Expert Counsel. Exceptional Solutions.

+1 (916) 822-8700

Categories
News

Current Legality of Automatic Firearms in California

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

Current Legality of Automatic Firearms in California

In 1989, California passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (codified as Cal. Penal Code §§ 30500-31115) which, in effect, made it illegal to own or semi-automatic firearms (they were classified as assault weapons). Currently referred to Assault Weapons Control Act (“AWCA”) this ban has been challenged multiple times in its history and continues to be challenged today. In Kasler v. Lockyer (2000) and Harrott v. Kings County (2001), the California Supreme Court upheld the AWCA with relatively minor adjustments due to vagueness within the law.[1] Dissatisfied with California state court rulings, the AWCA began to be challenged in federal court under Second Amendment defenses.

Perhaps the most memorable, as well the most recent, federal case is Miller v. Bonta (2021).[2] In Miller, Judge Roger Benitez compared the AR-15 rifle to the Swiss Army Knife, calling it “a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment”.[3] The Miller Court proceeded to declare the AWCA unconstitutional under Second Amendment stating “[t]he banned “assault weapons” are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns…[t]hose arms are dangerous[.]” Though declared unconstitutional, the Miller Court’s order was “stayed pending resolution of Rupp v. Bonta, No. 19-56004” by the 9th Circuit on June 21.[4] Rupp is a similar case which, in turn, has been “held in abeyance” until the resolution of Duncan v. Becerra, Docket No. 19-55376.[5] Duncan was decided on August 14, 2020 by the 9th Circuit invalidating the AWCA only to vacate its decision on February 25, 2021 in preparation for an en blanc 9th Circuit decision. Though confusing, what this means is that the fate of the AWCA will likely be decided by the 9th circuit in their en blanc (en blanc meaning, all judges of a particular court will hear the case appeal) decision of Duncan v. Becerra, not rather than Miller v. Bonta.

In other words, for now, AWCA is in full effect and the AR-15 rifle remains banned. [*The Burton Law Firm is an amalgamation of various attorneys with various beliefs and opinion. The firm takes no political position and merely provides analysis of the current law.] For more information, contact info@burtonlawfirm.com or call 916-822-8700 for a consultation.

 


[1] Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal. 4th 472 (2000); Harrott v. Kings County 25 Cal. 4th 1138 (2001).

[2] Miller v. Bonta, Case No. 19-cv-1537-BEN (JLB) (S.D.Cal. 2021). Available here.

[3] Id at 1

[4] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2021/06/22/21-55608-order.pdf.

[5] https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-02-25-Order-Holding-Case-in-Abeyance-Pending-Duncan.pdf.

 

Categories
COVID News

Covid is Down But Not Out: Osha’s Guidance for Your Employees

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

Covid is Down But Not Out: Osha’s Guidance for Your Employees

On June 15th, OSHA released new guidance for employers that brings them in line with the recent CDC guidance released on May 28th. This guidance allows vaccinated workers in all industries except the medical field to go back to work without wearing a mask, unless required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations.

For unvaccinated workers, OSHA still advises that masks be worn and social distancing be followed. In workplaces where all employees are fully vaccinated, most employers no longer need to take steps to protect workers from COVID-19 exposure. If there are unvaccinated employees in the workplace, steps do need to be taken to protect those employees. OSHA points to 11 mitigation measures that they advise employers to take:

  1. Grant PTO for employees to be vaccinated.
    1. They also note that businesses with fewer than 500 employees may be eligible for tax credits based on PTO given to employees to get vaccinated.
  2. Instruct any workers who are infected or unvaccinated workers who have had close contact with an infected individual to stay home from work.
  3. Implement physical distancing for unvaccinated and at-risk employees in all communal areas.
  4. Provide face coverings for unvaccinated and at-risk employees.
  5. Educate and train workers on COVID-19 policies and procedures in languages they understand.
  6. Suggest that unvaccinated customers, visitors, or guests wear face coverings.
  7. Maintain Ventilation Systems.
  8. Perform routine cleaning and disinfection.
  9. Record and report COVID-19 infections and deaths.
  10. Implement protections from retaliation and set up an anonymous process for workers to voice concerns about COVID-19 related hazards.
  11. Follow other applicable mandatory OSHA standards, including: respiratory protection, sanitation, protection from bloodborne pathogens, and OSHA requirements for employee access to medical and exposure records.

Some people will still choose to wear masks in the workplace, maybe to protect someone close to them, or maybe because it makes them feel comfortable. Regardless of the reason, it is important to respect the choices that others make regarding their safety.  This has been a trying time, and it is not always possible to know the circumstances that others are dealing with. Be kind and stay strong.

 

Categories
COVID News

Bars and Restaurants Given an Extension for To-Go Alcohol Deliveries until December 31, 2021

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

Bars and Restaurants Given an Extension for To-Go Alcohol Deliveries until December 31, 2021

Although things are starting to return to normal as of June 15th (see blog post), loosened alcohol sales and consumption laws will remain in effect for the remainder of 2021.

The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control provided various temporary allowances during COVID which included the ability to return purchased alcohol; allowances of off-sales purchases from on-sale retailers; purchasing “to-go” premixed alcoholic beverages; and acceptance of payment at delivery. In other words, it was easier for establishments to sell beer, wine, and pre-mixed cocktails/drinks for pick-up and delivery.

These loosened restrictions are expected to assist restaurants badly hurt by the pandemic, because they can continue to expand outdoor operations in areas such as sidewalks and parking lots, and can continue the sale of to-go alcoholic beverages with food deliveries.

Furthermore, if these allowances continue to be popular, the legislature has pondered keeping some of them permanent, which would be greatly endorsed by current restaurants and breweries.

For more details see the CA Press Release, or contact the Burton Law Firm at 916.822.8700.

Categories
Business Law

June 15th The End of a Masquerade: What Does it Mean to You?

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

June 15th The End of a Masquerade: What Does it Mean to You?

Contact UsRecently the California state government announced that it would be lifting mask mandates at a statewide level. The California Department of Public Health seeks to bring California in line with the CDC’s recent recommendations of allowing those who are vaccinated to forgo their masks in most settings.

The issued a release clarifies that though the requirement for masks will be relaxes, masks will still be required, regardless of vaccination status for those who are:

  • On public transit;
  • Indoors in K-12 schools and childcare;
  • Healthcare settings;
  • State and local correctional facilities and detention centers; and
  • Homeless shelters, emergency shelters, and cooling centers.

Cal/OSHA has considered issuing guidelines that will still require all employees in a workplace to wear masks unless everyone in a given room is fully vaccinated; however, that proposal has so far been withdrawn, but could potentially be revived. Of note, Cal/OSHA is an independent board in the state government, and while Governor Newsom does have the ability to step in and change those regulations, he has indicated in a recent press conference that he is not likely to do so.

The state has still not issued any capacity guidelines that would restrict large gatherings as of June 10th, thus it is expected that normal group activities shall continue without restrictions.

To date, Governor Newsom maintains his emergency powers as the COVID-19 virus is still present. As such, he maintains his authority to reimpose mandates if they become necessary as the situation continues to develop (e.g. the various international variants, which so far the vaccine is effective against).

For More information on how this may affect you CLICK HERE or call Burton Law Firm (916) 822-8700.

Categories
Business Law

It Pays to be Nice: What Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. Means for Collecting Attorney’s Fees

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

It Pays to be Nice: What Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. Means for Collecting Attorney’s Fees

On March 9, 2021, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, issued a ruling in Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc.  on a trial court’s judgment awarding attorney’s fees under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032(b) and 1033.5(a)(10), to homeowners who won a judgment against an unlicensed contractor.

Starting in 2015, litigating the case took over five years. The amount under controversy was only $22,096; however, the Plaintiffs won a judgment for $133,792.11 (six times the amount in controversy), plus post-judgment interest.  The Plaintiffs thereafter sought attorney’s fees of $271,530, which with interest equated to $292,140.

After the smoke settled, the trial court awarded only $90,000 in attorney fees (a $200k+ loss of fees).

There are two ways to calculate Attorney’s fees: (i) the Lodestar method, which is, roughly, the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by a reasonable number of hours; or (ii) the percentage-of-recovery approach. It is at the discretion of the trial court which approach to choose, and here they used the Lodestar method (likely due to the embedded allowance to reduce the fees as they see fit).

The trial court had determined that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s $450 an hour rate was reasonable; however, it still denied their overall request for attorney’s fees due to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s lack of civility and inability to justify their work. For example, the Court specifically drew attention to the Plaintiffs’ filed briefings “replete with attacks on defense counsel such as that defense counsel filed ‘knowingly false claims of witness tampering,’ ‘her comments were frivolous,’ something was ‘typical of the improper tactics employed by defendants and their counsel’”, and generally how “offensive” their arguments were. The Court drew attention to how the Plaintiffs had filed “300 pages of documents” and had spent an amount of time on the case which was “so far beyond what was necessary on this matter.”

