Fraud claimed by homebuyer. $606K. Los Angeles County.

Summary

Homebuyer says his own agents falsified disclosure documents.

The Case

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

The Result

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

The Attorneys

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.

The Experts

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.

Print this Verdict

Disclaimer

This is not an official court document. While the publisher believes the information to be accurate, the publisher does not guarantee it and the reader is advised not to rely upon it without consulting the official court documents or the attorneys of record in this matter who are listed above.