Posted: June 12th, 2017
|Case Title:||ROBERT L GLUSHON VS DOUGLAS EMMETT 1997 LLC ET AL|
|Case Type:||Breach Rental/Lease (not UD/Evict) (General Jurisdiction)|
|Court:||Stanley Mosk Courthouse (Los Angeles County)|
On October 15, 2015, Robert L. Glushon, a partner in the law firm Luna & Glushon that leased space at the Douglas Emmett-owned commercial building 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California, filed suit in Los Angeles County court against Douglas Emmett Management, Inc. (DEM) and its property-holding subsidiary Douglas Emmett 1997 LLC.
Mr. Glushon’s complaint alleged Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment and Fraud (Concealment/Suppression of Facts) against the Douglas Emmett corporate affiliates.
The case was settled and dismissed in February 2016.
Based on the complaint narrative, Glushon’s firm and Douglas Emmett (DE) entered into an office lease agreement for a suite at 16255 Ventura Boulevard in October 2011. The complaint alleged that “[p]rior to Plaintiffs execution of the Office Lease, Defendants DE and DEM also failed to disclose that there were prior noise complaints or problems involving the subject Premises.”
By June 2012, the plaintiffs contacted DE’s onsite manager “regarding noise impacts which were coming an adjacent office and which were substantially interfering with Plaintiffs use of his own office within the subject Premises and which also could be heard by Plaintiffs paralegal from her space.” The plaintiff even provided audio evidence.
DE, according to the complaint, advised the plaintiffs/tenants in August 2012 that “certain technical corrective actions were taken to try to abate the noise impacts.” The noise issues persisted, per the tenants, who “made a formal demand for further corrective actions.”
The complaint continues:
When Defendants failed to take further corrective actions, on April 22, 2013, Plaintiff served a formal notice of default under Paragraph 1.5 of the Office Lease by letter on Defendants.
In response to the plaintiff’s notice of default letter, a DE agent allegedly sent the plaintiff a letter dated April 25, 2013 in which Defendants denied any responsibility based on leasing the subject premises in an “as is” condition and referenced alleged corrective actions that had been taken.
In June 2013, DE claimed to have done additional corrective work, but “there again was no abatement of the noise impacts which continued to interfere with the use of the subject Premises including both attorney offices, the conference room and the paralegal space.”
The back-and-forth between the plaintiff and DE continued into May 2014 when the plaintiff “again wrote to DeFevere pointing out not only that continued noise impacts, but also that Plaintiff had learned the prior tenant of the subject Premises had experienced similar major noise impacts which were never disclosed to Plaintiff prior to entering into the Office Lease agreement.” This was the basis for the plaintiff’s fraud allegation.
DE responded by informing the tenant that it had “engaged additional professionals to assist us in this repair as it is more complex than we had originally thought.”
The dispute culminated in Glushon’s October 2015 lawsuit.
Defendants’ Notice of Demurrer
Douglas Emmett responded on November 30, 2015 with a “Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint,” arguing in its Memorandum of Points and Authorities that “Simply put, Plaintiff is attempting to get out of his office lease” and that “The Complaint fails to mention all of the efforts that have been made by the Landlord.” The filing continues:
The nature and extent of the plaintiff’s claims as to Douglas Emmett 1997, LLC and Douglas Emmett Management, Inc. cannot be ascertained from the allegations of the complaint to Douglas Emmett 1997, LLC and Douglas Emmett Management, Inc. are left to surmise what it purportedly did or failed to do as well as the manner or method by which the purported actions or failures occurred. Simply put, the complaint fails to provide any specific factual allegations to support any of the causes of action as against defendants. For these reasons, the demurrer to the complaint should be sustained in its entirety without leave to amend.
Notice of Settlement and Dismissal
On February 18, 2016 a “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case” was filed in court. The case was dismissed on February 23. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
It should be noted, though, that the website for Mr. Glushon’s law firm still shows his office based at the Douglas Emmett-owned 16255 Ventura Boulevard property in Encino.
Download Case Filings
|2015-11-30||FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT|
|2015-11-30||NOTICE OF DEMURRER DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT|
|2015-12-24||NOTICE OF DEMURRER DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT|
|2016-02-18||NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE|
|2016-02-23||REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL|