梅州子宫内膜炎如何治疗(梅州修复乳房下垂) (今日更新中)

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The San Diego Humane Society announced Wednesday that it will offer refunds to San Diego residents who overpaid for certain services between July 2018 and last week. Humane Society officials recently determined that some residents paid fees that were higher than the amounts the city of San Diego adopted on July 1, 2018, for local animal services. The organization plans to contact and offer refunds to residents affected by the overcharging that occurred between July 1 last year and Nov. 19 of this year. The organization also offered discounted services to residents via promotions intended to increase animal adoptions and make it easier to adopt a pet. Residents who paid for animal services at discounted prices will not be contacted, according to the Humane Society. 800

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The San Diego City Council unanimously voted Monday to amend the Mission Bay Park Master Plan to add a large fenced-in, off-leash dog park to the southwest corner of Fiesta Island. The council considered two options to update Fiesta Island's southwest section, which is partially undeveloped. The plan dubbed ``option A'' would have reserved much of the area for a smaller fenced-in, off-leash dog park while also including a launching area for non-motorized boats, a road extension through the park and a dedicated swimming beach. Option B, which the council chose to adopt, will allocate almost all of the southwest area as a fenced-in dog park with adjacent parking spaces and walking trails surrounding it. The dog park, parking and walking trails will span roughly 470 acres, according to the city. City officials developed the amendment options to the Mission Bay Park Master Plan for roughly two years. The vast majority of public speakers at the council meeting voiced their support for option B, arguing it will preserve existing habitats and serve as the only off-leash dog area in Mission Bay Park. ``I'm a strong supporter of everything we can do to keep Fiesta Island in its most natural form,'' said City Councilwoman Jennifer Campbell. ``Preservation of open space is so very, very important.'' In addition to support for the dog park, option B's supporters argued it would cost less than option A because the city would not have to make significant modifications to the area such as adding a paved road through the park. City Councilman Scott Sherman suggested the city should look into designating the South Shores boat launching area as a launching port for non- motorized boats as well in an effort to appease non-motorized boat owners. South Shores, located across the bay from the south end of Fiesta Island, is used sparingly by boat and watercraft owners and includes all of the amenities that option A would have added to Fiesta Island. City officials told Sherman they would start the process to modify South Shores' usage. ``South Shores is incredibly underutilized and we spent a whole bunch of money building that thing in the first place,'' Sherman said. ``It would be really nice to see more utilization of that spot.'' 2275

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The San Diego City Council voted 5-4 today to extend the rent repayment period for commercial and residential renters to Dec. 30, giving renters who have lost income due to the COVID-19 pandemic a few extra months to repay back rent.Council President Georgette Gomez's initial motion Tuesday would have extended the repayment period for the eviction moratorium to March 31, 2021. Councilwoman Jennifer Campbell amended the motion to the December date as a compromise.On March 25, the council voted unanimously to begin an emergency eviction moratorium for renters. The moratorium requires renters to demonstrate through documentation that the pandemic has caused ``substantial loss of income,'' according to city staff. Renters are also required to follow rules in leases, but landlords cannot evict a tenant for nonpayment due to COVID-19.The moratorium expires Sept. 30. If tenants are in good standing with landlords, they can work out a repayment plan for back rent through Dec. 30, but otherwise things could get dicey for tenants.``We are all in it together,'' Gomez said before discussion of the motion. ``The economy is not fully restored. This is not an ideal policy, but it's a necessity for what we are dealing with.''Gomez represents District 9, which encompasses Southcrest, City Heights, Rolando and the College area. It has also been one of the most impacted areas during the pandemic.According to a member of Gomez' staff -- which gave the presentation on the topic -- the city had started 15,659 rental relief applications using federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act funds. Disbursements from that pool of relief money are scheduled to be handed out in late August or early September. Those funds will go directly to landlords, however, and not renters.Council President Pro Tem Barbara Bry voted no on the motion Tuesday, not because she didn't agree that people needed help paying rent, but because the arbitrary nature of the rental relief program could leave the city open for lawsuits, she said. She added that not enough renters know the impact of not paying rent.``It's a cruel hoax,'' she said. Bry said that by not paying rent on time, tenants could be destroying their credit and leaving themselves with mountains of debt and no place to turn once the moratorium ends.In a public comment period, several dozen San Diegans called in, many urging the council to extend the moratorium -- which was not the motion in front of council -- and many to forgive rent and mortgages outright. About an equal number of landlords called in to urge the council to allow for evictions again, as many said they were paying two mortgages and not receiving income.The repayment plan extension to December will pass a critical few months, including local, state and national elections. On Nov. 3, San Diego voters will select a new mayor and five new members of its City Council -- something that could cause significant shakeup in how the city is run.``I think in three more months we will be able to tell better what the future holds,'' Campbell said. Councilmembers Chris Cate and Scott Sherman were opposed to the extension on legal grounds, as the gap between when the moratorium was passed to the date proposed in Tuesday's initial motion would have been more than a year. They claimed this could cause trouble for landlords trying to evict delinquent tenants or to collect back rent.Because the repayment extension passed with just five votes, it is susceptible to a possible veto by Mayor Kevin Faulconer. A six-councilmember vote would have made it ironclad. 3622

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Wednesday to approve million in aid for businesses affected by San Diego County's slide into the most-restrictive purple tier of the state's four-tiered coronavirus monitoring system.Greg Cox and Nathan Fletcher, co-chairs of the County of San Diego's COVID-19 Subcommittee, proposed making million in general funds available to provide relief to businesses negatively impacted by the indoor closures mandated by the purple tier."Due to the massive spike in COVID-19 cases and very concerning increases in hospitalizations we have to take action to slow the spread in San Diego County," they said in a joint statement. "Through no fault of their own, COVID-19 highest risk entities have to stop indoor operations. While we know this step is vital to help slow the spread in our community, we want to step up and help those impacted..."Our goal for the million is to provide relief to restaurants, gyms and other entities that have been directly impacted by the indoor closures due to our county's purple tier status. We want to provide this critical relief to them as our community works to slow the spread and stop the surge of COVID- 19 cases."Funds will also be available for event businesses, such as caterers and party planners.Cox, board chairman, said during Wednesday's virtual special meeting that providing the right critical relief for businesses is a priority."I realize we're in a situation none of us created," he said. "We want nothing more than for businesses to get back to normal, but this is one small step we can make to help them hang on."Supervisor Jim Desmond, described the funds a much-needed bandage for struggling businesses, but not a solution. "These businesses aren't looking for a hand-out; they just want to get back to work," the board vice-chairman said.The funding will be divided evenly between the five supervisorial districts -- with each receiving about million.The county will accept applications for the funds. Information on how to apply can be found online here. 2089

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The city of San Diego obtained a preliminary injunction Tuesday against grocery delivery company Instacart, in the wake of a judge's ruling that the company misclassified its employees as independent contractors.San Diego County Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor's ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott, who alleged Instacart was evading providing its "shoppers" with worker protections like minimum wage and overtime pay by classifying them as independent contractors rather than employees.In the ruling, which was issued Feb. 18, but not formally served to the parties until this week, Taylor agreed with the City Attorney's Office's assertion that Instacart would not be able to show its workers should be classified as independent contractors.RELATED: San Diego Instacart shoppers upset over service’s pay changesThe judge cited a state Supreme Court ruling in the case of Dynamex Operations West Inc. v Superior Court, which outlines an "ABC" test for determining whether a worker is an employee, a classification that applies if the person performs a core function of the business, is not free from its control, or is not engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business.Taylor wrote that Instacart would likely be unable to satisfy any of the test's three conditions.The judge also wrote that the city's litigation against Instacart was in line with other recent, related decisions, including the recent passage of AB 5, which gives greater labor protections to workers classified as employees."The policy of California is unapologetically pro-employee (in the several senses of that word). Dynamex is explicitly in line with this policy," Taylor wrote. "While there is room for debate on the wisdom of this policy, and while other states have chosen another course, it is noteworthy that all three branches of California have no spoken on this issue."The Supreme Court announced Dynamex two years ago. The decision gave rise to a long debate in the legal press and in the legislature. The legislature passed AB 5 last fall. The governor signed it. To put it in the vernacular, the handwriting is on the wall."Instacart plans to appeal the decision, which the company said would not affect its operations in San Diego, due to a temporary stay of enforcement during the appeals process."We disagree with the judge's decision to grant a preliminary injunction against Instacart in San Diego," Instacart said in an emailed statement. "We're in compliance with the law and will continue to defend ourselves in this litigation. We are appealing this decision in an effort to protect shoppers, customers and retail partners. The court has temporarily stayed the enforcement of the injunction and we will be taking steps to keep that stay in place during the appeals process so that Instacart's service will not be disrupted in San Diego."Elliott's office touted the ruling as a victory for worker protections."This landmark ruling makes clear that Instacart employees have been misclassified as independent contractors, resulting in their being denied worker protections in which they are entitled by state law. We invite Instacart to work with us to craft a meaningful and fair solution" Elliott said."This decision is also a warning to other companies to do right by their employees. As the court said, `The handwriting is on the wall.' California has had two years since the Supreme Court's Dynamex decision to distinguish between a contactor and an employee. Everyone, not just Instacart, must live up to their legal responsibilities; they cannot ignore the significance of what occurred here." 3686

来源：资阳报