The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1344 S Diamond Bar Blvd #B(0009)From: Adam Brett Se nt: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 12:28:37 PM To: Raymond Tao Subje ct: 1344 S Diamond Bar Blvd #B Se ns itivity: Normal Attachme nts : 20250509_111905.jpg ;20250509_111859 (1).jpg ;20250509_111857.jpg ;Restraining O rder Contact.pdf ;E111038525_copy (1).pdf ;2025.8.5. Final N CC (1).pdf ; **DO NOT open unknow n links or any attachments w ithout confirming w ith IS or the sender directly.** CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Mr. Tao, Thank you for calling me this morning. Per our conversation here is the information requested and an explanation of the current status of their tenancy and my ability to do anything at the property. All of the tenants' complaints are in retaliation for evicting them in order for us to remove the property from the rental market and sell it. We filed an Unlawful Detainer Eviction Case a while ago on February 10, 2025 and the tenants were able to continuously delay the trial until early this month where we had a Jury Trial at the West Covina Courthouse that lasted 4 days. The last day of trial was on Sept. 3, 2025 and the jury found in favor of us with a unanimous verdict. I have attached the court ruling in the document named E111038525. We are waiting on the judgement and writ to be signed by the judge and once that is done it will be delivered to the LA Sheriff Dept for posting and scheduling a lockout date. I don't know the exact timing but I was informed it could be as soon as 3 weeks and at most 6 weeks until they are removed from the property. At this point they have not paid any rent since December of last year and have no right to stay in the property. They have tried to file complaints with multiple public entities including the California Civil Rights Division which fully investigated their complaint and dismissed it due to insufficient evidence. I have attached that document named 2025.6.5.Final.NCC. In addition, they have filed a restraining order against me personally - which per an officer of the court - precludes me from any contact in any way either directly or indirectly. So I cannot send anyone to the property in any way to do anything. I know they have said they are willing to let us in to do work, however in the restraining order it specifically states that, "Even if the protected person invites or consents to contact with the restrained person, this order remains in effect and must be enforced." I have attached this page from the restraining order named Restraining Order Contact. As for their claims of Asbestos contamination in the unit. At this time there is no confirmed asbestos. Also, their claim that the SCAQMD inspector put up caution tape is a lie. The inspector did not put that up, they did. O n May 9, 2025 SCAQ MD came out to the property due to the tenant requesting an emergency repair of a water leak in an upstairs bathroom which caused water to drip from the ceiling in the living room on the ground level. As this was an emergency repair we proceeded to clear the area of any furniture, put down plastic sheeting across the entire room which we taped to the walls and draped over any ancillary furniture on the periphery of the room, and proceeded to open 3 very small areas in the ceiling to search for the leak. The total area of ceiling we opened is approximately 3 square feet. We discovered the tenants were purposely causing the damage by putting water behind the flange on the shower head stem. Almost immediately upon opening the ceiling the tenants had SCAQMD there (like it was planned in advance). We were told to get a survey from a Certified Asbestos Consultant which we did within 5 days on May 14th. We delivered the report to SCAQMD and it was approved on May 20, 2025. At some point in the beginning of July, the tenants filed a complaint with Cal O SHA about the Certified Asbestos Consultant (Environmental Monitoring Group) who is fully licensed, current and in good standing with Cal OSHA and every licensing board. The tenants were able to convince Cal O SHA the survey should be invalidated (I was never told the reason). This means at this time there is no confirmed asbestos anywhere on the property as we were told that it is like the prior survey never existed.. If you need to confirm everything I am saying, you can call Richard Lavin, who is the Chief Environmental Health Specialist for the Los Angeles Department of Public Health. He can be reached at 323.482.6462 or via email at rlavin@ph.lacounty.gov. He will confirm he spoke with the SCAQMD