PL Napa/JC Investment Partnership v. 1221 Second Street
Published: Sep. 6, 2014 | Result Date: May 9, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SC089698; SC086224 (related case) Verdict – Defense
Court
L.A. Superior Santa Monica
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Charles Avrith
(Ross LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Charles A. Hansen
(technical)
Stefano Vranca
(technical)
Ellen R. Peck
(technical)
Norman J. Eichel
(technical)
Defendant
Robert L. Glushon
(technical)
Facts
PL Napa/JC Investment Partnership, the buyer of a building in Santa Monica sued Barry Beitler and 1221 Second Street for fraud. In June 2012, Beitler was granted a motion for nonsuit on buyer's claims of fraud.
On October 23, 2013, 1221 PL Napa and 1221 filed a settlement agreement with the court as part of a good faith motion. Under the settlement, PL Napa abandoned its remaining claims and paid 1221 for some of its claimed attorney fees and costs.
Defendants Beitler and 1221 Second Street filed a cross-complaint against attorney Jeff Katofsky, claiming his representation of defendants in the negotiation of the sale of the building, led to them being sued by the buyer. This severed cross-complaint was tried two years after the nonsuit.
Contentions
CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Beitler and 1221 Second Street contended that Katofsky represented them in the negotiation and drafting of the purchase agreement. Beitler and 1221 Second Street claimed that the agreement lacked common waivers, disclaimers, and non-reliance language, and that they were sued as a result. Beitler and 1221 alleged that had the contract contained the proper disclaimers the deal would not have closed and they would still own the building.
CROSS-DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Katofsky contended that Beitler was not a party to the building sale, that Katofsky did not represent 1221 in the negotiation or drafting of the purchase and sale agreement, that the waivers and disclaimers now wanted by plaintiff PL Napa are not standard provisions, and that any damages are speculative and not proximately caused by the alleged malpractice.
Settlement Discussions
Voluntary Settlement Conference was held before Joseph S. Biderman. Plaintiff demanded $7.2 million. Defendant Katofsky offered $200,000.
Damages
Cross-complainants claimed as damages the appreciated value of the building plus expected rents from 2003 – 2014, plus the costs of defending the fraud lawsuit by the buyer.
Result
Defense verdict on general verdict. Summary judgment was granted against cross-complainant Beitler because he was not a party to the contract that was allegedly breached.
Other Information
FILING DATE: Sept. 22, 2006.
Deliberation
2.5 hours
Poll
11-1
Length
22 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390