Preview
1 Matt Cortez (SBN 344506)
service@mattcortezlaw.com
2 MATT CORTEZ LAW, PC
13252 Garden Grove Blvd, Ste 204
3 Garden Grove, California 92843
P: (714) 717-2016
4 F: (951) 496-4169
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
VALENTE MARTINEZ
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
VALENTE MARTINEZ, an individual; Case No:
10
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR:
11
vs. 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
12 2. CONCEALMENT;
SALOME MARTINEZ; and DOES 1 through 3. NEGLIGENCE;
13 50, inclusive; 4. QUIET TITLE;
5. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; AND
14 Defendants. 6. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
15
16 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
17 UNLIMITED CIVIL, DEMAND OVER
$35,000
18
19
20 Plaintiff, VALENTE MARTINEZ, (“Plaintiff”), hereby complains and allege as follows:
21 PARTIES
22 1. Plaintiff, VALENTE MARTINEZ, (“Plaintiff”), was and is at all times relevant
23 herein, an individual and resident of the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of
24 California.
25 2. Defendant, SALOME MARTINEZ, (“Defendant”), was and is and at all times
26 relevant herein an individual and resident of the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles,
27 State of California.
28 3. This Court is the proper court for trial in this action in that the actions and
1
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 omissions of Defendant as alleged herein were made within this Court’s jurisdictional area.
2 4. The true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50,
3 inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who sue these Defendants by their fictitious names
4 herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that each defendant designated herein
5 as a DOE was legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings described herein,
6 and thereby caused injury and damage to Plaintiffs as alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of
7 court to amend this complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of defendants designated as
8 DOES when ascertained.
9 5. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant, and each of them, inclusive of DOES 1
10 through 50, were authorized and empowered by each other to act, and did so act, as agents of
11 each other, and all of the things herein alleged to have been done by them were done in the
12 capacity of such agency. Upon information and belief, all Defendants are responsible in some
13 manner for the events described herein and are liable to Plaintiff for the damages they have
14 incurred.
15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16 8. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedures §§ 1060,
17 525, and 526 as the breach of contract occurred in Los Angeles County, and Plaintiff seeks
18 damages based on the fraud and damages caused to him also located in Los Angeles County,
19 California. The dispute involves the subject property, (“Property”), located at 5836 Ramon
20 Court, Commerce, California 90040 which is located in Los Angeles County. Venue is also
21 proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395. Los Angeles
22 County, State of California, is where the obligation(s), breach(es) and damages were incurred
23 and occurred.
24 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
25
9. On or about July 10, 1992 a duplex consisting of four homes, two in front located
26
at the subject Property at 5836 Ramon Court, Commerce, California 90040, and two located in
27
the back, were gifted by the original owners, Raul M. Gonzalez and Olimpia M. Gonzalez,
28
2
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 (Plaintiff’s sister and brother-in-law), to Plaintiff and his wife, Edna Martinez; and to Plaintiff’s
2 brother, Defendant, Salome Martinez, and his wife, Estela Martinez. A true and correct copy of
3 the July 10, 1992 Joint Tenancy Grant Deed, recorded October 13, 1992, is attached herein as
4
Exhibit A. The grantors, the Gonzalezes, transferred the Property to the grantees on condition
5
the latter all take over and assume the current loan on the Property.
6
10. Defendant did not qualify to assume said loan, but Plaintiff did. Plaintiff
7
8 nevertheless then permitted Defendant to remain on title of the Property.
9 11. Plaintiff and his wife, Edna, resided in the rear residence on the Property.
10 Defendant, and his wife Estella, resided in the front residence.
11
12. In or about 1996 the parties agreed to refinance the loan on the subject Property.
12
Again, Plaintiff assumed responsibility for the loan and again maintained his brother, Defendant,
13
on title. Both Plaintiff and Defendant split $15,000.00 in left over refinance funds, $7,500.00
14
each. The August 6, 1996 Grant Deed reflecting said refinance transaction illustrates that
15
16 Plaintiff and his wife along with Defendant and his wife granted said title to the Property to each
17 other as joint tenants. A true and correct copy of the August 6, 1996 Grant Deed, recorded
18 August 13, 1996, is attached herein as Exhibit B. The relevant Deed of Trust recorded January
19
21, 1997 illustrates the Trustor as Plaintiff and his wife; and Defendant and his wife, “All As
20
Joint Tenants.” A true and correct copy of the January 21, 1997 Deed of Trust is attached herein
21
as Exhibit C.
22
13. Throughout the 1992 to 1996 time frame, Plaintiff and Defendant split the
23
Property’s expenses evenly, 50% / 50%, including payment of property taxes.
24
25 14. In 1998 Plaintiff divorced from his wife, Edna Martinez, who did not seek
26 alimony or rights to the Property in exchange for said divorce. Plaintiff then leased his unit at the
27 Property to a family for a one-year term and moved into the next door rear-located property
28 which Plaintiff’s sister, Olimpia M. Gonzalez, still owned. Plaintiff then put more than
3
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 $13,000.00 into the unit in repairs/upgrades he was leasing out. During this entire time Plaintiff
2 continued to pay 50% of the Property’s expenses and taxes with Defendant.
