• A breach of contract, fraud, etc., action wherein Plaintiff alleges that she was scammed by a trusted and long-term acquaintance to accept shares in an LLC that was not profitable in exchange for agreeing the defendants to use her personal information to obtain a business line of credit to aid in business development. Plaintiff further alleges that instead of a line of credit, three credit cards were opened, thousands of dollars charges (some for alleged personal use), and that approx. $40k-$60K in balances were generated, with one such credit card now being in default/collection. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $305,000.

 

• A disputed liability habitability case as well as an underlying landlord and tenant dispute involving allegations of deferred maintenance, alleges prior water intrusion, poor weatherproofing, termite infestation, mold, etc., that caused at least one of the tenants to show allergic reactions and causing a variety of bodily injuries, general damages, etc., from not only exposure but also from temporarily being relocated, etc. Opening demand was $150,000.

 

• A breach of contract and fraud case between shareholders in an entity that was operating one or more hospices. Plaintiff alleges that his percentage was reduced year after year because of his alleged shortcomings in generating business even though he was orally promised that even with a lower percentage share, his K1’s would still be high or will increase, which Plaintiff alleges never happened. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that in 2014 the entity filed tax returns indicating that he had received a K1 from said entity even though Plaintiff alleges that he did not, and which resulted in his being assessed significant taxes, interest and penalties for essentially a K1 distribution which he did not receive. Plaintiff’s opening move was $650,000.

 

• A breach of contract case wherein the Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered into an agreement back in 2012 for Plaintiff to provide some tax consulting services, specifically in finding tax credits available to the Defendant. Defendant alleges that its performance was excused because Plaintiff did not provide a particular services as part of the Plaintiff’s contracted services. Plaintiff inter alia alleges that the particular service was never contracted for, was provided a few times as a courtesy and that the Defendant had both notice of this and the ability to take corrective measures to prevent/mitigate any damages alleged in this action.

 

• A dispute between business neighbors wherein Plaintiff alleges that several times in the past, water has intruded into his property causing damages to the property arising from alleged poor drainage on the shared roof as well as the parking lot.  Defendant denied causation and damages, alleging that the damage to Plaintiff's property was due to other sources of water intrusion unrelated to the Defendant. 

 

• Plaintiffs purchased a SFR in Los Angeles. The same brokerage represented both buyers and sellers, though each side had different agents from said brokerage.  Plaintiffs allege that after COE, they foudn out that the house had suffered extenstive fire damage that was a latent condition which should have been disclosed by the sellers and/or their agents.  Defendants allege that Plaintiffs received timely disclosures that put the buyers on notice, though the buyers allege that they never received said notice/disclosure.  Plaintiffs' opening demand was approx. $500,000.

 

• A real estate dispute arising from a purchase of two vacant lots. Plaintiff contends that seller and seller’s agent did not disclose/concealed that a neighboring lot was, and had been for years, using one of the two lots at issue for ingress and egress based on necessity. Plaintiff seeking rescission and monetary damages in excess of $150,000.

 

• Plaintiff alleges that she entered into a contract with Defendant for debt relief as well as credit repair, whereas Defendant contends that it made several verbal and written representations that it was not providing any credit repair services.  Plaintiff alleges causes of action based on tort, fraud, contract as well as violations of The Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), and further alleges that she is entitled to monetary damages, punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees.  Opening demand is $175,000.

 

• Plaintiff, a public agency, contracted with defendant for certain IT solutions. Plaintiff alleges that as part of said agreement, Defendant was to provide inter alia periodic onsite and offsite backups of their data. Plaintiff alleges that as part of an upgrade/expansion of their server capacity, all or almost all of their data was lost to the extent that most, if not all of it, was not readily or easily recoverable.  Defendant dispute liability and damages, and alleged that essentially a third-party vendor was the one responsible for the data loss because Defendant had acted within the standard of care and otherwise consistent with its scope of work per the contract with the Plaintiff. Opening demand was $118,000.

 

• A loan dispute between merchants including an alleged third-party guarantor for the alleged loan. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $250,000. 

 

• Defendants served as the Plaintiff’s Real Estate Agent and Broker in the sale of the subject property. Plaintiff intended to do a 1031 Exchange to defer capital gain taxation. Plaintiff enrolled the assistance of the Agent to complete the 1031 Exchange transaction, which was not timely handled and as such Plaintiff contends that he was hit with approx. $130,000 in federal and state taxes, as well as having lost the income stream from the Target property as well as its future appreciation in value. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $187,000.

 

• This is a property damage dispute involving upstairs and downstairs neighbors at a condo complex. Plaintiff, the downstairs neighbor, alleges that the defendant, the upstairs neighbor, negligently caused water intrusion into his unit, and in support thereof presented evidence that the source of the leak was underneath the Defendant’s kitchen sink. Cross-Defendant HOA was also involved in the case.  Opening demand was $120,000 to account for not only the repair of the premises, but also for pack-in, pack-out, as well as temporary housing during the repairs/remediation.

 

• Plaintiff operates a hotel that shares a 250+ feet common wall with a Church. Plaintiff alleges that due to poor/inappropriate drainage and/or issues with the water protection of the wall/stucco etc., the interior of the hotel sustained $60+ thousand dollars’ worth of damage, as well as other damages such as past and future loss of income.  The germane legal issues included causation as well as statute of limitations issues. 

 

• Plaintiff contracted for a mobile storage container and alleges that the container was lost in transit. Plaintiff sues for the value of the content, and his starting demand was $300,000.00.

 

• Purchaser of a shopping center alleges that he had instructed the seller and all brokers involved that none of the then existing leases should be renewed and that otherwise the status quo should be maintained because (Plaintiff alleges that it was well known by all that) Plaintiff intended to convert the shopping center in to a mixed-use property requiring some if not all current tenants to relocate during construction. Plaintiff alleges at despite his instruction, the seller nevertheless extended one of the then current leases by another 5 years.  The Buyer’s opening demand was $150,000 and the tenant’s opening demand was also $150,000.  

 

• Plaintiff and his son were tenants in the Defendant’s residential rental property beginning on or about 2013.  Plaintiffs allege that beginning 2013 and last through 2017 when the Plaintiffs vacated due to an alleged constructive eviction, that various serious conditions existed with the rental unit including but not limited to water intrusion, mold, and other related issues/conditions. Plaintiffs allege that they made several written and verbal complaints to the landlord’s property manager, and that they also complained to the Department of Health and Safety – who inspected the property and found merit to some of the conditions alleged. Defendant inter alia alleges that the Plaintiffs did not provide access for purposes of fixing the conditions, and that the Plaintiffs moved out before said conditions could be remediated. Plaintiff’s opening demand was $118,900

 

• Plaintiffs were tenant at the Defendant/Landlord’s premises. Plaintiffs allege that at various times, landlord attempted to evict them and/or attempted entry to the unit via a variety of alleged notices that were not properly served. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant on multiple occasions, verbally and in writing, expressed some extreme language, profanity, alleged threats, and some including alleged anti-Semitic references. Defendant Landlord also was asserted a cross-complaint for inter alia assault and battery.  Opening demand was $350,000.

 

• This case arises from the sale of a pizza restaurant. Plaintiff/seller alleges that defendant/buyer knew throughout the transaction that buyer needed to submit certain financial information to the landlord such that the landlord would approve the assignment of lease so that the seller would be relinquished from said lease.  The Buyer satisfied all condition of the sale, tendered purchase price, etc., and began operation, but allegedly, for one reason or another, did not finalize the assignment of lease requirement. After a few months, seller issued a 3-Day Notice, in response to which the buyer vacated, taking all equipment and most fixtures.  Plaintiff/seller’s opening demand was $175,000, and the Defendant/buyer’s counter-claim was for $225,000.

 

• Plaintiff purchased the subject property, at which time he alleges that he informed both the seller and the real estate agent(s) that the functioning of the water well was a material term/condition to the transaction.  Plaintiff alleges that upon close of escrow, the water well did not produce the necessary amount of water for their intended use of the property despite having asked the real estate professionals for certificates/reports as to both potability and quantity of water produced by the water well. Plaintiff stated various claims based on fraud as well as failure to disclose against the seller and the real estate professionals involved.  Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $1.4 million.

 

• This is a neighbor dispute arising from purported competing rights to a common driveway.  Plaintiff contends that a prior court order is binding on both neighbors re neither neighbor being allowed to obstruct access and/or use of the drive to the exclusion of the other.  Defendant contends that the prior court order was superseded by a written agreement between Defendant and the prior owner of the neighboring lot (from whom Plaintiff purchased the property). Plaintiff further contends inter alia that the aforementioned written agreement is not binding on him, and that when he purchased the property was not even recorded and that the prior owner did not have a legal interest in said property to encumber the property that Plaintiff purchased. 