inspector who stated due to the invalidation of the survey there is no confirmed asbestos. As I mentioned, the area of disturbed ceiling is less than 3 square feet in total and the actual material that was cut into was only about 10 square inches if taking the 1/4 inch cutting area over the entirety of the removed ceiling. I have attached pictures showing the area removed, and the plastic covering the area and furniture. To recap. The tenants caused the asbestos survey to be invalidated which stopped progress on any repairs. They filed a restraining order against me which then precludes me from sending out anyone to the property for any reason. So regardless, they are in a situation of their own making. This is a civil issue and they are running out of people to complain to. They tried to bring up this very issue at the Unlawful Detainer trial and it was summarily rejected. They tried to bring it up with the California Department of Civil Rights - that too was investigated and dismissed. They tried to bring it up with the LA Dept of Public Health who determined there are no violations at the property I am responsible for. I am sorry for this long winded email, however I wanted to make sure you have all the information. Should you require any else, please do not hesitate to reach out. Best Regards. Adam Freilich 20250509_111905.jpg 20250509_111859 (1).jpg 20250509_111857.jpg Restraining Order Contact.pdf Case Number:25PSR00142/ Start Date and End Date of Orders ot =This order starts on the date next to the judge's signature on page 4.The order ends on the expiration date in item @ on page I. Arrest Required if Order Is Violated If an officer has probable cause to believe that the restrained person had notice of the order and has disobeyed the order, the officer must arrest the restrained person.(Pen.Code,§§836(c)(1),13701(b).)A violation of the order may be a violation of Penal Code section 166 or 273.6.Agencies are encouraged to enter violation messages into CARPOS. Notice/Proof of Service coThelawenforcementagencymustfirstdetermineiftherestrainedpersonhadnoticeof the order.Consider the restrained person “served”(given notice)if (Pen.Code,§836(c)(2)): «The officer sees a copy ofthe proofof service or confirms that the proof of service is on file;or e The restrained person was informed ofthe order by an officer. An officer can obtain information about the contents of the order and proof of service in CARPOS.If proof of service on the restrained person cannot be verified,the agency must advise the restrained person ofthe terms of the order and then enforce it. If the Protected Person Contacts the Restrained Person Even if the protected person invites or consents to contact with the restrained person,this order remains in effect and must be enforced.The protected person cannot be arrested for inviting or consenting to contact with the restrained person.The order can be changed only by another court order.(Pen.Code,§13710(b).) Conflicting Orders—Priorities for Enforcement If more than one restraining order has been issued protecting the protected person from the restrained person,the orders must be enforced in the following priority (see Pen.Code,§136.2 and Fam.Code, §§6383(h)(2),6405(b)): 1.Emergency Protective Order (EPO):Ifone of the orders is an Emergency Protective Order (form EPO-001), provisions (e.g.,stay-away order)that are more restrictive than in the other restraining/protective orders must be enforced.Provisions of another order that do not conflict with the EPO must be enforced. ro .No-Contact Order:If a restraining/protective order includes a no-contact order,the no-contact order must be enforced.Item 5a(2)is an example of a no-contact order. 3.Criminal Protective Order (CPO):If none of the orders include an EPO or a no-contact order,the most recent CPO must be enforced.(Fam.Code,§§6383(h)(2)and 6405(b).)Additionally,a CPO issued in a criminal case involving charges of domestic violence,Penal Code sections 261,261.5,or former 262,or charges requiring sex offender registration must be enforced over any civil court order.(Pen.Code,§136.2(¢)(2).)All provisions in the civil court order that do not conflict with the CPO must be enforced. .Civil Restraining Orders:If there is more than one civil restraining order (e.g.,domestic violence,juvenile, elder abuse,civil harassment),then the order that was issued last must be enforced.Provisions that do not conflict with the most recent civil restraining order must be enforced.INI, H (Clerk will fill out this part.) —Clerk's Certificate— I certify that this Temporary Restraining Order is a true and correct copy of the original on file in the court. ~...David W.Slayton pate:AUG 07 2045 Clerk,vy :Es ,Deputy This is a Court Order.