fe ee sions ty eas ss) 10 iT 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Grant Beuchel #113327 420 8. San Pedro Street #311 Los Angeles, California 90013 (661) 428-7365 In Pro Per SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GRANT BEUCHEL Case No, I8STCV09442 Plaintiff, vs. PLAINTIFF GRANT BEUCHEL’S: LITTLE TOKYO LOFTS HOMEOWNERS) STATEMENT OF CONTROVERTED ASSOCIATION; DOES 1 through 10, ISSUES inclusive, FSC: SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 TIME: 8:30 A.M. eet eet Defendants. TRIAL: OCTOBER 2, 2019 TIME: 9:30 AM. DEPT: 15 HONORABLE RICHARD FRUIN, JUDGE, ACTION FILED: DECEMBER 24, 2018 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiff Grant Beuchel hereby respectfully submits his “Statement of Controverted Issues” filed simultaneously with his “Supplemental Final Status Conference Statement” pursuant to the courts order of September 20, 2019 as follows: mM Mt PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF CONTROVERTED ISSUES =iINTRODUCTION Plaintiff Beuchel filed his FSC Statement on September 16, 2019. Plaintiff now files his| supplemental FSC Statement simultaneously with this “Statement of Controverted Issues” pursuant to the courts order of September 20, 2019. Exhibit “A” contains all issues with an “X” indicating what Plaintiff considers mandatory stipulations in order to resolve all issues presented. PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF CONTROVERED ISSUES Plaintiff submits to the court a list of controverted 1, That the Association did violate Civil Code Section 5910(0 by failing to provide to ssues as follows: Plaintiff an informal platform to air his grievances; 2, That CCR 2.8.2 does not allow more than 1 vehicle to be parked! in a parking space, and anything in the Rules & Regulations that allows more than 1 vehicle in a parking space is void; 3, That the Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12,03 does not allow more than 1 vehicle to be parked in a parking space, and anything in the Rules & Regulations that allows more than 1 vehicle in a parking space is void; 4, That the Association has failed to enforce CCR 2.8.4; 5, That the Association is violating CCR 2.1.1 by not maintaining the property ina“clean, sanitary and attractive condition” 6, That the Associaton is violating CCR 2.1.6 by not regularly inspecting the property and by failing to discover and address any violations found; 7. That the Association did not provide the requisite legal notice required by Civil Code Section 4360 to amend their Rules & Regulations in approximately April, 2016; 8, That the Association isin breach of its fiduciary obligations to the owners that it has chronically failed to investigate the property to discover violations ofits rules & regulations and/or taken steps to enforce the same, while under a clear duty to do so; 69, The parties stipulate thatthe Association has breached its fiduciary obligations to the owners by failing to disclose citations from the Department of Building & Safety and their PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF CONTROVERTED ISSUES aRola erat seer, 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 26 a7 28 corresponding fines, fees and related-damages; and have the court order them to investigate if there currently exists any code-related violations, and if they do exist, to remedy them as, soon as is practical; 10. That the Association has breached its fiduciary obligations to the owners by failing to identify and disclose material facts to the owners; 11. That the Association violated Civil Code Section 4600; 12, That the Association is violating the Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance with order to discontinue any violation(s) as soon as is reasonably practical; 13, That the court order the parties to “meet & confer” and choose among themselves a third-party neutral property manager to observe the Association and all of its vendors to assist them in coming back into compliance with the law and general standards in the industry. Ifthe parties are unable to choose a third-party neutral property manager, each party will submit to the court up to 2 persons or legal entities that the party contends would be appropriate along with the persons background qualifications and expected costs associated with the same. The court then may choose one of the submitted names to serve the Association and at the expense of the Association. 14, That the Association has used legal and other means in an attempt to thwart PlaintifP's ability to enforce rights he has under the law; 15, That the plaintiff is entitled to recover his court costs, attomey fees, expert witness fees according to proof. 16. That the Association did “invest” owner monies in the stock market and in other investment vehicles where the principal amounts invested were at risk of being lost; 17. That the Association be ordered to serve a copy of the courts findings in this case on every current owner within thirty (30) days. 20 That the court to retain jurisdiction over this case to enforce its findings and orders. Respectfully Submitted, September 13, 2019 BY: shel, In Pro Per for PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF CONTROVERTED ISSUES oeEXHIBIT “A” PROPOSED STIPULATIONS TO RESOLVE ISSUES [_ J The partes stipulate that the Association did violate Civil Code Section 5910 with admonishment; [X] The parties stipulate that CCR 2.8.2 does not allow more than 1 vehicle to be parked in parking space, and anything inthe Rules & Regulations that allows more than 1 vehicle in a parking space is void; [X] The parties stipulate that Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.03 does not allow more than 1 vehicle to be parked ina parking space, and anything inthe Rules & Regulations that allows more than 1 vehicle ina parking space is voids [_ ] The partes stipulate that the Association has failed to enforee CCR 2.8.4 with admonishment and agree to a court order to enforce the same; [1] The parties stipulate that the Association is violating CCR 2.1-1 by not maintaining the property in “clean, sanitary and attractive condition” with admonishment