John Salvino and Carol Salvino v. Arthur Pfefferman; David Pfefferman; Sandra Pfefferman; Cecilia Pfefferman; Augustine Prieto; Steven Blum, and Donut Inn
Published: Feb. 14, 1998 | Result Date: Dec. 10, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: LC020867 Verdict – $305,000
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Van Nuys
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Robert L. Esensten
(Esensten Law)
Defendant
Gary L. Barr
(Alpert Barr & Grant)
Experts
Plaintiff
Daniel M. Howard
(technical)
Defendant
Steven Franklin
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiffs, John and Carol Salvino, purchased a Donut Inn Inc. which served a portion for the San Gabriel Valley and three Donut Inn franchises from Donut Inn. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants Arthur and David Pfefferman represented that all franchisees were profitable, that they had never been sued, that an average Donut Inn gross was $20,000 per month and net of $7,000 per month and that no franchisee had left the system as everyone was successful. The plaintiffs sold their franchises and took back notes from the purchase on the sale of their three franchises. The plaintiff brought this action against defendants based on breach of contract, fraud, conversion, breach of franchise investment law and intentional infliction of emotional distress theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
No firm settlement discussions took place prior to trial.
Damages
The plaintiffs claimed $154,000 in lost profits and approximately $40,000 in worthless notes on the sale of the three stores in question. According to defendant, the plaintiffs claimed damages in excess of $1 million plus damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages for a total in excess of $13 million (according to their trial brief).
Other Information
A settlement conference was held in June 1996, before Judge Sottile of the L.A. Superior Court resulting in no settlement. The parties stipulated to $75,000 in punitive damages against Arthur and David Pfefferman. Defendants reported that the jury found for the defendants on the franchise investment law, emotional distress and breach of contract claims. The jury also found for five other defendants on all causes of action. The verdict was reached approximately 4+ years after the case was filed. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: Post trial motions regarding the defendants' alleged waiver of the statute of limitations, which would affect plaintiff's claim for violation of the Franchise Investment Law and intentional infliction of emotional distress, were denied by the court. The jury found that plaintiffs had executed two general releases, but the court refused to apply the releases. The defendants will appeal this ruling. The plaintiff will also be seeking attorney fees of more than $300,000, which will be opposed.
Deliberation
three days
Poll
11-1
Length
five weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390