rights.

As each case involves unique circumstances, promptly consulting a qualified law firm is vital to thoroughly assess your situation. ... Read More

Q. How to exclude vacated injunction in CA criminal case?

April 28, 2025

A: Your first step should be to file a motion in limine, a pretrial motion to exclude inadmissible evidence. In this motion, argue that the injunction was vacated and the service of process quashed due to improper delivery to a male at a property you no longer owned. Present certified court documents from the civil case confirming the vacatur and quashed service, as these are admissible under Evidence Code Section 1522 and essential to proving the injunction’s invalidity. Emphasize that the evidence lacks probative value, as it pertains to a legally void order, and its inclusion would be prejudicial by potentially misleading the jury or confusing the issues (Evidence Code Section 1522).

Additionally, highlight that proper service is a prerequisite for a court’s jurisdiction over a defendant. California case law underscores that the burden lies with the plaintiff to prove valid service, and defective service, as in your case, renders any resulting order void (Lebel v. Mai, 210 Cal. App. 4th 1154). By demonstrating that the service was directed to an incorrect address and recipient, you can argue that the injunction was never enforceable against you, making the criminal charges based on its alleged violation unfounded.

Excluding this evidence requires a precise presentation of legal arguments and supporting documentation to avoid undue prejudice in your case. ... Read More