3 15. In late 1999 to 2000, Plaintiff moved to Mexico. He represented to Defendant he
4
would continue to maintain and pay for his half of the Property while in Mexico. In fact, Plaintiff
5
did just that, sending money to Defendant for the Property. In Plaintiff’s absence, Plaintiff’s
6
tenants paid rent to Defendant.
7
8 16. In or about 2004 after Plaintiff’s sister, Olimpia M. Gonzalez, passed away,
9 Plaintiff inquired to Defendant about the Property. Plaintiff learned Defendant did not wish to
10 rent the rear unit on the Property to Plaintiff’s tenants any longer because Defendant sought to
11
rent the unit to his son instead. Subsequently, Defendant changed his contact information and
12
refused to continue updating Plaintiff about the Property altogether. Throughout, Plaintiff
13
believed the Property was well cared for with Defendant, his brother, about who he was renting
14
the rear unit(s) to and for how much.
15
16 17. Following Plaintiff’s incarceration back in the United States from 2007 to 2011,
17 Defendant never contacted Plaintiff who was then deported to Mexico in 2011.
18 18. From 2011 to 2021, Plaintiff resided and remained in Mexico.
19
19. In 2021 Plaintiff returned to the United States and sought to contact Defendant
20
about the Property in which he believed he was still a 50% owner in. Defendant avoided any
21
contact and refused to return requests from another sister that Defendant contact Plaintiff.
22
23 Plaintiff believed the loan on the Property was fully repaid and sought status on the Property.
24 Defendant rebuffed Plaintiff’s request and never returned messages to him.
25 20. In 2024 Plaintiff utilized realtor, Cesar A. Gonzalez, DRE 01916711 seeking
26 guidance about Defendant as it concerned the Property. Plaintiff’s ongoing issues with
27
Defendant’s lack of communication and transparency about the Property as it concerned
28
4
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff’s legitimate interest in it remained unresolved. Plaintiff’s motivation was to have the
2 Property sold and/or be bought out of the 50% ownership in the Property from Defendant.
3 21. However, in or about February 2024 Plaintiff discovered his name was no longer
4
on the deed to the Property and had not been on title since at least 2002. In February 2024
5
Plaintiff discovered a February 13, 2002 “Grant Deed” regarding the subject Property, apparently
6
recorded on April 3, 2002. A true and correct copy of the February 13, 2002 “Grant Deed” is
7
8 attached herein as Exhibit D.
9 22. Plaintiff never signed Exhibit D and represents the document does not contain his
10 genuine signature. Further, Plaintiff was not in the United States in 2002 to have signed the
11
document live, in-person, in front of any notary. Nor would Plaintiff ever have gifted the
12
Property way without any consideration. Plaintiff represents he never met the alleged notary who
13
is indicated on Exhibit D and that such person never validated or otherwise confirmed his
14
presence or his signature on March 6, 2002. The signature was fraudulently signed by some
15
16 tortfeasor who misrepresented himself as “Valente Martinez.”
17
18
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19
BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT
20
(Against all Defendants and Does 1-50)
21
22 17. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding
23 paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein.
24 18. Following the grant by recorded deed, Plaintiff and Defendant owned as joint
25 tenants the subject Property. By mutual agreement and throughout, Plaintiff and Defendant
26
shared in a 50% / 50% ownership in the Property per deed. Exs. A-C. Both parties shared in the
27
expenses, upkeep, maintenance and tax payments of said Property since 1992.
28
5
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 19. By consistent pattern and practice, since 1992, and by virtue of the subject Deeds,
2 the parties functioned as fifty-fifty partners in the Property.
3 20. However, in February 2024 Plaintiff discovered Defendant breached the parties
4
agreement in a shared ownership agreement of the Property. Plaintiff discovered Defendant
5
breached the agreement and surreptitiously concealed a fraudulent transfer by pretending
6
Plaintiff “signed” a subsequent grant deed in 2002 without Plaintiff’s knowledge, permission or
7
8 authorization.
9 21. Defendants, and each of them, concealed the 2002 breach of contract, discovered
10 by Plaintiff in 2024.
11
28. The Defendants, as parties to the ownership agreement, breached the agreement
12
by pretending some third-party was Plaintiff when he was not in the United States and did not
13
know of, or consent to, giving up his 50% ownership in the Property.
14
29. The Defendants’ breach of the agreement was a substantial factor in causing
15
16 damages to Plaintiff.
17 30. The Defendants’ breach of the ownership agreement caused damages to Plaintiffs
18 in a sum according to proof at time of trial.
19
20
21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
22 CONCEALMENT
23 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50)
24
31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding
25
paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein.
26
32. Defendants, and each of them, willfully and intentionally engaged in fraud-
27
28 concealment as defined by California Civil Code § 1710(3).