‘M.CervantesTRTemporaryRestrainingOrder(CLETS-TEA or TEF)EA-110,Page 6 of 6 (Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Prevention) 5 %$ %:i# z E111038525_copy (1).pdf SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division East District, West Covina Courthouse, Department 2 25WCUD00238 September 3, 2025 MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST vs AMEDEE GARISPE, et al. 10:45 AM Judge: Honorable Leslie Gutierrez CSR: Electronically Recorded Judicial Assistant: A. Ramirez ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: Klementich Minute Order Page 1 of 6 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Steven D. Silverstein For Defendant(s): Raymond Barajas NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Jury Trial *4 Day Estimate* The trial resumes from 09/02/2025 with both Counsels, Plaintiff, and Jurors present as heretofore. Out of the Presence of the Jury: After argument from Counsel, the Court excludes Exhibit 20. In the Presence of the Jury: Adam Freilich, previously sworn, resumes testifying. Marc Zane Freilich, previously sworn, is recalled by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Mark Zane Freilich & Sharon Beth Freilich As Co-Trustees Of The Freilich Family Trust's exhibit 21 (1 Page Real Estate Agency Relashionship) is marked for identification and admitted in evidence. The Plaintiff rests. Both Parties rests. Out of the Presence of the Jury: The Court and Counsels confer regarding jury instructions and special verdicts. In the Presence of the Jury: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division East District, West Covina Courthouse, Department 2 25WCUD00238 September 3, 2025 MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST vs AMEDEE GARISPE, et al. 10:45 AM Judge: Honorable Leslie Gutierrez CSR: Electronically Recorded Judicial Assistant: A. Ramirez ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: Klementich Minute Order Page 2 of 6 By random draw, Alternate Juror #2, Barbara Horstmann, is selected as Juror #11. The Court instructs the Jury. Both sides closing arguments. Final instructions are given to the Jury. The Bailiff is sworn to take charge of the Jury and the alternate juror. AT 3:50 PM, the Jury retires into the Jury room and deliberations begin. At 4:22 PM, the Jury buzzes twice with a verdict. At 4:26 PM, with both Counsels and Plaintiff present, the jurors, the jurors enter the courtroom and the following verdict is read: "In the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles Case Number 25WCUD00238 MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiff, v. AMEDEE GARISPE, TRISTAN GARISPE, MARCELA GARISPE Defendants. We, the constituted jury, answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 1. Is MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST the owner of the property located at 1344 Diamond Bar Blvd., #B, Diamond Bar, CA 91765? Yes If you answered “Yes” to the question above, then answer the next question. If you answered “No”, answer no further questions, mark Paragraph “B” at the bottom of this form and SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division East District, West Covina Courthouse, Department 2 25WCUD00238 September 3, 2025 MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST vs AMEDEE GARISPE, et al. 10:45 AM Judge: Honorable Leslie Gutierrez CSR: Electronically Recorded Judicial Assistant: A. Ramirez ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: Klementich Minute Order Page 3 of 6 have the Presiding Juror sign this form. 2. Did MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST properly serve AMEDEE GARISPE a valid 60 day notice to quit? Yes If you answered “Yes” to the question above, then answer the next question. If you answered “No”, mark Paragraph “B” at the bottom of this form and have the Presiding Juror sign this form. We, the constituted jury, find as follows: A. We, the constituted jury in the above-entitled action, find in favor of MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST. Dated: 09/03/25 Signed Presiding Juror #9 In the same case, title and cause, We, the constituted jury, answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 1. Is MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST the owner of the property located at 1344 Diamond Bar Blvd., #B, Diamond Bar, CA 91765? Yes If you answered “Yes” to the question above, then answer the next question. If you answered “No”, answer no further questions, mark Paragraph “B” at the bottom of this form and have the Presiding Juror sign this form. 2. Did MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST properly serve TRISTAN GARISPE a valid 60 day notice to quit? SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division East District, West Covina Courthouse, Department 2 25WCUD00238 September 3, 2025 MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST vs AMEDEE GARISPE, et al. 10:45 AM Judge: Honorable Leslie Gutierrez CSR: Electronically Recorded Judicial Assistant: A. Ramirez ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: Klementich Minute Order Page 4 of 6 Yes If you answered “Yes” to the question above, then answer the next question. If you answered “No”, mark Paragraph “B” at the bottom of this form and have the Presiding Juror sign this form. We, the constituted jury, find as follows: A. We, the constituted jury in the above-entitled action, find in favor of MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST. Dated: 09/03/25 Signed Presiding Juror #9 In the same case, title and cause, We, the constituted jury, answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 1. Is MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST the owner of the property located at 1344 Diamond Bar Blvd., #B, Diamond Bar, CA 91765? Yes If you answered “Yes” to the question above, then answer the next question. If you answered “No”, answer no further questions, mark Paragraph “B” at the bottom of this form and have the Presiding Juror sign this form. 2. Did MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST properly serve MARCELA GARISPE a valid 60 day notice to quit? Yes SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division East District, West Covina Courthouse, Department 2 25WCUD00238 September 3, 2025 MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST vs AMEDEE GARISPE, et al. 10:45 AM Judge: Honorable Leslie Gutierrez CSR: Electronically Recorded Judicial Assistant: A. Ramirez ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: Klementich Minute Order Page 5 of 6 If you answered “Yes” to the question above, then answer the next question. If you answered “No”, mark Paragraph “B” at the bottom of this form and have the Presiding Juror sign this form. We, the constituted jury, find as follows: A. We, the constituted jury in the above-entitled action, find in favor of MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST. Dated: 09/03/25 Signed Presiding Juror #9" The Jury is polled. The Verdicts are unanimous. The Jury is thanked and excused. The Verdicts and jury instructions given are filed this date. Counsel for Plaintiff is to prepare and submit a proposed judgment within 45 days. Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File a Judgment is scheduled for 10/20/2025 at 08:30 AM in Department 2 at West Covina Courthouse. The Court orders that exhibits 1 (Lease Agreement dated October 1, 2011), 10 (Notice of Rent Exemption Dated February 2, 2020), 14 (Certified Grant Deed), 15 (Certification of Trust for Freilich Family Trust dated June 18, 1992), 16 (Partial Rent Letters to Tenant), 18 (Letter to Tenants Regarding Intent to Sell Property Dated January 19, 2022), 19 (Letter to Tenants Regarding Intent to Sell Property dated May 11, 2022), 2 (60-Day Notice to Quit & Notice of Exemption & Proof of Service), 20 (A 7-page document (email correspondence dated 06/06/2024 including 1 color photograph of a water heater (collectively)), 21 (1 Page Real Estate Agency Relashionship), 3 (Notice of Rent Increase dated September 15, 2014), 4 (Notice of Rent Increase dated February 5, 2016), 5 (Notice of Rent Increase dated June 20, 2017), 6 (Notice of Rent Increase dated August 1, 2019), 7 (Notice of Rent Increase dated August 1, 2022), and 9 (Notice of Rent increase dated April 2, 2024) may be released to Attorney Steven D. Silverstein and Attorney Raymond Barajas, to be retained and maintained at their respective offices pending SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division East District, West Covina Courthouse, Department 2 25WCUD00238 September 3, 2025 MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST vs AMEDEE GARISPE, et al. 10:45 AM Judge: Honorable Leslie Gutierrez CSR: Electronically Recorded Judicial Assistant: A. Ramirez ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: Klementich Minute Order Page 6 of 6 final determination of this action, including time for motions and appeal, thereafter to be disposed by them as they see fit, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Order to Show Cause will be taken off calendar if the judgment is signed, filed and entered prior to the next court date. Notice is waived. 