Douglas Emmett Tenants
A forum for those who live and work at Douglas Emmett facilities to discuss issues and stay informed
A project of the Operating Engineers, Local 501

Douglas Emmett Sues Tenant, Gets Counter-Sued for Fraud and Breach of Contract (Lease Documents Included)


Posted: July 5th, 2017


Case details

Case Number: SC116405
Case Title: DOUGLAS EMMETT 1997 VS. KRUPNICK & KRUPNICK, ET AL
Case Type: Breach Rental/Lease (not UD/Evict) (General Jurisdiction)
Filing Date: 3/22/2012
Court: Santa Monica Courthouse (Los Angeles County)
Status: Dismissed - Other 05/14/2013

Case Summary

In March 2012, Douglas Emmett 1997 LLC filed suit against a law firm called Krupnick & Krupnick to recover unpaid rent and to secure damages for breach of lease. Krupnick & Krupnick was a tenant at the Douglas Emmett property at 11835 W. Olympic Blvd. in Los Angeles. However, Krupnick & Krupnick maintained that it refused to pay rent because it was induced into signing the lease based on false promises that were made by the managers of Douglas Emmett’s building in order to trick or mislead Krupnick & Krupnick into signing the lease.

In the course of the court proceedings, lease documents were made public. They can be read in the downloadable case filings at the end of this page.

Complaint narrative

In March 2012, Douglas Emmett 1997 LLC filed suit against a law firm called Krupnick & Krupnick to recover unpaid rent and to secure damages for breach of lease. Krupnick & Krupnick was a tenant at the Douglas Emmett property at 11835 W. Olympic Blvd. in Los Angeles. However, Krupnick & Krupnick maintained that it refused to pay rent because it was induced into signing the lease based on false promises that were made by the managers of Douglas Emmett’s building in order to trick or mislead Krupnick & Krupnick into signing the lease.

Krupnick & Krupnick maintained that the managers purposefully withheld important information relevant to the law firm’s decision-making. In particular, Krupnick & Krupnick maintained that the managers misrepresented that there would be ample security provided in the building. The law firm alleged it was subjected to multiple thefts during business hours and forced to install its own security measures. Further, the law firm alleged it was misled about its ability to decorate the office by installing a wall-mounted television in the client waiting area. Additionally, Krupnick & Krupnick claimed that the property managers showed unfair bias toward other tenants in the building including a bank.

Krupnick & Krupnick further complained about the inadequate quality of air conditioning. Krupnick & Krupnick claimed that they were promised high quality air conditioning sufficient to cool the office, but in reality the air conditioning failed, forcing the law firm to conduct business in an overheated office. The law firm claimed that the heat became so bad it rendered the office uninhabitable at times.

Krupnick & Krupnick’s greatest complaint centered on the “unruly behavior” of gym patrons that shared the building’s patio space. The presence and behavior of the gym patrons allegedly made it impossible to maintain a professional atmosphere at the law office, according to Krupnick & Krupnick’s cross-complaint.

After lengthy litigation, in May 2013 Douglas Emmett requested that its complaint and Krupnick & Krupnick’s cross-complaint be dismissed.

In the course of the court proceedings, lease documents were made public. They can be read in the case filings below.

Download Case Filings

Date Document
2012-03-22 DOCKET
2012-07-06 SUMMARY
2015-11-30 CROSS-COMPLAINT

Tagged: Tenant Issues - Lawsuits