San Paolo U.S. Holding Co. Inc. v. Suzan Waks and Michael Waks
Published: Jul. 22, 2000 | Result Date: Dec. 16, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC193441 Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Beth Ann Young
(Levene, Neale, Bender, Yoo & Golubchik, LLP)
Defendant
Michael D. Waks
(Law Office of Michael D. Waks)
Mitchell B. Ludwig
(Knapp, Petersen & Clarke)
Andre E. Jardini
(Knapp, Petersen & Clarke)
Facts
PlaintiffÆs predecessor-in-interest, First Los Angeles Bank (FLAB) was engaged in a financial relationship with
Bruce McNall. During the 1980Æs and 1990Æs FLAB provided operating funds to McNall and his entities.
FLAB was subsequently bought by San Paolo Bank, and operated a shell corporation known as San Paolo U.S.
Holding Co.
One of the lawsuits involved an employee of McNallÆs, Suzan Waks. The complaint alleged that she conspired
with McNall and other employees to defraud FLAB/SPUSH into loaning $9.1 million to the McNall entities.
Suzan Waks was also charged with criminal bank fraud and she pleaded guilty under the terms of a plea
agreement.
In 1995, FLAB/SPUSH filed its first lawsuit against Suzan Waks. However, the court stayed the lawsuit
pending the resolution of the criminal charges against Suzan Waks. After the stay was lifted, FLAB/SPUSH
and Suzan and Michael Waks jointly entered into a settlement agreement which tolled the statute of limitations
under certain and specific conditions as to the Wakes.
One of the conditions was that FLAB/SPUSH could not refile its action against the Wakes before the
termination of her criminal proceedings on June 30, 1998, whichever was later. Although Suzan WaksÆ
criminal proceedings did not resolve before June 30, 1998, the bank filed a complaint.
The new complaint named Suzan WaksÆ husband, an attorney, under a community property theory. The
complaint did not alleged that Michael Waks was involved as an employee or as an agent for McNall
regarding any of the loans in question.
Later, the defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs demanded $9.1 million. The defendants made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $10,002.
Other Information
The plaintiff has filed an appeal.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390