2025.8.5. Final NCC (1).pdf STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR Civil Rights Department 651 Bannon Street, Suite 200 | Sacramento | CA | 95811 1-800-884-1684 (voice) | 1-800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711 calcivilrights.ca.gov | contact.center@calcivilrights.ca.gov KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR CRD-ENF 29 (Revised 2025/04) August 5, 2025 Via Email: amedee.garispe@gmail.com Marcela Garispe Amedee Garispe c/o Olivier Garispe 1344 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. Unit B Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RE: Notice of Case Closure Case Number: 202501-27772317 Case Name: Garispe / Interbranch, Inc. dba Clover Realty et al. Case Type: Housing Dear Marcela Garispe and Amedee Garispe: The Civil Rights Department (CRD) has closed your case for the following reason: Investigated and Dismissed-Insufficient Evidence. For housing complaints, California Government Code section 12980, subdivision (h), requires that you be advised of your right to file a civil action against the person named in your complaint. That right is contained in Government Code section 12989.1. You must file such an action within two years after the occurrence or the termination of the alleged discriminatory housing practice. The computation of the two-year period does not include any time during which this complaint was pending with CRD. If a settlement or conciliation agreement has been signed resolving the complaint, it is likely that your right to file a private lawsuit may have been waived. Within 10 days of receiving this letter, you may appeal this decision by emailing appeals@calcivilrights.ca.gov; by calling our Communication Center at 1-800-884-1684 (voice), 1-800-700-2320 (TTY) or California’s Relay Service at 711; or by writing to: Appeals Unit Civil Rights Department 651 Bannon Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95811 Your appeal should include a 1) summary as to why you disagree with the reason; and/or, 2) any new detailed information (e.g., documents, records, witness information) Notice of Case Closure August 5, 2025 Page 2 of 3 CRD-ENF 29 (Revised 2025/04) that supports your claim. If you appeal, the information you provide will be carefully considered. Should you decide to bring a civil action on your own behalf in court in the State of California under the provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in your complaint, below are resources for this. Please note that if a settlement agreement has been signed resolving the complaint, you might have waived the right to file a private lawsuit. Finding an Attorney To proceed in Superior Court, you should contact an attorney. If you do not already have an attorney, the organizations listed below may be able to assist you: • The State Bar of California has a Lawyer Referral Services Program which can be accessed through its Web site at www.calbar.ca.gov or by calling (866) 442-2529 (within California) or (415) 538-2250 (outside California). • Your county may have a lawyer referral service. Check the Yellow Pages of your telephone book under “Attorneys.” Filing in Small Claims Court • The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) has a publication titled “The Small Claims Court: A Guide to Its Practical Use” online at of “The Small Claims Court: A Guide to Its Practical Use” online at http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small_claims. You may also order a free copy of “The Small Claims Court: A Guide to Its Practical Use” online, by calling the DCA Publication Hotline at (866) 320-8652, or by writing to them at: DCA, Office of Publications, Design and Editing; 1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N-112; Sacramento; CA; 95834. • The State Bar of California has information on “Using the Small Claims Court” under the “Public Services” section of its Web site located at www.calbar.ca.gov. Sincerely, Ram Sieng Ram Sieng Associate Governmental Program Analyst 916-539-2223 ram.sieng@calcivilrights.ca.gov cc: Notice of Case Closure August 5, 2025 Page 3 of 3 CRD-ENF 29 (Revised 2025/04) Olivier Garispe 1344 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. Unit B Diamond Bar, CA 91765 amedee.garispe@gmail.com Interbranch, Inc. dba Clover Realty 2222 State College Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92831 Adam Freilich 2160 Skyline Dr. Fullerton, CA 92831 realtoradam@gmail.com The Freilich Family Trust 2200 Skyline Dr. Fullerton, CA 92831 markzane@aol.com