HomeMy WebLinkAbout1344 S Diamond Bar Blvd #B(0011)From: Adam Brett
Se nt: Friday, September 19, 2025 2:29:01 PM
To: Raymond Tao
Subje ct: Re: 1344 S Diamond Bar Blvd #B
Se ns itivity: Normal
Attachme nts :
Judgement.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.
Good afternoon Raymond.
I just wanted to follow up with you and let you know the formal Judgement for Eviction has been signed by the judge.
I have attached it for your file.
Thank you
Adam Freilich
O n Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 2:45 PM Raymond Tao <RTao@diamondbarca.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon Adam,
Thank you for the detailed report on the history at the property. There is a lot to this so as mentioned, I will share this with
other staff so they are aware of the circumstances. Thank you again for your assistance.
Ra ym ond Ta o l Building Offic ial
City of Dia m ond Ba r l Building and Safety Division
21810 Copley Drive l Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
909.839.7021 l 909.396.7486 (f)
www.Diamon d BarCA .g ov
From: Adam Brett <re al toradam@gmai l.com>
Sent: We dne sday, Septe mber 17, 2025 12:28 PM
To: Raymond Tao <RTao@DiamondBarCA.Gov>
Subject: 1344 S Diamond Bar Bl vd #B
**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 OSHA 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
Judgement.pdf
10
4
12
13
14
15
(16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STEVEN D. SILVERSTEIN (#86466) Attorney at Law 14351 Redhill Avenue, Suite G Tustin, CA 92780 T:(714)832-3651 F:(714)832-7781 evictions@stevendsilverstein.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES |
MARK ZANE FREILICH & SHARON Case No.:25WCUD00238 BETH FREILICH AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FREILICH FAMILY TRUST, (PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs,
VS.
AMEDEE GARISPE, TRISTAN GARISPE,
MARCELA GARISPE,
Defendants. . THIS CAUSE, having come duly before this court for jury trial on August 27", 2025, in
Department 2 of the West Covina Courthouse, the Honorable Leslie Gutierrez presiding, with
Steven D, Silverstein appearing, representing Plaintiff Mark Zane Freilich & Sharon Beth
Freilich as Co-Trustees of the Freilich Family Trust, with Raymond Barajasof BASTA, Inc.,
appearing, representing Defendants Amedee Garispe, Tristan Garispe, and Marcela Garispe.
A jury of 12 persons was duly impaneled and sworn; witnesses testified; and after being duly
instructed by the court, the jury deliberated and thereon duly returned the general verdict, a copy
of which is attached hereto and included by reference,
The Court, after hearing the verdict, finds as follows:
1. Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Mark Zane Freilich & Sharon Beth Freilich as Co-Trustees
of the Freilich Family Trust and against Defendants Amedee Garispe, Tristan Garispe, and
JUDGMENT-1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Marcela Garispe for restitution and possession of the premises known as 1344 Diamond
Bar Blvd. #B Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
2. The lease agreement is hereby forfeited.
3. A writ of possession to be issued forthwith.
4, Judgment shall bind and apply to any unnamed tenants pursuant to Civil Code Section
415.46,
5. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney’s fees pursuant to motion and costs pursuant to
memorandum.
DATED:
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
JUDGMENT-2 \Attorney fees to be addressed by motion and costs by memorandum.
09/17/2025
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA _)
) Ss,
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Iam employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 14351 Redhill Ave., Suite G, Tustin, Ca.
92780. .
On SEPTEMBER H 2025, I served the foregoing documents described as:
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope addressed as follows:
Raymond Barajas
BASTA, INC,
1545 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90017-4507
[] BY MAIL - by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s
practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Said correspondence is
deposited with the U. S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I
am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal collection date or
postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[X] BY EMAIL-by having the document(s) identified above to be transmitted electronically to
the Defendants/Defendants’ attorney of record as identified above.:
Raymond. barajas@basta.org
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on SEPTEMBER _'\_ 2025 Tustin, California,
HE fo
By: STEVEN D- SILVERSTEIN
JUDGMENT-3