6
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
2 alleges that Defendants, and each of them, used their superior knowledge to mislead a notary, to
3 Plaintiff’s damage, that he was present for signature with valid and verifiable government-issued
4
identification, and took extraordinary measures to conceal from Plaintiff the true facts, including,
5
but not limited to, falsifying document(s) to said notary (Ex. D); fraudulently concealing the fact
6
Plaintiff was not present at the signing of Ex. D; withholding knowledge of the illicit Property
7
8 transfer from Plaintiff; doing so without Plaintiff’s consent, authorization or permission which
9 Defendant had no reasonable basis to conceal from Plaintiff.
10 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
11
alleges, that the Defendants’ misrepresentations, failures to disclose, and suppressions of
12
information were made with the intent to induce the notary to act in the manner they did, in
13
reliance thereon, and for Plaintiff’s detriment and damage. There was never any agreement by
14
Plaintiff to sell his half interest as a joint tenant for no consideration to Defendant, or any other
15
16 party.
17 35. At the time that Plaintiff entered into the agreement to co-own the Property,
18 Plaintiff was ignorant of the facts that Defendants suppressed, concealed and failed to disclose,
19
which facts were beyond Plaintiff’s knowledge and reach. Plaintiff never knew Defendant would
20
underhandedly falsify documents in front of a notary, conceal from Plaintiff that Defendant
21
illicitly removed him from the Property with a fraudulent deed divesting him of his ½ interest in
22
23 the Property. As a result, Defendants, and each of them, illicitly profited from the agreement,
24 which but for Defendants’ concealment, Plaintiff would not have entered into with Defendant
25 had he known Defendant would ingratiate himself into a scheme to defraud Plaintiff.
26 36. As a proximate result of the misrepresentations, concealment, suppressions of
27
fact, and nondisclosures, the Defendants, induced Plaintiff to enter into the agreement, and, after
28
7
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 the agreement was entered, Plaintiffs suffered damage in an amount according to proof going
2 back to at least 2002.
3 37. The Defendants, and each of their fraudulent concealment of material facts, were
4
willful, intentional, wanton, malicious, and without justification, and Plaintiff is entitled to
5
punitive damages according to proof. Defendants’ conduct described herein was intended by
6
Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiff, or, was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants
7
8 with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, or, subjected Plaintiff to cruel
9 and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, or was an intentional
10 misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the Defendants with the
11
intention to deprive Plaintiff of property, legal rights or to otherwise cause injury. Such conduct
12
constitutes malice, oppression or fraud under California Civil Code § 3294, thereby entitling
13
Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of
14
Defendants.
15
16
17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
18 NEGLIGENCE
19 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50)
20 38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding
21
paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein.
22
39. At all times relevant herein, Defendant, acting as Plaintiff’s partner in the
23
Property, had duties to exercise reasonable care and skill to maintain the Property with legal
24
acknowledgment that Plaintiff was throughout, and remains, a 50% joint tenant in the Property
25
26 without falsifying a signing-event with a notary that surreptitiously involved Defendant utilizing
27 a third party to pose as Plaintiff and/or with falsified identification.
28 40. Throughout, Defendant had a duty to adhere to the parties’ agreement as recorded
8
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 in the 1992 and subsequent deeds, Exs. A-C, wherein Plaintiff was a 50% owner in the Property.
2 41. Instead, in 2002, on information or belief, Defendant utilized a third party to
3 either pose as Plaintiff and present false identification to a legitimate notary public; or utilized a
4
dishonest notary public who engaged and participated with Defendant, knowing Plaintiff was not
5
present at the signing and/or knew the identification of the person posing as Plaintiff was not in
6
fact Plaintiff, yet notarized the deed, Ex. D, regardless, in violation of his/her duties under the
7
8 laws of the State of California.
9 42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the
10 Defendants as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, general and special
11
damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
12
13
14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 QUIET TITLE
16 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50)
17 43. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding
18
paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein.
19
44. Plaintiff alleges the following with respect to the Property located at 5836 Ramon
20
Court, Commerce, California 90040, (the “Property”), Ex. A.
21
22 45. Defendant wrongfully, fraudulently and surreptitiously recorded a grant deed, Ex.
23 D, on the Property as a result of having someone pose as Plaintiff, sign as Plaintiff, present
24 falsified identification as Plaintiff and to grant Plaintiff’s 50% interest in the Property to
25 Defendant. Or, perhaps Defendant merely paid the notary to offer his/her State of California seal
26
and signature notarizing the document without any conspiring third party present posing as
27
Plaintiff, someone willing to participate in the fraudulent scheme with Defendant.
28
9
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 46. The wrongful recording of the deed, Ex. D, was concealed from Plaintiff in 2002
2 and only discovered in 2024. The resulting fraud caused Plaintiff to lose his 50% interest in the
3 Property.
4
47. Plaintiff therefore seeks to quiet title to the subject Property and to have declared
5
himself as the 50% owners of the Property per the 1992 deed that shows Plaintiff as a joint tenant
6
in the Property which existed until 2002 when Defendant committed said fraud.