 

• Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a software use/licensing agreement. The contract had an initial 3-year term, and provided that it would renew annually. After many years without any issues, Defendant purported to give notice to terminate the agreement. Plaintiff’s position is, among other things, that the while the agreement can be terminated with notice, upon termination the Defendant is still responsible for payments for the balance of the calendar year within which the agreement was terminated.  Defendant’s position is that the contract is vague as to various material terms regarding termination, and that the contract is silent on whether or not the cancelling client is still responsible for monthly payments even after terminating and for the rest of the year within which the contract was purportedly terminated.

 

• This is a wrongful foreclosure case. Plaintiff made a loan to a third party, said loan was subordinate 2nd position. The third party went into default on the 1st loan, and said loan and the property securing both loans went into foreclosure. The property was sold at non-judicial foreclosure.  Plaintiff contends that he/his agent did not receive any notice of the foreclosure, and that when it was discovered at the eleventh hour and contact was made with the Trusee, said Trustee did not stay the foreclosure based on the allegation of no notice. Plaintiff contends that had he known about the foreclosure, he could have and would have bid to purchase the foreclosing 1st position, thus retaining his interest in the property.  The defendants contend that all statutory notices were properly given.

 

• A case involving a divorced couple and their daughter. Plaintiffs (wife and daughter) are suing Defendant (husband and father) as a result of monies owned for a jointly owned property. The subject property is a residential house which the family lived together in until the Plaintiff and Defendant decided to separate and finally divorce. Defendant and Plaintiff executed a Marital Settlement Agreement whereby Defendant agreed to transfer ownership of the property to Plaintiff as her separate property. Plaintiff then transferred the title of the property to include her daughter. Defendant named his ex-wife as a nominee of the property he purchased.

​

• A Landlord-Tenant dispute case. Plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of Defendant’s negligent maintenance of his property. When Plaintiff first moved in, he made a request for the bathtub\shower to be repaired, as there were no grab-bars installed and the tub had no anti-slip material. While Plaintiff was taking a shower one afternoon, he raised his leg and fell backwards, crashing through the glass shower door and causing glass to be embedded on multiple parts of his body and landed on both knees. As a result, Plaintiff transported by ambulance to the emergency room where he was treated with open wound lacerations and was recommended future medical care for both knees including bilateral knee surgeries.  Plaintiff made a demand of $124,999 which has expired.

 

• This case involves the sale of a property. The Plaintiff, an elderly man, bought the from Defendant. The Plaintiff is alleging elder abuse, alleging the seller took advantage of his poor eyesight when signing the documents.

 

• A case involving AirBnB in which the Plaintiff alleges she was caused emotional distress due to being evicted from her hotel. 

 

• A case arising out of a home fire incident. Plaintiff is seeking damages from a construction company which was remodeling the home. Defendants concede that there were multiple areas of debris due to the remodeling. Inclusive, the fire was caused by a furnace which was manipulated by the home owners to serve as an electrical heater with a thermostat. 

 

• Plaintiff was the owner of an apartment building which was sold to Defendant. Plaintiff felt they were scammed. The real estate broker led Plaintiff to believe that the Defendant was going to add the property to their portfolio. Defendant failed to present various documentation including proof of funds and loan application. Plaintiff claims they were rushed by the broker into signing the agreement prior to discussing property issues.

 

• A case involving Plaintiff performing construction services at Defendants residence for which the Defendants refuse to pay all the amounts due. Defendants acted as owner-builders at their property but then opted to hire a general contractor. Defendants entered into a cost-plus contract with Plaintiff, an agreement based on the cost of subcontractor services, materials, any labor together with an amount of overhead and profit. The contract had a stated amount of $195,478, however it was an estimate. During the construction, Defendants made a total of 43 change orders which were never signed. Defendants were habitually behind on payments and ultimately stopped paying without explanation.

 

• This is a claim pursuant to the recorded Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Reservations and Rights of Way. The Plaintiff and Defendants are neighbors. Plaintiff claims that Defendants allowed their tree to grow to a height that restricts the view of the Plaintiffs, resulting in a sharply diminished value of their property.
   

• Dispute among tenants in common regarding improvements and management as it pertains to the value of each partner’s share in proceeds from sale.
   

• A family rift involving ownership and ownership interest in a jointly owned property.

 

• Plaintiff alleges Defendant owes business taxes for the tax periods 2004-2011.