Pringle

Pringle v. C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc. CA2/8

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 19, 2015B250304California5,175 words

Opinion

Opinion

Flier, J.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. Allegations of the Complaint Kaye filed the original complaint on July 7, 2008. The operative complaint is the third amended complaint (TAC), which alleged as follows. CBRE marketed the Roxbury property as a Beverly Hills property and represented to Kaye that the Roxbury property was subject to the rent control ordinances of Beverly Hills. In December 2006, approximately two years after purchasing the Roxbury property, Kaye discovered the property was, in fact, situated in the City of Los Angeles for purposes of rent control ordinances. In 2008, Kaye obtained information from the City of Los Angeles indicating the Roxbury property had been registered as a Los Angeles property and Parklane had paid local taxes and fees to Los Angeles until at least 2003. Kaye was forced to register the Roxbury property with Los Angeles and pay back taxes and late fees.

Kaye filed bankruptcy after bringing this action. In October 2011, the trial court substituted the trustee of her bankruptcy estate, John B. Pringle, as the plaintiff. For ease of reference, we will continue to refer to Kaye as the plaintiff. Kaye also named Parklane as a defendant, but Parklane…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.