7
8 48. By virtue of the foregoing facts, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial declaration that
9 they are the 100% owner of the Property.
10 49. Plaintiff therefore seeks to establish, or “quiet”, title, or, an interest in real estate
11
between the herein adverse parties. A party can establish any legal or equitable right, title, estate,
12
lien, or interest in property or cloud upon title. Code of Civil Procedure § 760.010.
13
50. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to quiet title to the Property in his names as a joint
14
tenant as of the date of this Complaint.
15
16 51. In the alternative, the determination of said quiet title action is sought at trial, or,
17 before by way of a noticed motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, motion for
18 summary adjudication of issues according to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c, et seq.
19
20
21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
23 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50)
24 52. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding
25 paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein.
26
53. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, have
27
intentionally, wrongfully, and unlawfully performed acts including, but not limited to,
28
10
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 substituting himself as sole owner of the Property and illegally removing Plaintiff from the joint
2 tenancy.
3 54. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy of law for the injuries and damages that have
4
resulted, and will continue to result, to Plaintiff as a result of the intentional and wrongful
5
conduct of Defendant and DOES 1 through 50. As a result, it will be difficult for Plaintiff to
6
determine and calculate the full amount of damages he has suffered, and will continue to suffer,
7
8 if Defendant’s conduct is not enjoined and he is not compelled to reconvey the Property to
9 Plaintiff in joint tenancy.
10
11
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
13
(Against all Defendants and Does 1-50)
14
15 55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding
16 paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein.
17 56. Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress, (“IIED” consists of: (1)
18 extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with intention of causing or reckless
19 disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, (2) Plaintiff suffered severe or
20 extreme emotional distress, and (3) actual and proximate causation. Cochran v. Cochran
21 (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 488, 494. See Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 124 Cal.App.3d 154, 168-
22 173 (emotional distress damages recoverable under fraudulent concealment and IIED where
23 seller of home failed to disclose knowledge of termite infestation).
24 57. In 2002, on information or belief, Plaintiff alleges Defendant utilized a third
party to either pose as Plaintiff and present false identification to a legitimate notary public; or
25
utilized a dishonest notary public who engaged and participated with Defendant, knowing
26
Plaintiff was not present at the signing and/or knew the identification of the person posing as
27
28
11
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff was not in fact Plaintiff, yet notarized the deed, Ex. D, regardless, in violation of
2 his/her duties under the laws of the State of California.
3 58. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
4 alleges that Defendants, and each of them, used their superior knowledge to mislead a notary,
to Plaintiff’s damage, that he was present for signature with valid and verifiable government-
5
issued identification, and took extraordinary measures to conceal from Plaintiff the true facts,
6
including, but not limited to, falsifying document(s) to said notary (Ex. D); fraudulently
7
concealing the fact Plaintiff was not present at the signing of Ex. D; withholding knowledge of
8
the illicit Property transfer from Plaintiff; doing so without Plaintiff’s consent, authorization or
9
permission which Defendant had no reasonable basis to conceal from Plaintiff.
10
59. Plaintiff discovered Defendant’s 2002 intentional misconduct in 2024. Since at
11
least 2004 Plaintiff efforted to communicate with Defendant about the Property and Defendant
12
ignored Plaintiff. The basis for Defendant’s evasive and obtuse behavior regarding the
13
Property dates back to 2002 and now explains his silence towards Plaintiff for twenty-two
14 years.
15 60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants misconduct and intentional
16 IIED, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, muscle tension and spasms, symptoms of
17 depression, sadness, anxiety, insomnia and loss of appetite.
18
19
PRAYER
20
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, prays as follows:
21
1. For breach of contract damages,
22
2. For compensatory damages;
23
3. For attorneys’ fees in an amount according to proof;
24
4. For punitive damages (Second and Sixth Causes of Action);
25
5. For a judicial determination to quiet title to the subject Property;
26
6. For a judicial declaration that the Plaintiff is a 50% owner as a joint tenant of the
27
Property;
28
12
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 7. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
2 Defendant from conveying the Property to anyone during the pendency of the
3 herein litigation;
4 8. For costs of suit incurred in this action;
5 9. For any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
6
7 Dated: May 21, 2024 MATT CORTEZ LAW, P.C.
8
9 By:
MATT CORTEZ
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
VALENTE MARTINEZ
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
3
4 Dated: May 21, 2024 MATT CORTEZ LAW, P.C.
5
6 By:
MATT CORTEZ
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
VALENTE MARTINEZ
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
1 VERIFICATION
2
I, VALENTE MARTINEZ, declare that I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action.
3
I have read the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know its contents thereof. The
4
same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on
5
information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
6
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
7
foregoing is true and correct.
8
9
Executed this __________ day of May 2024, at Los Angeles, California.
