Fischer v. Jimenez, et al.
Published: Oct. 19, 2004 | Result Date: Aug. 23, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC292520 Bench Decision – $34,270
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Experts
Plaintiff
Michael D. Shotwell
(technical)
Louis Krokover
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiff, an attorney, retained the defendant Blue Coast, to prepare plans for a spec house he hoped to build in Cheviot Hills. The contract required the plaintiff to pay in advance. The plaintiff made several changes regarding the specification of the home during the course of the project requesting that it be made substantially larger, then smaller, then larger again. Ultimately, the defendants prepared the plans, without being paid in advance, but refused to deliver the plans until the plaintiff paid in full. The plaintiff sold the property to a third party buyer and no agreement could be reached on the final payment the plaintiff owed and the plans were never therefore delivered. (The cross-complainant wanted an additional $12,000 for the plans prior to the lawsuit). The total contract price was approximately $74,000 with the change orders of which the plaintiff had paid $53,000. The plaintiff claimed he had fully paid what was due.
Settlement Discussions
In late settlement discussions, the plaintiff eluded but did not firmly offer to accept a refund of the $53,000 he paid. The cross-complainant offered to simply walk away.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed damages of $685,000 plus general damages for emotional distress for all of his costs associated with acquiring the subject property, holding and carrying it, plus lost profits on the ultimate sale of the property. The plaintiff withdrew his request for lost profits at the commencement of the trial in face of a motion in limine by the defendants to exclude same. At the conclusion of the trial, the plaintiff asked the court to award him approximately $300,000. The defendants/cross-complainant asked the court to award them $24,660.
Result
The court found for the defendants/cross-complainants and awarded the cross-complainant, Blue Coast, all of the money it was seeking.
Other Information
According the defendant/cross-complainant, the court indicated in its ruling that the plaintiff's testimony was not credible and that the plaintiff had abused his license to practice law. The court determined that the complaint had no merit against any defendant and that the contracting defendants/cross complainant, Blue Coast, was entitled to the unpaid balance on the contract plus change orders and interest. The plaintiff/cross-defendant has filed a motion for new trial on the issue of damages only and this is set to be heard on Sep. 27, 2004.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390