Katayama
Katayama v. Continental Investment Group CA4/3
Opinion
Opinion
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 2016, Katayama purchased from defendants Continental Investment Group, Andrew Chang, and Linda Chang (collectively 2 defendants) a shopping center that included a dry cleaning business as a tenant. Two months before escrow closed, defendants gave Katayama what he describes as a 2013 report of a “visual inspection assessment” conducted for the property. The day before escrow closed, Katayama received a recommendation from his bank to conduct further testing on the property’s subsurface. Defendants declined to extend the escrow closing deadline and Katayama moved forward with the sale. Katayama claims he subsequently incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in “cleanup” and “monitoring” costs for the property because of hazardous substances in the soil under the dry cleaning business. He claims that one month before the visual assessment report, a five-page document called the “Optimal Report” was created for defendants, based on a relatively in-depth “soil vapor survey” conducted for the property.3 In other words, Katayama claims defendants presented him only with the visual assessment report and withheld the Optimal Report. He further claims that the owner…