10
11 __________________________________________
VALENTE MARTINEZ, Declarant
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
VERIFICATION
Exhibit “A”
Exhibit “B”
Exhibit “C”
Exhibit “D”
Preview
1 Matt Cortez (SBN 344506) service@mattcortezlaw.com 2 MATT CORTEZ LAW, PC 13252 Garden Grove Blvd, Ste 204 3 Garden Grove, California 92843 P: (714) 717-2016 4 F: (951) 496-4169 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, VALENTE MARTINEZ 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 VALENTE MARTINEZ, an individual; Case No: 10 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: 11 vs. 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; 12 2. CONCEALMENT; SALOME MARTINEZ; and DOES 1 through 3. NEGLIGENCE; 13 50, inclusive; 4. QUIET TITLE; 5. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; AND 14 Defendants. 6. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 15 16 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 17 UNLIMITED CIVIL, DEMAND OVER $35,000 18 19 20 Plaintiff, VALENTE MARTINEZ, (“Plaintiff”), hereby complains and allege as follows: 21 PARTIES 22 1. Plaintiff, VALENTE MARTINEZ, (“Plaintiff”), was and is at all times relevant 23 herein, an individual and resident of the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of 24 California. 25 2. Defendant, SALOME MARTINEZ, (“Defendant”), was and is and at all times 26 relevant herein an individual and resident of the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, 27 State of California. 28 3. This Court is the proper court for trial in this action in that the actions and 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 omissions of Defendant as alleged herein were made within this Court’s jurisdictional area. 2 4. The true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, 3 inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who sue these Defendants by their fictitious names 4 herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that each defendant designated herein 5 as a DOE was legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings described herein, 6 and thereby caused injury and damage to Plaintiffs as alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of 7 court to amend this complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of defendants designated as 8 DOES when ascertained. 9 5. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant, and each of them, inclusive of DOES 1 10 through 50, were authorized and empowered by each other to act, and did so act, as agents of 11 each other, and all of the things herein alleged to have been done by them were done in the 12 capacity of such agency. Upon information and belief, all Defendants are responsible in some 13 manner for the events described herein and are liable to Plaintiff for the damages they have 14 incurred. 15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16 8. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedures §§ 1060, 17 525, and 526 as the breach of contract occurred in Los Angeles County, and Plaintiff seeks 18 damages based on the fraud and damages caused to him also located in Los Angeles County, 19 California. The dispute involves the subject property, (“Property”), located at 5836 Ramon 20 Court, Commerce, California 90040 which is located in Los Angeles County. Venue is also 21 proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395. Los Angeles 22 County, State of California, is where the obligation(s), breach(es) and damages were incurred 23 and occurred. 24 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 25 9. On or about July 10, 1992 a duplex consisting of four homes, two in front located 26 at the subject Property at 5836 Ramon Court, Commerce, California 90040, and two located in 27 the back, were gifted by the original owners, Raul M. Gonzalez and Olimpia M. Gonzalez, 28 2 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 (Plaintiff’s sister and brother-in-law), to Plaintiff and his wife, Edna Martinez; and to Plaintiff’s 2 brother, Defendant, Salome Martinez, and his wife, Estela Martinez. A true and correct copy of 3 the July 10, 1992 Joint Tenancy Grant Deed, recorded October 13, 1992, is attached herein as 4 Exhibit A. The grantors, the Gonzalezes, transferred the Property to the grantees on condition 5 the latter all take over and assume the current loan on the Property. 6 10. Defendant did not qualify to assume said loan, but Plaintiff did. Plaintiff 7 8 nevertheless then permitted Defendant to remain on title of the Property. 9 11. Plaintiff and his wife, Edna, resided in the rear residence on the Property. 10 Defendant, and his wife Estella, resided in the front residence. 11 12. In or about 1996 the parties agreed to refinance the loan on the subject Property. 12 Again, Plaintiff assumed responsibility for the loan and again maintained his brother, Defendant, 13 on title. Both Plaintiff and Defendant split $15,000.00 in left over refinance funds, $7,500.00 14 each. The August 6, 1996 Grant Deed reflecting said refinance transaction illustrates that 15 16 Plaintiff and his wife along with Defendant and his wife granted said title to the Property to each 17 other as joint tenants. A true and correct copy of the August 6, 1996 Grant Deed, recorded 18 August 13, 1996, is attached herein as Exhibit B. The relevant Deed of Trust recorded January 19 21, 1997 illustrates the Trustor as Plaintiff and his wife; and Defendant and his wife, “All As 20 Joint Tenants.” A true and correct copy of the January 21, 1997 Deed of Trust is attached herein 21 as Exhibit C. 22 13. Throughout the 1992 to 1996 time frame, Plaintiff and Defendant split the 23 Property’s expenses evenly, 50% / 50%, including payment of property taxes. 24 25 14. In 1998 Plaintiff divorced from his wife, Edna Martinez, who did not seek 26 alimony or rights to the Property in exchange for said divorce. Plaintiff then leased his unit at the 27 Property to a family for a one-year term and moved into the next door rear-located property 28 which Plaintiff’s sister, Olimpia M. Gonzalez, still owned. Plaintiff then put more than 3 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 $13,000.00 into the unit in repairs/upgrades he was leasing out. During this entire time Plaintiff 2 continued to pay 50% of the Property’s expenses and taxes with Defendant. 