Preview
1 Andrew Wolff, Esq. (SBN 195092)
2
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
1615 Broadway, 4th Floor
3 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 834-3300
4 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
5 Email: andrew@awolfflaw.com
info@awolfflaw.com
6
Attorney for Plaintiffs
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10
11 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12
EDITH HANDY; KAMERON SAXON, a minor Case No.:
13
by and through his Guardian ad Litem Mallia
14 Hall; AMILLIA-ROSE YOUNG, a minor by and COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;
through her Guardian ad Litem Mallia Hall; and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
15 DERELL YOUNG, JR a minor by and through
his Guardian ad Litem Mallia Hall,
16
17 Plaintiffs,
18 vs.
19
20 ELI REZVANI; MATHEW REZVANI; THE
REZVANI LAW FIRM; LALEZARY LAW
21 FIRM; and DOES 1-30, inclusive,
22
Defendants.
23
24
Plaintiffs EDITH HANDY; KAMERON SAXON, a minor by and through his Guardian
25
26
ad Litem Mallia Hall; AMILLIA-ROSE YOUNG, a minor by and through her Guardian ad
27 Litem Mallia Hall; and DERELL YOUNG, JR, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem
28 Mallia Hall, (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al.
Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 1
1 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
2
1. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff EDITH HANDY (“MS. HANDY”) was a
3
competent adult, and Plaintiffs KAMERON SAXON, AMILLIA-ROSE YOUNG, and
4
5 DERELL YOUNG, JR were minors.
6 2. Defendants ELI REZVANI and MATHEW REZVANI are now, and at all
7
relevant times mentioned in this Complaint were, licensed attorneys in the State of California.
8
3. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon
9
allege that Defendants ELI REZVANI, MATHEW REZVANI, and DOES 1-30 owned,
10
11 controlled, and/or managed Defendant THE REZVANI LAW FIRM.
12 4. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon
13
allege that Defendant LALEZARY LAW FIRM was and is the agent of Defendants ELI
14
REZVANI, MATHEW REZVANI, and/or THE REZVANI LAW FIRM.
15
5. Defendants THE REZVANI LAW FIRM and LALEZARY LAW FIRM have
16
17 their principal place of business in the City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, California.
18 6. Defendants DOES 1-30 are individuals and/or business entities doing business in
19
the County of Los Angeles, California, and/or contracted to do work in the County of Los
20
Angeles, California. Each and every Defendant was at all relevant times the agent and/or
21
22
employee of the other Defendants, and acted within the scope of said agency and/or
23 employment. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of Defendants identified as DOES 1-30, but
24
will seek leave to amend this Complaint if and when Plaintiffs discover the identity of any of
25
the Defendants now sued under the fictitious names DOES 1-30.
26
7. In committing the acts complained of herein, each Defendant acted as the
27
28 authorized agent, employee, and/or representative of each other Defendant. Each act of each
Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al.
Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 2
1 Defendant complained of herein was committed within the scope of said agency, employment,
2
or other representation, and each act was ratified by each other Defendant. Each Defendant is
3
liable, in whole or in part, for the damages and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs.
4
5
8. This Court is the proper court because the Plaintiffs’ injuries from the subject
6 motor vehicle accident occurred in its jurisdictional area.
7
9. On March 15, 2023, MS. HANDY was the driver of a 2010 BMC 328i and
8
minor Plaintiffs were passengers in said vehicle. Ms. Handy was driving south on Stanley
9
Avenue in Oakland, CA, and came to a stop for a stop sign on Stanley Avenue at Foothill Blvd,
10
11 Oakland, CA. Suddenly, the Plaintiffs’ vehicle was rear-ended by a 2006 CR-V EX operated by
12 a then-minor driver and owned by said driver and/or her parent(s) and/or others. MS. HANDY
13
told the minor driver to call her mother, and she or another adult female came to the accident
14
scene and threatened to fight MS. HANDY, whom she followed home, and on information and
15
belief she broke MS. HANDY’S car window. As a result of which all Plaintiffs sustained
16
17 injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, bodily injury,
18 pain and suffering, and out-of-pocket expenses.
19
10. On or about March 20, 2023, MS. HANDY communicated the allegations
20
contained in Paragraph 9 to the LALEZARY LAW FIRM.
21
22
11. On March 22, 2023, MS. HANDY retained and employed
23 Defendants to represent her in prosecuting a claim for personal injuries against the driver,
24
and/or parent(s) and/or owner(s) of the subject 2006 CR-V EX (“MVA DEFENDANTS”).
25
Defendants accepted such employment and agreed to represent Plaintiff EDITH HANDY. She,
26
MATHEW REZVANI for THE REZVANI LAW FIRM and the LALEZARY LAW FIRM
27
28 entered into a legal services agreement, a true and correct copy of which is Exhibit A hereto.
Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al.
Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 3
1 12. Defendants never discussed with EDITH HANDY the risks involved in pursuing
2
medical treatment on a lien basis with the lawyers’ contacts with whom, on information and
3
belief, they had prior business relations and/or through medical providers on a lien basis without
4
5 any knowledge of the policy limit(s) of any applicable liability insurance. Had MS. HANDY
6 been informed of the financial risk, she would have simply treated through her medical plan as
7
the Defendants should have advised absent a rare situation where a medical provider through
8
her medical plan denied care. The reckless advice and/or lack of advice in this regard cost MS.
9
HANDY tens of thousands of dollars that she would have otherwise recovered, but instead was
10
11 paid to medical liens that should not have existed.
12 13. Defendants overstated to MS. HANDY the additional time and cost of pursuing
13
the case to encourage a quick settlement, discouraging an asset check of the MVA
14
DEFENDANTS, and failed to even obtain a declaration of assets from the MVA
15
DEFENDANTS so MS. HANDY could understand the economic reality of the MVA
16
17 DEFENDANTS' ability to pay more than policy limits – initially stated by Defendants as
18 $15,000 - all the while Defendants knew MS. HANDY was still treating and may require
19
surgery. The obvious and proper advice would be to settle the claim for the policy only after it
20
made sense to settle by understanding the MVA DEFENDANTS disclosed assets and/or at
21
22
minimum Defendants performed a property search which costs perhaps $25 dollars with an
23 online paid service, not the hundreds of dollars the Defendants suggested to discourage MS.
24
HANDY from the obvious and proper course of action to check MVA DEFENDANT'S assets.
25
14. Defendants never discussed representing minor Plaintiffs for injuries and
26
damages they sustained in the subject motor vehicle accident, no Plaintiff, nor anyone acting on
27
28 minor Plaintiffs’ behalf executed a legal services agreement with Defendants, nor discussed any
Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al.
Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 4
1 Defendant representing minor Plaintiffs. Without the consent of anyone acting on behalf of
2
minor Plaintiffs, Defendants entered into agreements to settle their claims and subsequently
3
received Settlement Agreement and Release (“SAR”) forms for each minor Plaintiff from
4
5 Allstate Insurance Company, and presented these to the parents of the minor Plaintiffs as a fait
6 accompli, stating there was no more money to pay for the minor Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages
7
sustained as a result of the accident, and demanded the parents of each minor Plaintiff sign the
8
SAR forms. The minor Plaintiffs’ parents reluctantly executed the SARs.
9
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE/LEGAL MALPRACTICE
11 (Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
12 15. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
13
preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
14
16. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence in representing
15
Plaintiffs. Defendants negligently failed to determine all insurance policies on the risk and/or
16
17 determine the assets of the minor driver and/or the parents and/or owner(s) of the subject
18 HONDA CR-V, and to determine the minor Plaintiffs’ injuries. Defendants specifically told
19
EDITH HANDY they would not perform an asset search on those responsible for the underlying
20
motor vehicle accident unless EDITH HANDY underwent knee surgery, which she did. On
21
22
information and belief, the Defendants still did not due the assets search. Defendants thereafter
23 negligently and carelessly advised Plaintiff EDITH HANDY and the minor Plaintiffs’ mothers
24
to accept settlements claiming there was no more money available from the minor at-fault driver
25
in the underlying motor vehicle accident, and/or her parents, and/or the owner(s) of the 2006
26
CR-V EX involved therein.
27
28 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that their claims’ value
Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al.
Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 5
1 substantially exceeded the settlement of $100,000.00 that Defendants informed Plaintiff
2
HANDY was all she could get, and the $1,000.00 settlement for DERELL YOUNG, JR $750.00
3
settlement for AMILLIA-ROSE YOUNG, and $1,250.00 settlement for KAMERON SAXON
4
5 that Defendants negotiated with Safeco Insurance Company and informed the minor Plaintiffs
6 was all each could get from the driver and/or parent(s) of the minor at-fault driver in the
7
underlying motor vehicle accident, and/or owner(s) of the of the 2006 CR-V EX involved
8
therein; Defendants informed Plaintiff HANDY and the mothers of the minor Plaintiffs that
9
each had no choice but to execute settlement and release agreements for these amounts;
10
11 18. Defendants made no effort to determine the minor Plaintiffs’ injuries and
12 damages as a result of the underlying motor vehicle accident, never obtained their medical
13
records nor recommended they be examined by health care professionals, nor had them do so.
14
Further, Defendants did not file Petitions to Compromise the Claims of the minor Plaintiffs, and
15
it is unknown if there are outstanding medical liens for the minor Plaintiffs from care or
16
17 treatment related to injuries from the underlying motor vehicle accident. Also unknown is why
18 the settlement amounts for each minor Plaintiff is different.
19
19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that they would have
20
recovered judgments on their claims in a sum well in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of
21
22
this Court; and that at all times herein mentioned, the driver and/or her parents, and/or owners
23 of the subject HONDA CR-V were solvent with sufficient assets and property to satisfy a
24
judgment in such amount.
25
20. As a legal result of the professional negligence herein alleged, Plaintiffs’ causes
26
of action against the driver and/or parents and/or owners of the HONDA CR-V are now barred,
27
28 all to Plaintiffs’ damage.
Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al.
Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 6
1 21. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages below.
2
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
3 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
(Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
4
5
22. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
6 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
7
23. On information and belief, Defendants made no efforts to determine if additional
8
insurance/assets were available to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims, including from the owner(s) of the
9
subject HONDA CR-V under Vehicle Code § 17150, the minor driver of said vehicle, and the
10
11 parent(s) of said minor driver under Vehicle Code §§ 17707 and 17708, and said parent(s)
12 and/or insurers potential exposure under Civil Code § 1714.1.
13
24. Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with a detailed accounting of the settlement
14
amounts, including any negotiated amounts of medical liens, despite EDITH HANDY
15
specifically requesting the same.
16
17 25. Defendants sent EDITH HANDY to health care providers they selected, instead
18 of her regular treating providers which she did not know she could have care for her as the
19
result of the accident. Thereafter despite physicians advising her she needed knee surgery,
20
Defendants recommended EDITH HANDY not have it done. Because she needed the surgery,
21
22
she did undergo knee surgery. Thereafter, Defendants told her not to go to follow-up
23 appointments and therapy because “there wasn’t enough money.” Despite this, EDITH
24
HANDY went to some of the follow up appointments and, on information and belief, some or
25
all of the bills for these were billed to her Medi-Cal, but she was never informed by Defendants
26
about any Medi-Cal liens.
27
28 26. In acting and failing to act as aforesaid, Defendants breached their duties
Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al.
Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 7
1 pursuant to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, including but not limited to Rule 1.1
2
Competence, Rule 1.3 Diligence, Rule 1.4 Communication with Client, and Rule 1.16(e),
3
failure to promptly release to MS. HANDY at her request all client materials and property.
4
5 27. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including out-of-
6 pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be ascertained at trial.
7
Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages.
8
28. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
9
PRAYER
10
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows as to all Defendants:
12 A. For general damages, according proof, in excess of the minimum jurisdictional
13
limit of this Court;
14
B. For special damages according to proof;
15
C. For damages for other economic losses, according to proof;
16
17 D. For interest on general and special damages, as permitted by law;
18 E. For Plaintiffs’ costs of suit incurred herein;
19
F. For pre-judgment interest; and
20
G. For such other and further relief which this Court deems just and proper.
21
22
23
Dated: June 17, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
24
25
___________________________________
26 Andrew Wolff, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
27
28
Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al.
Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
EXHIBIT A
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al.
Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 9
Preview
1 Andrew Wolff, Esq. (SBN 195092) 2 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1615 Broadway, 4th Floor 3 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 4 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 5 Email: andrew@awolfflaw.com info@awolfflaw.com 6 Attorney for Plaintiffs 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 12 EDITH HANDY; KAMERON SAXON, a minor Case No.: 13 by and through his Guardian ad Litem Mallia 14 Hall; AMILLIA-ROSE YOUNG, a minor by and COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; through her Guardian ad Litem Mallia Hall; and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 15 DERELL YOUNG, JR a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem Mallia Hall, 16 17 Plaintiffs, 18 vs. 19 20 ELI REZVANI; MATHEW REZVANI; THE REZVANI LAW FIRM; LALEZARY LAW 21 FIRM; and DOES 1-30, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 24 Plaintiffs EDITH HANDY; KAMERON SAXON, a minor by and through his Guardian 25 26 ad Litem Mallia Hall; AMILLIA-ROSE YOUNG, a minor by and through her Guardian ad 27 Litem Mallia Hall; and DERELL YOUNG, JR, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem 28 Mallia Hall, (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al. Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 1 1 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 2 1. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff EDITH HANDY (“MS. HANDY”) was a 3 competent adult, and Plaintiffs KAMERON SAXON, AMILLIA-ROSE YOUNG, and 4 5 DERELL YOUNG, JR were minors. 6 2. Defendants ELI REZVANI and MATHEW REZVANI are now, and at all 7 relevant times mentioned in this Complaint were, licensed attorneys in the State of California. 8 3. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 9 allege that Defendants ELI REZVANI, MATHEW REZVANI, and DOES 1-30 owned, 10 11 controlled, and/or managed Defendant THE REZVANI LAW FIRM. 12 4. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 13 allege that Defendant LALEZARY LAW FIRM was and is the agent of Defendants ELI 14 REZVANI, MATHEW REZVANI, and/or THE REZVANI LAW FIRM. 15 5. Defendants THE REZVANI LAW FIRM and LALEZARY LAW FIRM have 16 17 their principal place of business in the City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, California. 18 6. Defendants DOES 1-30 are individuals and/or business entities doing business in 19 the County of Los Angeles, California, and/or contracted to do work in the County of Los 20 Angeles, California. Each and every Defendant was at all relevant times the agent and/or 21 22 employee of the other Defendants, and acted within the scope of said agency and/or 23 employment. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of Defendants identified as DOES 1-30, but 24 will seek leave to amend this Complaint if and when Plaintiffs discover the identity of any of 25 the Defendants now sued under the fictitious names DOES 1-30. 26 7. In committing the acts complained of herein, each Defendant acted as the 27 28 authorized agent, employee, and/or representative of each other Defendant. Each act of each Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al. Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 2 1 Defendant complained of herein was committed within the scope of said agency, employment, 2 or other representation, and each act was ratified by each other Defendant. Each Defendant is 3 liable, in whole or in part, for the damages and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs. 4 5 8. This Court is the proper court because the Plaintiffs’ injuries from the subject 6 motor vehicle accident occurred in its jurisdictional area. 7 9. On March 15, 2023, MS. HANDY was the driver of a 2010 BMC 328i and 8 minor Plaintiffs were passengers in said vehicle. Ms. Handy was driving south on Stanley 9 Avenue in Oakland, CA, and came to a stop for a stop sign on Stanley Avenue at Foothill Blvd, 10 11 Oakland, CA. Suddenly, the Plaintiffs’ vehicle was rear-ended by a 2006 CR-V EX operated by 12 a then-minor driver and owned by said driver and/or her parent(s) and/or others. MS. HANDY 13 told the minor driver to call her mother, and she or another adult female came to the accident 14 scene and threatened to fight MS. HANDY, whom she followed home, and on information and 15 belief she broke MS. HANDY’S car window. As a result of which all Plaintiffs sustained 16 17 injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, bodily injury, 18 pain and suffering, and out-of-pocket expenses. 19 10. On or about March 20, 2023, MS. HANDY communicated the allegations 20 contained in Paragraph 9 to the LALEZARY LAW FIRM. 21 22 11. On March 22, 2023, MS. HANDY retained and employed 23 Defendants to represent her in prosecuting a claim for personal injuries against the driver, 24 and/or parent(s) and/or owner(s) of the subject 2006 CR-V EX (“MVA DEFENDANTS”). 25 Defendants accepted such employment and agreed to represent Plaintiff EDITH HANDY. She, 26 MATHEW REZVANI for THE REZVANI LAW FIRM and the LALEZARY LAW FIRM 27 28 entered into a legal services agreement, a true and correct copy of which is Exhibit A hereto. Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al. Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 3 1 12. Defendants never discussed with EDITH HANDY the risks involved in pursuing 2 medical treatment on a lien basis with the lawyers’ contacts with whom, on information and 3 belief, they had prior business relations and/or through medical providers on a lien basis without 4 5 any knowledge of the policy limit(s) of any applicable liability insurance. Had MS. HANDY 6 been informed of the financial risk, she would have simply treated through her medical plan as 7 the Defendants should have advised absent a rare situation where a medical provider through 8 her medical plan denied care. The reckless advice and/or lack of advice in this regard cost MS. 9 HANDY tens of thousands of dollars that she would have otherwise recovered, but instead was 10 11 paid to medical liens that should not have existed. 12 13. Defendants overstated to MS. HANDY the additional time and cost of pursuing 13 the case to encourage a quick settlement, discouraging an asset check of the MVA 14 DEFENDANTS, and failed to even obtain a declaration of assets from the MVA 15 DEFENDANTS so MS. HANDY could understand the economic reality of the MVA 16 17 DEFENDANTS' ability to pay more than policy limits – initially stated by Defendants as 18 $15,000 - all the while Defendants knew MS. HANDY was still treating and may require 19 surgery. The obvious and proper advice would be to settle the claim for the policy only after it 20 made sense to settle by understanding the MVA DEFENDANTS disclosed assets and/or at 21 22 minimum Defendants performed a property search which costs perhaps $25 dollars with an 23 online paid service, not the hundreds of dollars the Defendants suggested to discourage MS. 24 HANDY from the obvious and proper course of action to check MVA DEFENDANT'S assets. 25 14. Defendants never discussed representing minor Plaintiffs for injuries and 26 damages they sustained in the subject motor vehicle accident, no Plaintiff, nor anyone acting on 27 28 minor Plaintiffs’ behalf executed a legal services agreement with Defendants, nor discussed any Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al. Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 4 1 Defendant representing minor Plaintiffs. Without the consent of anyone acting on behalf of 2 minor Plaintiffs, Defendants entered into agreements to settle their claims and subsequently 3 received Settlement Agreement and Release (“SAR”) forms for each minor Plaintiff from 4 5 Allstate Insurance Company, and presented these to the parents of the minor Plaintiffs as a fait 6 accompli, stating there was no more money to pay for the minor Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages 7 sustained as a result of the accident, and demanded the parents of each minor Plaintiff sign the 8 SAR forms. The minor Plaintiffs’ parents reluctantly executed the SARs. 9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10 PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE/LEGAL MALPRACTICE 11 (Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 12 15. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 13 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 14 16. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence in representing 15 Plaintiffs. Defendants negligently failed to determine all insurance policies on the risk and/or 16 17 determine the assets of the minor driver and/or the parents and/or owner(s) of the subject 18 HONDA CR-V, and to determine the minor Plaintiffs’ injuries. Defendants specifically told 19 EDITH HANDY they would not perform an asset search on those responsible for the underlying 20 motor vehicle accident unless EDITH HANDY underwent knee surgery, which she did. On 21 22 information and belief, the Defendants still did not due the assets search. Defendants thereafter 23 negligently and carelessly advised Plaintiff EDITH HANDY and the minor Plaintiffs’ mothers 24 to accept settlements claiming there was no more money available from the minor at-fault driver 25 in the underlying motor vehicle accident, and/or her parents, and/or the owner(s) of the 2006 26 CR-V EX involved therein. 27 28 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that their claims’ value Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al. Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 5 1 substantially exceeded the settlement of $100,000.00 that Defendants informed Plaintiff 2 HANDY was all she could get, and the $1,000.00 settlement for DERELL YOUNG, JR $750.00 3 settlement for AMILLIA-ROSE YOUNG, and $1,250.00 settlement for KAMERON SAXON 4 5 that Defendants negotiated with Safeco Insurance Company and informed the minor Plaintiffs 6 was all each could get from the driver and/or parent(s) of the minor at-fault driver in the 7 underlying motor vehicle accident, and/or owner(s) of the of the 2006 CR-V EX involved 8 therein; Defendants informed Plaintiff HANDY and the mothers of the minor Plaintiffs that 9 each had no choice but to execute settlement and release agreements for these amounts; 10 11 18. Defendants made no effort to determine the minor Plaintiffs’ injuries and 12 damages as a result of the underlying motor vehicle accident, never obtained their medical 13 records nor recommended they be examined by health care professionals, nor had them do so. 14 Further, Defendants did not file Petitions to Compromise the Claims of the minor Plaintiffs, and 15 it is unknown if there are outstanding medical liens for the minor Plaintiffs from care or 16 17 treatment related to injuries from the underlying motor vehicle accident. Also unknown is why 18 the settlement amounts for each minor Plaintiff is different. 19 19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that they would have 20 recovered judgments on their claims in a sum well in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of 21 22 this Court; and that at all times herein mentioned, the driver and/or her parents, and/or owners 23 of the subject HONDA CR-V were solvent with sufficient assets and property to satisfy a 24 judgment in such amount. 25 20. As a legal result of the professional negligence herein alleged, Plaintiffs’ causes 26 of action against the driver and/or parents and/or owners of the HONDA CR-V are now barred, 27 28 all to Plaintiffs’ damage. Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al. Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 6 1 21. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages below. 2 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 3 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 4 5 22. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 6 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 7 23. On information and belief, Defendants made no efforts to determine if additional 8 insurance/assets were available to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims, including from the owner(s) of the 9 subject HONDA CR-V under Vehicle Code § 17150, the minor driver of said vehicle, and the 10 11 parent(s) of said minor driver under Vehicle Code §§ 17707 and 17708, and said parent(s) 12 and/or insurers potential exposure under Civil Code § 1714.1. 13 24. Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with a detailed accounting of the settlement 14 amounts, including any negotiated amounts of medical liens, despite EDITH HANDY 15 specifically requesting the same. 16 17 25. Defendants sent EDITH HANDY to health care providers they selected, instead 18 of her regular treating providers which she did not know she could have care for her as the 19 result of the accident. Thereafter despite physicians advising her she needed knee surgery, 20 Defendants recommended EDITH HANDY not have it done. Because she needed the surgery, 21 22 she did undergo knee surgery. Thereafter, Defendants told her not to go to follow-up 23 appointments and therapy because “there wasn’t enough money.” Despite this, EDITH 24 HANDY went to some of the follow up appointments and, on information and belief, some or 25 all of the bills for these were billed to her Medi-Cal, but she was never informed by Defendants 26 about any Medi-Cal liens. 27 28 26. In acting and failing to act as aforesaid, Defendants breached their duties Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al. Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 7 1 pursuant to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, including but not limited to Rule 1.1 2 Competence, Rule 1.3 Diligence, Rule 1.4 Communication with Client, and Rule 1.16(e), 3 failure to promptly release to MS. HANDY at her request all client materials and property. 4 5 27. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including out-of- 6 pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be ascertained at trial. 7 Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages. 8 28. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 9 PRAYER 10 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows as to all Defendants: 12 A. For general damages, according proof, in excess of the minimum jurisdictional 13 limit of this Court; 14 B. For special damages according to proof; 15 C. For damages for other economic losses, according to proof; 16 17 D. For interest on general and special damages, as permitted by law; 18 E. For Plaintiffs’ costs of suit incurred herein; 19 F. For pre-judgment interest; and 20 G. For such other and further relief which this Court deems just and proper. 21 22 23 Dated: June 17, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 24 25 ___________________________________ 26 Andrew Wolff, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs 27 28 Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al. Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EXHIBIT A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Edith Handy, et al., v. Eli Rezvani, Esq., et al. Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 9