Through the Court of Appeals does discuss the simplicity of the matter and other factors under review, its Opinion consistently highlights and makes it known the most important factor was how Counsel for plaintiff took this matter personally:

“[C]ivility in litigation tends to be efficient by allowing disputants to focus on core disagreements and to minimize tangential distractions. It is a salutary incentive for counsel in fee-shifting cases to know their own low blows may return to hit them in the pocketbook.” …. “In short, in this appeal the [Plaintiffs] have come out swinging, apparently believing the best defense is a good offense. This approach demonstrates the trial court was within its discretion to conclude the [Plaintiff] conducted litigation that was less than civil.

The Court of Appeals concluded that this, and the other factors, were a sound basis for reducing the requested attorney’s fees from about $300,000 to $90,000.

What does this mean? Any seasoned litigator knows that clients are personally invested in their cases and sometimes want their attorneys to likewise be as passionate as they are, and even to cause pain to the other side. It is a tactic many lawyers feel they have to engage in, or perhaps subconsciously lean toward to meet client’s expectations, despite the fact that Rules 3.1 and 3.2 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct specifically disapprove of this behavior.

Nevertheless, going forward, attorneys need to be aware that such aggravated actions and use of hyperbole will continually and increasingly be scrutinized by the Courts, and may hit them where it hurts: their wallets. As advocates, our job is to be adversarial; however, unless we can do so professionally and courteously, financial compensation may be targeted.

Call 916-822-8700 for more information. You can read the full case here at: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2021/b298003.html

Categories
Business Law COVID

SB-95 Employment: COVID-19: Supplemental Paid Sick Leave Passed

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

SB-95 Employment: COVID-19: Supplemental Paid Sick Leave Passed

On March 19th, Governor Newsom approved SB-95, the Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law, which requires firms with twenty-five (25) or more employees to provide supplemental paid sick leave to said employees who are unable to work or telework due to COVID-19 (aka the “covered employees”). Their sick leave shall be paid at the highest of the covered employee’s regular rate of pay, the state minimum wage, or the local minimum wage to which the covered employee is entitled.  The bill entitles full time employees up to eighty (80) hours of supplemental paid sick leave, that the number is reduced for part-time workers.

The employees new Supplemental Paid Sick Leave takes priority in calculating an employee’s already existing and available leave, because “[a]n employer shall not require a covered employee to use any other paid or unpaid leave, paid time off, or vacation time provided by the employer . . . in lieu of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave.”

Section 248.2(b) of Labor Code broadly extends the scope of this supplemental paid sick leave to:

  • employees subject to quarantine or isolation;
  • employees advised by a local health officer to self-quarantine;
  • employees seeking a vaccination;
  • employees experiencing symptoms related to the COVID-19 vaccine;
  • employees experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
  • employees caring for a family member who is subject to a quarantine or isolation period or who has been advised to self-quarantine; and/or
  • employees caring for a child whose school or place of care is closed or otherwise unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19.

One concern is that the new law could provide employees with a way to work the system, in that it appears to allow eligibility for paid sick leave if “the employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19.” That leaves the door open to interpretation and abuse.  However, this is nothing new for employers; and the new law will hopefully assist to end the pandemic as soon as possible.

For more information, please contact our firm at 916.822.8700 or info@lawburton.com. Or, see the full text of the law at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB95.

Categories
COVID News

Individual Tax Deadline Extended from April 15th to May 17th, 2021

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

Individual Tax Deadline Extended from April 15th to May 17th, 2021

On March 17th, the IRS made a 4th quarter decision to extend the federal deadline, and therein moved the individual tax filing deadline ahead by a little over a month. Now, your individual IRS taxes will be due May 17th, 2021.

Relatedly, taxpayers shall postpone federal income tax payments without penalties and interest, regardless of the amount owed. Penalties, interest and additions to tax will begin to accrue on any remaining unpaid balances as of May 17, 2021. Individual taxpayers will automatically avoid interest and penalties on the taxes paid by May 17.

Please take note, this deadline only extends to federal individual payments, and does not extend to state tax payments or deposits or payments of any other type of federal tax, such as partnership and corporate deadlines.

For more information, please contact the Burton Law Firm at 916.822.8700. More information will be released in the following days, but feel free to read on at: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-day-for-individuals-extended-to-may-17-treasury-irs-extend-filing-and-payment-deadline.

UPDATE: The California FTB has agreed to match the IRS individual filing deadline to May 17th.

“We are aware the federal tax filing and payment deadline for individuals has been extended to May 17, 2021. Consistent with the IRS, California will also extend the state tax filing and payment deadline for individuals to May 17, 2021. The extension does not apply to estimated tax payments due on April 15, 2021.” See https://www.ftb.ca.gov/about-ftb/newsroom/2020-tax-year-extension-to-file-and-pay-individual.html for more details.