3 15. In late 1999 to 2000, Plaintiff moved to Mexico. He represented to Defendant he 4 would continue to maintain and pay for his half of the Property while in Mexico. In fact, Plaintiff 5 did just that, sending money to Defendant for the Property. In Plaintiff’s absence, Plaintiff’s 6 tenants paid rent to Defendant. 7 8 16. In or about 2004 after Plaintiff’s sister, Olimpia M. Gonzalez, passed away, 9 Plaintiff inquired to Defendant about the Property. Plaintiff learned Defendant did not wish to 10 rent the rear unit on the Property to Plaintiff’s tenants any longer because Defendant sought to 11 rent the unit to his son instead. Subsequently, Defendant changed his contact information and 12 refused to continue updating Plaintiff about the Property altogether. Throughout, Plaintiff 13 believed the Property was well cared for with Defendant, his brother, about who he was renting 14 the rear unit(s) to and for how much. 15 16 17. Following Plaintiff’s incarceration back in the United States from 2007 to 2011, 17 Defendant never contacted Plaintiff who was then deported to Mexico in 2011. 18 18. From 2011 to 2021, Plaintiff resided and remained in Mexico. 19 19. In 2021 Plaintiff returned to the United States and sought to contact Defendant 20 about the Property in which he believed he was still a 50% owner in. Defendant avoided any 21 contact and refused to return requests from another sister that Defendant contact Plaintiff. 22 23 Plaintiff believed the loan on the Property was fully repaid and sought status on the Property. 24 Defendant rebuffed Plaintiff’s request and never returned messages to him. 25 20. In 2024 Plaintiff utilized realtor, Cesar A. Gonzalez, DRE 01916711 seeking 26 guidance about Defendant as it concerned the Property. Plaintiff’s ongoing issues with 27 Defendant’s lack of communication and transparency about the Property as it concerned 28 4 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff’s legitimate interest in it remained unresolved. Plaintiff’s motivation was to have the 2 Property sold and/or be bought out of the 50% ownership in the Property from Defendant. 3 21. However, in or about February 2024 Plaintiff discovered his name was no longer 4 on the deed to the Property and had not been on title since at least 2002. In February 2024 5 Plaintiff discovered a February 13, 2002 “Grant Deed” regarding the subject Property, apparently 6 recorded on April 3, 2002. A true and correct copy of the February 13, 2002 “Grant Deed” is 7 8 attached herein as Exhibit D. 9 22. Plaintiff never signed Exhibit D and represents the document does not contain his 10 genuine signature. Further, Plaintiff was not in the United States in 2002 to have signed the 11 document live, in-person, in front of any notary. Nor would Plaintiff ever have gifted the 12 Property way without any consideration. Plaintiff represents he never met the alleged notary who 13 is indicated on Exhibit D and that such person never validated or otherwise confirmed his 14 presence or his signature on March 6, 2002. The signature was fraudulently signed by some 15 16 tortfeasor who misrepresented himself as “Valente Martinez.” 17 18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 19 BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT 20 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50) 21 22 17. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding 23 paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein. 24 18. Following the grant by recorded deed, Plaintiff and Defendant owned as joint 25 tenants the subject Property. By mutual agreement and throughout, Plaintiff and Defendant 26 shared in a 50% / 50% ownership in the Property per deed. Exs. A-C. Both parties shared in the 27 expenses, upkeep, maintenance and tax payments of said Property since 1992. 28 5 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 19. By consistent pattern and practice, since 1992, and by virtue of the subject Deeds, 2 the parties functioned as fifty-fifty partners in the Property. 3 20. However, in February 2024 Plaintiff discovered Defendant breached the parties 4 agreement in a shared ownership agreement of the Property. Plaintiff discovered Defendant 5 breached the agreement and surreptitiously concealed a fraudulent transfer by pretending 6 Plaintiff “signed” a subsequent grant deed in 2002 without Plaintiff’s knowledge, permission or 7 8 authorization. 9 21. Defendants, and each of them, concealed the 2002 breach of contract, discovered 10 by Plaintiff in 2024. 11 28. The Defendants, as parties to the ownership agreement, breached the agreement 12 by pretending some third-party was Plaintiff when he was not in the United States and did not 13 know of, or consent to, giving up his 50% ownership in the Property. 14 29. The Defendants’ breach of the agreement was a substantial factor in causing 15 16 damages to Plaintiff. 17 30. The Defendants’ breach of the ownership agreement caused damages to Plaintiffs 18 in a sum according to proof at time of trial. 19 20 21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 22 CONCEALMENT 23 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50) 24 31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding 25 paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein. 26 32. Defendants, and each of them, willfully and intentionally engaged in fraud- 27 28 concealment as defined by California Civil Code § 1710(3). 6 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 2 alleges that Defendants, and each of them, used their superior knowledge to mislead a notary, to 3 Plaintiff’s damage, that he was present for signature with valid and verifiable government-issued 4 identification, and took extraordinary measures to conceal from Plaintiff the true facts, including, 5 but not limited to, falsifying document(s) to said notary (Ex. D); fraudulently concealing the fact 6 Plaintiff was not present at the signing of Ex. D; withholding knowledge of the illicit Property 7 8 transfer from Plaintiff; doing so without Plaintiff’s consent, authorization or permission which 9 Defendant had no reasonable basis to conceal from Plaintiff. 