Lionel Simon dba Liberty Paper Co. v. San Paolo Bank, et al.
Published: Jul. 18, 1998 | Result Date: Aug. 1, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC152431 Verdict – $2,505,000
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Andre E. Jardini
(Knapp, Petersen & Clarke)
Mitchell B. Ludwig
(Knapp, Petersen & Clarke)
Defendant
Beth Ann Young
(Levene, Neale, Bender, Yoo & Golubchik, LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Marvin Silverman
(technical)
Arthur Mazirow Esq.
(technical)
David M. Rosenthal
(technical)
Defendant
Charles Reinagel
(technical)
Facts
Defendant San Paolo U.S. Holdings Inc. (Holdings), a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant San Paolo Bank, was in the sole business of selling off the bank's real estate (REO properties) that the bank obtained through foreclosure sales. In June 1996, plaintiff Lionel Simon dba Liberty Paper Company entered into negotiations with Holdings to buy 816 S. Figueroa, a five-story office building in the heart of the financial district. On June 12, 1996, defendant Holdings and the plaintiff entered into a agreement titled "Letter of Intent" to sell the property in which Holdings expressly promised to exclusively negotiate with the plaintiff to complete the transaction. Holdings admitted that this provision prevented them from discussing any sale of the subject property with any other potential buyer unless and until the plaintiff's deal was terminated. Notwithstanding, Holdings continued to negotiate with other buyers on and after June 12, 1996. In addition, Holdings entered into a purchase contract with these other buyers during the exclusive period. Holdings thereafter disingenously terminated negotiations with the plaintiff over an inmaterial term of the contract and refused to complete the sale to the plaintiff. Holdings then covered up the negotiations with other buyer during the exclusive period and hid the fact that they actually signed the other purchase contract by altering the date of execution on the other contact and then denying that they were negotiating with the other buyer and that they executed the other contract during the exclusive period. Holdings also instructed the broker who was working the deal with the plaintiff and Holdings to conceal from the plaintiff that they were negotiating with the other buyer. The broker complied with Holdings' request. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on breach of contract and fraud theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
After the finding of fraud by clear and convincing evidence and before argument on punitives, the defendants offered only $15,000 to settle the entire case, which was rejected. After the final status conference, the defendant offered $50,000. In the first month of the case, the plaintiff made a demand of approximately $250,000 which was rejected by the defendant. The plaintiff made no other demands. After the first trial, the defendant offered $160,000 which was rejected.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed $______________ in damages.
Other Information
The verdict was reached in August 1997, approximately one year and two months after the case was filed. (The original verdict was $2.5 million, remitted to $250,000 by the court.) A new trial was ordered as to amount of punitive damages only. The case was retried to a new jury as to punitive damages, which resulted in a verdict of $1.7 million.
Deliberation
1½ days
Poll
9-3 on punitive damage amount
Length
11 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390