Categories
COVID

The $1.9 Trillion Dollar American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Becomes Law

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

The $1.9 Trillion Dollar American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Becomes Law

SUMMARY:

  • Provides another round of direct payments of $1,400 for individuals, $2,800 for joint filers, and $1,400 for each qualifying dependent, for individuals with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $75,000 ($150,000 for couples) or less, with no direct payments for individuals with AGI of $80,000 ($160,000 for couples) or more;
  • Provides $7.5 billion to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for tracking, administering and distributing COVID-19 vaccines;
  • Appropriates $27.4 billion in emergency rental assistance;
  • Provides $7.25 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) for forgivable loans, and extends nonprofits’ eligibility for the loans;
  • Tax changes such as:
    • Raising the maximum Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for adults without children from $543 to $1,502;
    • increasing the Child Tax Credit maximum amount to $3,000 per child and $3,600 for children under age 6;
    • extending the employee retention credit established by the CARES Act through December 31, 2021;
    • extending tax credits for employer-provided paid sick and family leave established under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) through September 30, 2021;
  • Provides $350 billion to help states, counties, cities and tribal governments to assist with COVID-19 and to address its economic effects, including aid to households, small businesses, nonprofits, and industries such as tourism and hospitality;
  • Gives $4 billion to the USDA to assist with purchasing food and agricultural commodities, and making grants and loans for small to mid-size processors, seafood processing facilities, farmers markets, producers and other organizations responding to COVID;
  • Provides $50 million in funding for the Consumer Product Safety Fund to protect consumers from potentially dangerous products related to COVID-19;
  • Provides $4.5 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to assist eligible low-income households with heating and cooling energy costs;
  • Extends the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program through September 6, 2021, while increasing the total number of weeks of benefits available to individuals who are not able to return to work from 50 to 79 weeks;
  • Creates a $7.2 billion Emergency Connectivity Fund to reimburse schools and libraries for internet access and connected devices; and
  • Provides $30.5 billion for grants to transit agencies for operating expenses, including payroll and personal protective equipment costs.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the “Act”) passed the Senate with a vote of 50 to 49;  the House passed the Senate’s revised version by a vote of 220 to 211. Passed with no Republican support, President Biden signed the Act into law on March 11, 2021.

The Act is a $1.9 trillion continuation of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act Pub.L. 116–136) enacted on March 27, 2020; the $484 billion Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Pub.L. 116–139) enacted on April 24, 2020; and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 enacted on December 27, 2020 (Pub.L. 116–260) that combined $900 billion in COVID-19 relief with the $1.4 trillion in normal governmental expenses that averted a governmental shutdown.

As part of President Biden’s promise of vaccine availability for all adults by the end of May, the Act allocates $7.5 billion dollars for COVID-19 vaccines. Although the Act’s publicity is focused on the individual level, there are a few items of interest for businesses as well. This includes a dramatic resurrection of an expired program, the creation of three new programs, and some slight ancillary changes to existing relief measures.  

The Act revitalizes the State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) created by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. Until now, the SSBCI’s sole federal funding was the $1.5 billion allotted in its creation. Now, the Act allots an additional $1.5 billion out of the overall $10 billion to “business enterprises owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,” $500 million to “very small businesses”, and another $500 million to Tribal governments. Unlike the Small Business Administration (SBA) plans, the States administer the SSBCI; so in essence, this provision of the Act subsidizes state versions of the SBA. Some idea of the anticipated administrative costs may be found in the $500 million allotment to provide “technical assistance” to states. States are generally at liberty to set eligibility requirements if recipients are limited to businesses with 500 or fewer employees for loan amounts of $5 million or less. There is no federally imposed revenue ceiling for these programs, not even for “very small businesses.”

The new Restaurant Revitalization Fund is created with a $25 billion allotment, of which $5 billion is allotted to eligible entities with gross receipts of not more than half a million dollars during 2019. This fund is to be administrated by the SBA. Grants are to be equal to pandemic-related revenue loss of the eligible entity, not exceeding $10 million per eligible entity and not exceeding $5 million per physical location of the eligible entity. Applicants to the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Program are ineligible.

The Community Navigator Pilot Program is another new program in the SBA. This consists of $100 million allotted to nonprofits dedicated to helping businesses apply to the SBA.

Finally, the Payroll Support Program is created with a $3 billion endowment designed to assist employers who have yet to receive COVID-19 related relief. Entities that are “currently expending” PPP funds, that were allowed to claim the CARES Act payroll tax credit in the prior calendar year quarter, or that received a specific air carrier subsidy (15 U.S. Code § 9073), are ineligible. The program is scheduled to last for six months, beginning on the effective date of the first agreement made under the program. There are no other eligibility conditions for employers willing to spend the grant on employees. There is curiously little statutory text devoted to a program of such a wide scope.

The Payroll Protection Program (PPP) is expanded to now include a business or organization that is an “Internet-only news publisher or Internet-only periodical publisher, and is engaged in the collection and distribution of local or regional and national news and information.” New PPP loans will be reduced by the amount of SBA Section 7(a) loans executed after December 26, 2020. The Targeted Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) is fortified with $5 billion to provide $5,000 loans for covered entities with economic loss greater than 50% with no more than 10 employees. This is in addition to prior EIDL payments.

In tax terms, the limitation on excess business losses of noncorporate taxpayers is extended from January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2027. Funds received through targeted EIDL advances and through restaurant revitalization grants are both tax-exempt.

For more information, please contact the Burton Law Firm at 916.822.8700. You can read the full text of the bill, H.R.1319, at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1319/text.

Additional helpful information can also be found on the National Conference of State Legislatures website, at, : https://www.ncsl.org/ncsl-in-dc/publications-and-resources/american-rescue-plan-act-of-2021.aspx.

Categories
COVID

California Governor Gavin Newsom Orders Closures of Indoor Operations Statewide

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

California Governor Gavin Newsom Orders Closures of Indoor Operations Statewide

Effective July 13, 2020, all bars, breweries, and pubs in California must close both indoor and outdoor operations due to rising COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations. Additionally, statewide closures of indoor operations in the following sectors have been ordered:

  • Dine-in restaurants,
  • Wineries and tasting rooms,
  • Movie theaters,
  • Family entertainment centers including bowling alleys and similar venues,
  • Zoos and museums, and
  • Cardrooms

There are additional mandated closures for California counties that have been on the County Monitoring List for three consecutive days. Unless the activity can be modified to operate outdoors or via pick-up, the following industries and activities must shut down immediately:

  • Fitness centers
  • Worship services
  • Protests
  • Offices for non-essential sectors
  • Personal care services, including nail salons, and body waxing and tattoo parlors
  • Hair salons and barbershops
  • Malls

As of July 13, 2020, the following counties have been on the County Monitoring List for three consecutive days: Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Imperial, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tulare, Yolo, Yuba, and Ventura.
According to the Official California State Government Website, as of July 13, 2020, California has 329, 162 confirmed cases of COVID-19. For more information, visit https://covid19.ca.gov/.

Categories
COVID

The Renewed Paycheck Protection Program (aka PPP2)

News & Analysis
Latest legal news and recent law changes.

The Renewed Paycheck Protection Program (aka PPP2)

Probably the most important fact is that PPP funding is available to businesses that previously received a PPP loan. Business are eligible for a second PPP loan of up to $2 million, provided they have 300 or fewer employees, have used or will use the full amount of their first PPP loan, and can show a 25% gross revenue decline in any 2020 quarter compared with the same quarter in 2019. 

  • For First-Time Borrowers,
    • Businesses with 500 or fewer employees that are eligible for other SBA 7(a) loans.
    • Sole proprietors, independent contractors, and eligible self-employed individuals.
    • Not-for-profits, including churches.
    • Accommodation and food services operations (those with North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes starting with 72) with fewer than 300 employees per physical location.
  • Note – the legislation also allows borrowers that returned all or part of a previous PPP loan to reapply for the maximum amount available to them.
  • Loan Forgiveness. As with PPP1, the costs eligible for loan forgiveness in PPP2 include payroll, rent, covered mortgage interest, and utilities. There is also a simplified forgiveness application process for loans of $150,000 or less. PPP2 also makes the following potentially forgivable:
    • Covered worker protection and facility modification expenditures, including personal protective equipment, to comply with COVID-19 federal health and safety guidelines.
    • Expenditures to suppliers that are essential at the time of purchase to the recipient’s current operations.
    • Covered operating costs such as software and cloud computing services and accounting needs.
  • To be eligible for full loan forgiveness, PPP borrowers will have to spend no less than 60% of the funds on payroll over a covered period of either eight or 24 weeks — the same parameters PPP1 had when it stopped accepting applications in August.

——

See https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr133/BILLS-116hr133enr.pdfhttps://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP-IFR-Paycheck-Protection-Program-as-Amended-by-Economic-Aid-Act.pdfhttps://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP-IFR-Second-Draw-Loans.pdf, or the SBA  for more details or contact The Burton Law Firm.