10 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 11 alleges, that the Defendants’ misrepresentations, failures to disclose, and suppressions of 12 information were made with the intent to induce the notary to act in the manner they did, in 13 reliance thereon, and for Plaintiff’s detriment and damage. There was never any agreement by 14 Plaintiff to sell his half interest as a joint tenant for no consideration to Defendant, or any other 15 16 party. 17 35. At the time that Plaintiff entered into the agreement to co-own the Property, 18 Plaintiff was ignorant of the facts that Defendants suppressed, concealed and failed to disclose, 19 which facts were beyond Plaintiff’s knowledge and reach. Plaintiff never knew Defendant would 20 underhandedly falsify documents in front of a notary, conceal from Plaintiff that Defendant 21 illicitly removed him from the Property with a fraudulent deed divesting him of his ½ interest in 22 23 the Property. As a result, Defendants, and each of them, illicitly profited from the agreement, 24 which but for Defendants’ concealment, Plaintiff would not have entered into with Defendant 25 had he known Defendant would ingratiate himself into a scheme to defraud Plaintiff. 26 36. As a proximate result of the misrepresentations, concealment, suppressions of 27 fact, and nondisclosures, the Defendants, induced Plaintiff to enter into the agreement, and, after 28 7 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 the agreement was entered, Plaintiffs suffered damage in an amount according to proof going 2 back to at least 2002. 3 37. The Defendants, and each of their fraudulent concealment of material facts, were 4 willful, intentional, wanton, malicious, and without justification, and Plaintiff is entitled to 5 punitive damages according to proof. Defendants’ conduct described herein was intended by 6 Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiff, or, was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants 7 8 with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, or, subjected Plaintiff to cruel 9 and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, or was an intentional 10 misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the Defendants with the 11 intention to deprive Plaintiff of property, legal rights or to otherwise cause injury. Such conduct 12 constitutes malice, oppression or fraud under California Civil Code § 3294, thereby entitling 13 Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 18 NEGLIGENCE 19 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50) 20 38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding 21 paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein. 22 39. At all times relevant herein, Defendant, acting as Plaintiff’s partner in the 23 Property, had duties to exercise reasonable care and skill to maintain the Property with legal 24 acknowledgment that Plaintiff was throughout, and remains, a 50% joint tenant in the Property 25 26 without falsifying a signing-event with a notary that surreptitiously involved Defendant utilizing 27 a third party to pose as Plaintiff and/or with falsified identification. 28 40. Throughout, Defendant had a duty to adhere to the parties’ agreement as recorded 8 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 in the 1992 and subsequent deeds, Exs. A-C, wherein Plaintiff was a 50% owner in the Property. 2 41. Instead, in 2002, on information or belief, Defendant utilized a third party to 3 either pose as Plaintiff and present false identification to a legitimate notary public; or utilized a 4 dishonest notary public who engaged and participated with Defendant, knowing Plaintiff was not 5 present at the signing and/or knew the identification of the person posing as Plaintiff was not in 6 fact Plaintiff, yet notarized the deed, Ex. D, regardless, in violation of his/her duties under the 7 8 laws of the State of California. 9 42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the 10 Defendants as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, general and special 11 damages, in an amount to be determined at trial. 12 13 14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 QUIET TITLE 16 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50) 17 43. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding 18 paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein. 19 44. Plaintiff alleges the following with respect to the Property located at 5836 Ramon 20 Court, Commerce, California 90040, (the “Property”), Ex. A. 21 22 45. Defendant wrongfully, fraudulently and surreptitiously recorded a grant deed, Ex. 23 D, on the Property as a result of having someone pose as Plaintiff, sign as Plaintiff, present 24 falsified identification as Plaintiff and to grant Plaintiff’s 50% interest in the Property to 25 Defendant. Or, perhaps Defendant merely paid the notary to offer his/her State of California seal 26 and signature notarizing the document without any conspiring third party present posing as 27 Plaintiff, someone willing to participate in the fraudulent scheme with Defendant. 28 9 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 46. The wrongful recording of the deed, Ex. D, was concealed from Plaintiff in 2002 2 and only discovered in 2024. The resulting fraud caused Plaintiff to lose his 50% interest in the 3 Property. 4 47. Plaintiff therefore seeks to quiet title to the subject Property and to have declared 5 himself as the 50% owners of the Property per the 1992 deed that shows Plaintiff as a joint tenant 6 in the Property which existed until 2002 when Defendant committed said fraud. 7 8 48. By virtue of the foregoing facts, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial declaration that 9 they are the 100% owner of the Property. 10 49. Plaintiff therefore seeks to establish, or “quiet”, title, or, an interest in real estate 11 between the herein adverse parties. A party can establish any legal or equitable right, title, estate, 12 lien, or interest in property or cloud upon title. Code of Civil Procedure § 760.010. 13 50. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to quiet title to the Property in his names as a joint 14 tenant as of the date of this Complaint. 