AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS MEHMET EROGLU, ET AL.
Case Summary
Case Details
-
Case Number:
*******0371
-
Filing Date:
03/05/2020
-
Case Status:
Disposed - Judgment Entered
-
Case Type:
Contract - Other Contract
-
Courthouse:
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Party Details
Plaintiff
AIMCO VENEZIA LLC
Defendants
DOES 1 TO 20 INCLUSIVE
EROGLU MEHMET
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff Attorneys
RIGALI PAUL A.
TESSEM TROY STEFAN
Defendant Attorney
WEINER BERNARD L
Court Documents
8/18/2021: Judgment - JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
8/18/2021: Judgment - JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
8/18/2021: Judgment - JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
8/23/2021: Request for Dismissal
7/22/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE)
7/26/2021: Stipulation for Judgment - STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED
5/18/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF AIMCO VENEZIA LLCS OPPOSITION TO THE COURTS MOTION TO RECLASSIFY ACTION AS LIMITED JURISDICTION (WALKER MOTION)
5/18/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION PLAINTIFF AIMCO VENEZIA LLCS OPPOSITION TO THE COURTS MOTION TO RECLASSIFY ACTION AS LIMITED JURISDICTION (WALKER MOTION)
6/7/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO RECLASSIFY (WALKER MOTION); ORDER TO SHO...)
1/29/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
4/27/2021: Status Report
5/4/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL READINESS CONFERENCE / CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
1/13/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
11/13/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: SETTING OF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)
11/13/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: SETTING OF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE) OF 11/13/2020
11/20/2020: Notice of Change of Firm Name
12/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (MSC))
Docket Entries
- 08/23/2021
-
DocketUpdated -- JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION: As To Parties changed from Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant) to Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 08/23/2021
-
DocketOn the Complaint filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC on 03/05/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC as to DOES 1 to 20, inclusive
[-] Read Less
- 08/23/2021
-
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 08/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department P Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/23/2021
[-] Read Less
- 08/18/2021
-
DocketJUDGMENT ON STIPULATION; Signed and Filed by: AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 08/18/2021
-
DocketStipulated judgment entered for Plaintiff AIMCO Venezia LLC against Defendant Mehmet Eroglu on the Complaint filed by AIMCO Venezia LLC on 03/05/2020 for damages of $15,000.00 for a total of $15,000.00.; See written stipulation for further terms and conditions.
[-] Read Less
- 08/17/2021
-
DocketUpdated -- JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION: As To Parties changed from Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant) to Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 07/30/2021
-
DocketJUDGMENT ON STIPULATION; Signed and Filed by: AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 07/30/2021
-
DocketUpdated -- JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION: As To Parties changed from Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant) to Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 07/30/2021
-
DocketUpdated -- JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION: As To Parties changed from Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant) to Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 07/30/2021
-
DocketUpdated -- JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION: As To Parties changed from Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant) to Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 04/30/2020
-
DocketHearing on Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Serve Pleadings scheduled for 05/01/2020 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department P
[-] Read Less
- 04/30/2020
-
DocketEx Parte Application for Extension of Time to Serve Pleadings; Filed by: AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 04/30/2020
-
DocketDeclaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by: AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff)
[-] Read Less
- 03/09/2020
-
DocketCase Management Conference scheduled for 09/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department P
[-] Read Less
- 03/09/2020
-
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
- 03/09/2020
-
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Elaine W. Mandel in Department P Santa Monica Courthouse
[-] Read Less
- 03/05/2020
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by: AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant); DOES 1 to 20, inclusive (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 03/05/2020
-
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant); DOES 1 to 20, inclusive (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 03/05/2020
-
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: AIMCO Venezia LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Mehmet Eroglu (Defendant); DOES 1 to 20, inclusive (Defendant)
[-] Read Less
- 03/05/2020
-
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: *******0371 Hearing Date: June 7, 2021 Dept: P
Tentative Ruling
Aimco Venezia LLC v. Eroglu, Case No. *******0371
Hearing Date June 7, 2021
OSC RE: Reclassification as Limited Jurisdiction Case
Defendant leased an apartment from plaintiff, which alleges defendant rented the unit via Airbnb.com and similar websites, in violation of the lease. Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits and liquidated damages under the lease. The court, on its own motion, set a hearing to determine whether plaintiff’s claims should be reclassified as a limited civil action. See 5/4/2021 minute order. Plaintiff opposes.
An action may be treated as limited civil if the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000. Code of Civ. Proc. ;85. A court may, on its own motion, reclassify a case before trial if it becomes clear the matter will “necessarily” result in a verdict below the jurisdictional amount. Code of Civ. Proc. ;403.040. Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262. Reclassification requires a “high level of certainty” the damage award will not exceed $25,000. E.g. Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.
Plaintiff seeks damages including restitution/disgorgement and liquidated damages and presents evidence it is entitled to restitution of at least $8,043.92, plaintiff’s profit. Tessem Decl. ¶¶2-4. Additionally, plaintiff argues entitlement to $21,750.00 in contractual liquidated damages, at $250 per day for 87 days.
A liquidated damages clause in a residential lease is presumed invalid unless the parties “agree therein upon an amount which shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by a breach thereof, when, from the nature of the case, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage.” Civ. Code ;1671(d). Whether the nature of the case is such that it would be “impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage” is generally a question of fact. Electrical Products Corp. v. Williams (1953) 117 Cal. App.2d Supp. 813, 819
Plaintiff argues ;1671(d) does not apply because defendants used the property for commercial purposes, not “as a dwelling.” The underlying lease, however, explicitly contemplated use of the property “as a dwelling,” so the section applies. Nonetheless, plaintiff has shown it would be difficult to quantify the reputational or security damages caused by the short-term leases and the $250/day liquidated damages is reasonable. Tessem Decl. ¶4. The liquidated damages clause is not presumptively invalid under ;1671(d). Even if the liquidated damages were invalid under ;1671, the court cannot say with certainty that the actual damages, combined with disgorgement, will necessarily be below the jurisdictional limits. DENIED as to the court’s own motion.
DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY MICROSOFT OFFICE TEAMS.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases