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

Tenant Alleges That Douglas Emmett Refused To Allow Installation of Security Precautions (Lease Documents Included)


Posted: July 17th, 2017


Case details

Case Number: LC105129
Case Title: LAW OFFICE OF RORY W. CLARK VS DOUGLAS EMMETT 2008, ET AL
Case Type: Other Commercial/Business Tort (Unlimited)
Filing Date: 1/20/2017
Court: Van Nuys Courthouse East (Los Angeles County)
Status: Dismissed-Other 05/09/2017

Case Summary

In January 2017, the Law Office of Rory W. Clark filed suit against Douglas Emmett 2008 LLC. The Law Office of Rory W. Clark subleased office space at a Douglas Emmett property in Sherman Oaks. The complaint alleges that Douglas Emmett had refused to provide reasonable security precautions and imposed “insurmountable barriers” against necessary renovations.

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 January 2017, the Law Office of Rory W. Clark filed suit against Douglas Emmett 2008 LLC in Los Angeles court.

The Law Office of Rory W. Clark subleased office space from the Aerobic & Fitness Association of America in a Douglas Emmett-owned building in Sherman Oaks. The tenant alleges that Douglas Emmett, contrary to the lease agreement, refused to make reasonable improvements to the property.

The Law Office of Rory W. Clark claims that, during the sublease negotiation, they made it clear that they would be installing minor security features — specifically cameras and a badge reader. According to the complaint, Douglas Emmett indicated that they could accommodate the request.

However, The Law Office of Rory W. Clark alleges that, after they moved into the property, Douglas Emmett and their property manager imposed “insurmountable barriers” against the renovation process.

For example, the complaint alleges that Douglas Emmett only permitted their own designated electrician to work on the property, at a cost of over three times market price.

When security features were to be put in, The Law Office of Rory W. Clark alleges that the Douglas Emmett property manager insisted that any security features must conform to a specific design scheme, a requirement that their chosen contractor could not meet.

The Law Office of Rory W. Clark alleges these requirements were not discussed beforehand and do not appear in any contract, manual, or procedure published by Douglas Emmett. The Law Office of Rory W. Clark further alleges that the requirements were not imposed on other tenants.

The complaint further alleges that the Douglas Emmett property manager’s conduct reflects “a pattern and practice of creating fictitious rules and unwritten policies that exhibit entrenched corporate attitudes of discrimination against minorities and people of a certain age, who are often categorically dismissed as unworthy of time, attention, or respect”.

The plaintiff also alleged that “two major clients […] deemed the present state of Plaintiffs security controls to be inadequate.” The Law Office of Rory W. Clark wrote in its complaint that its “client relationships are endangered by its inability to make the necessary adjustments to the Leased Office Suites,” apparently because the law firm could not guarantee its clients security for their data and court materials.

The Law Office of Rory W. Clark filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 9, 2017, suggesting a possible private settlement between the parties.

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
2017-01-20 DOCKET
2017-01-20 COMPLAINT

Tagged: Tenant Issues - Lawsuits