15 16 51. In the alternative, the determination of said quiet title action is sought at trial, or, 17 before by way of a noticed motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, motion for 18 summary adjudication of issues according to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c, et seq. 19 20 21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 23 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50) 24 52. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding 25 paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein. 26 53. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, have 27 intentionally, wrongfully, and unlawfully performed acts including, but not limited to, 28 10 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 substituting himself as sole owner of the Property and illegally removing Plaintiff from the joint 2 tenancy. 3 54. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy of law for the injuries and damages that have 4 resulted, and will continue to result, to Plaintiff as a result of the intentional and wrongful 5 conduct of Defendant and DOES 1 through 50. As a result, it will be difficult for Plaintiff to 6 determine and calculate the full amount of damages he has suffered, and will continue to suffer, 7 8 if Defendant’s conduct is not enjoined and he is not compelled to reconvey the Property to 9 Plaintiff in joint tenancy. 10 11 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 12 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 13 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50) 14 15 55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every one of the preceding 16 paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth herein. 17 56. Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress, (“IIED” consists of: (1) 18 extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with intention of causing or reckless 19 disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, (2) Plaintiff suffered severe or 20 extreme emotional distress, and (3) actual and proximate causation. Cochran v. Cochran 21 (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 488, 494. See Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 124 Cal.App.3d 154, 168- 22 173 (emotional distress damages recoverable under fraudulent concealment and IIED where 23 seller of home failed to disclose knowledge of termite infestation). 24 57. In 2002, on information or belief, Plaintiff alleges Defendant utilized a third party to either pose as Plaintiff and present false identification to a legitimate notary public; or 25 utilized a dishonest notary public who engaged and participated with Defendant, knowing 26 Plaintiff was not present at the signing and/or knew the identification of the person posing as 27 28 11 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff was not in fact Plaintiff, yet notarized the deed, Ex. D, regardless, in violation of 2 his/her duties under the laws of the State of California. 3 58. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 4 alleges that Defendants, and each of them, used their superior knowledge to mislead a notary, to Plaintiff’s damage, that he was present for signature with valid and verifiable government- 5 issued identification, and took extraordinary measures to conceal from Plaintiff the true facts, 6 including, but not limited to, falsifying document(s) to said notary (Ex. D); fraudulently 7 concealing the fact Plaintiff was not present at the signing of Ex. D; withholding knowledge of 8 the illicit Property transfer from Plaintiff; doing so without Plaintiff’s consent, authorization or 9 permission which Defendant had no reasonable basis to conceal from Plaintiff. 10 59. Plaintiff discovered Defendant’s 2002 intentional misconduct in 2024. Since at 11 least 2004 Plaintiff efforted to communicate with Defendant about the Property and Defendant 12 ignored Plaintiff. The basis for Defendant’s evasive and obtuse behavior regarding the 13 Property dates back to 2002 and now explains his silence towards Plaintiff for twenty-two 14 years. 15 60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants misconduct and intentional 16 IIED, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, muscle tension and spasms, symptoms of 17 depression, sadness, anxiety, insomnia and loss of appetite. 18 19 PRAYER 20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, prays as follows: 21 1. For breach of contract damages, 22 2. For compensatory damages; 23 3. For attorneys’ fees in an amount according to proof; 24 4. For punitive damages (Second and Sixth Causes of Action); 25 5. For a judicial determination to quiet title to the subject Property; 26 6. For a judicial declaration that the Plaintiff is a 50% owner as a joint tenant of the 27 Property; 28 12 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 7. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining 2 Defendant from conveying the Property to anyone during the pendency of the 3 herein litigation; 4 8. For costs of suit incurred in this action; 5 9. For any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 6 7 Dated: May 21, 2024 MATT CORTEZ LAW, P.C. 8 9 By: MATT CORTEZ 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff, VALENTE MARTINEZ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all claims so triable. 3 4 Dated: May 21, 2024 MATT CORTEZ LAW, P.C. 5 6 By: MATT CORTEZ 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, VALENTE MARTINEZ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1 VERIFICATION 2 I, VALENTE MARTINEZ, declare that I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. 3 I have read the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know its contents thereof. The 4 same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on 5 information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe it to be true. 6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 7 foregoing is true and correct. 8 9 Executed this __________ day of May 2024, at Los Angeles, California. 10 11 __________________________________________ VALENTE MARTINEZ, Declarant 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 VERIFICATION Exhibit “A” Exhibit “B” Exhibit “C” Exhibit “D”