Fraud claimed by homebuyer. $606K. Los Angeles County.
Homebuyer says his own agents falsified disclosure documents.
- Case Name: Jose Jimenez v. Capero Investments Inc. et al.
- Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / 18CMCV00035
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, July 21, 2022
- Date Action was Filed: Monday, November 05, 2018
- Type of Action: Fraud
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Michael J. Shultz
- Plaintiffs: Jose Jimenez
- Defendants: Capero Investments Inc.Louis Brian Teque
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
- Gross Verdict or Award: $606,852
- Settlement Amount: Other defendants settled for a combined $156,000 prior to trial.
- Economic Damages:
$106,852 in economic damages jointly and severally as to each defendant.
- Punitive Damages:
$500,000 in punitive damages ($250,000 per defendant).
- Trial or Arbitration Time: 1 week
- Jury Deliberation Time: 1 day
- Jury Polls: 12-0 on liability as to all claims, 9-3 on punitive damages
- Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Sandoval Law APC by Abraham Sandoval, Santa Monica.
- Attorney for the Defendant:
Curd Galindo & Smith LLP by Alexis Galindo and Maximilano Galindo, Long Beach.
- Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Robert Rowe, fire investigation.
Alan Wallace, real estate transactions.
Facts and Background
- Facts and Background:
Plaintiff, represented by defendant broker and agent, bought a single family home with various undisclosed material defects including a roof that had been involved in a severe fire, unpermitted structural modifications, and unsafe electrical modifications.
- Plaintiff's Contentions:
That Defendant real estate agent and broker failed to obtain required disclosures and falsified other disclosures when representing the plaintiff buyer. Defendants failed to perform their fiduciary duties and to obtain legally mandated disclosures; that they at times falsified the disclosures and represented them to plaintiff to be the true and correct versions.
- Defendant's Contentions:
Defendants admitted to falsifying the disclosures but claimed they were not material to plaintiff's purchasing of the home.