This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Disability Discrimination

Hooman M. Melamed, M.D. v. The Ridge Condominium, et al.

Published: May 24, 2024 | Result Date: Mar. 22, 2024 | Filing Date: Jan. 26, 2017 |

Case number: SC126981 Verdict –  Defense

Judge

Michael E. Whitaker

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jonathan F. Golding
(Golding Lamothe)

Rae Lamothe
(Golding Lamothe)


Defendant

David A. Bernardoni
(Kulik, Gottesman, Siegel & Ware LLP)

Samantha E. Johnson
(Kulik, Gottesman, Siegel & Ware LLP)

Patrick J. McCormick
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)

Dane H. Taylor
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)


Facts

In three separate lawsuits consolidated for trial, Hooman M. Melamed, M.D. sued his former homeowners association, the Ridge Condominium Association, the property manager (Carol Tolchin) and the management company (CT Prop Management). Dr. Melamed claimed the Association was unfairly enforcing the parking rules against him, and had discriminated against him by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to the parking rules while he was temporarily disabled. Dr. Melamed further alleged the Defendants were negligent in relation to the repair/replacement of the roof above his condominium unit.

The Association filed two cross-complaints against Dr. Melamed relating to his violation of the parking rules, and for making unauthorized modifications to his unit.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff asserted causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, disability discrimination - reasonable accommodation, violation of the Fair Housing Act, violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Nuisance.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied that they unfairly enforced the parking rules, discriminated against plaintiff, or that they were negligent in repairing/replacing the roof above plaintiff's unit.

Result

In Case 1 (SC126981), verdict for defense on the complaint and for plaintiff on the cross-complaint. In Case 2 (18SMCV00086), verdict for defense. In Case 3 (21SMCV00487), verdict for defense on the Complaint and $1 on the cross-complaint.

Other Information

Consolidated with 18SMCV00086 and 21SMCV00487

Deliberation

2.5 days

Length

20 days


#143045

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390