and agree toa court order to comply with CCR 2.1.15 [X] The parties stipulate thatthe Association is violating CCR 2.1.6 by not regularly inspecting the property and by failing to discover and report any violations found; with admonishment and agree to a court order to comply with CCR 2.1.6; [J The partes stipulate that the Association did not provide the requisite legal notice required by Civil Code Section 4360 to amend their Rules & Regulations; The parties stipulate that the original rules and regulations dated April 27, 2006 are in full force and effect: with the understanding thatthe Association may amend their rules & regulations now or at anytime in the future using legally-compliant procedures; [ ]‘The partes stipulate that the Association isin breach of its fiduciary obligations to the owners in that it has chronically failed to investigate the property to discover violations of its rules & regulations and/or taken steps to enforce the same, while under a clear duty to do so; ‘with admonishment and agre to a court order to take all reasonable steps to investigate and enforce forthwith; PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF CONTROVERTED ISSUES ve[1 The partes stipulate that the Association has breached its fiduciary obligations to the owners by failing to disclose citations from the Department of Building & Safety and their comesponding fines, fees and related-damages; with admonishment and agres 10 8 court onder to investigate if there curently exists any code-related violations currently exist, and if they do exist, to remedy them as soon as is practicals [The partes stipulate that the Association has breached its fiduciary obligations to the owners by failing to identify and disclose material facts tothe owners; with admonishment and agree to a court order to investigate if there currently exists any code-related violations currently exist, and if they do exist, to remedy them as soon as is practical [_ ] The partes stipulate that the Association violated Civil Code Sestion 4600 with admonishment; [| The partes stipulate that the Association is violating the Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance with order to discontinue any violation(s) as soon as is reasonably practical; [X ] The parties stipulate to “meet & confer” and choose among themselves a third-party neutral property manager to observe the Association and all of ts vendors to assist them in coming back into compliance with the law and general standards in the industry. Ifthe parties are unable to choose a third-party neutral property manager, each party will submit to the court up to 2 persons ot legal entities thatthe party contends would be appropriate along with the persons background qualifications and expected costs associated with the same. “The court then may choose one ofthe submitted names to serve the Association and at the expense of the Association. [_ } The parties stipulate thatthe Association has used legal and other means in an attempt to thwart Plaintiff's ability to enforce rights he has under the law; [X] The parties stipulate thatthe plaintiffs entitled to recover his court. cos attomey fees, expert witness fees according to proof and plaintiff will file a motion fo eeover said costs, within thirty (30) days. PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF CONTROVERTED ISSUES -5e[_] The parties stipulate that the Association did “invest” owner monies in the stock market and in other investment vehicles where the principal amounts invested were at risk of being lost with admonishment, [_] The parties stipulate that the Associ amending its CCR’s to become consistent with 2014 changes in law. ion, if it so chooses, may take action towards [_ ] The parties stipulate that the Associ ion, if it so chooses, may take action towards amending its Rules & Regulations to become consistent with this settlement agreement. [_ ] The that the Association is to serve a copy of the courts order(s) in this case on every current owner within thirty (30) days. [X ] The Court to retain jurisdiction over this case to enforce the terms of this settlement agreement. PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF CONTROVERTED ISSUES ReSea sey re) 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES —) Tam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, 1 am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within aetion; my business address is: 420 S. San Pedro Street $311 Los Angeles, CA 90017. On September 23, 2019 I served the documents described as: “Statement of Controverted Issues” thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: DAVID A. WANKEL IGER WANKEL & BONKOWSKILLP 23422 MILL CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 [XJ (MAIL) 1am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collestion and processing Comespondence by mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service corthey same day with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California inthe ordinary course of business, Tam aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal vncellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [X] (BY EMAIL) I caused such DOCUMENT to be delivered by email to dwankel@igerwankel.com as a courtesy within 24 hours of it being mailed and filed with the court. [] (BY PERSONAL DELIVERY) _ I caused such envelope to bbe delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. [x] (STATE) [declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [1 GEDERAL) | declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of this Court at ‘whose direction the service was made. Executed on September 23, 2019 at Los Angeles County, California. AURORA BEUCHEL oH euch) IGNATURE PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF CONTROVERTED ISSUES aUs posraGe & Fees pero e82s0000s67209 1202 Finet cones PanteL RaTE PROM 99043, ZO owe i 09/23/2018 USPS FIRST CLASS MAILe “Goat Beuchet 420. San Pedro Street Apt 311 Los Angeles ca 90013 (e027) SHIP DAVID A. WANKEL TO! TER WANKEL & BONKONSKT, LLP 23422 NILL CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 WM 9400 1169 0113 7836 3788 61