|
|
|
LT Motorwerks v Cheung, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number KC067866.
From the appellate ruling it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:
Attorney Jason Buccat represents the plaintiff and appellant LT Motorwerks.
To start, the court of appeals said one would not know what happened from reading Jason Buccat's opening brief, but this is what happened:
A high school student took his car for repairs. He went to a place called R's Tuning. The student's insurance company paid R's Tuning $27,000 to have the repairs done.
But R's Tuning did not do the repairs. Instead, they towed the car to LT Motorwerks to have the repairs done. LT Motorwerks did not tell the student it had his car.
LT Motorwerks then ordered parts, did a small amount of repairs, but never finished the job.
For about three months the student kept calling R's Tuning about the status and was told his car was not yet ready. Finally, he went to the shop and found out his car was not there.
Buccat's client then refused to release the car. LT Motorwerks demanded payment for parts and many months of storage fees at $90 per day.
When not paid, LT Motorwerks called the police.
LT Motorwerks then tried to sell the car at a lien sale.
Then it sued for $27,4019.01 for "repairs it did not do" and $16,200 in storage fees.
The student then counter-sued.
The trial court ruled that LT Motowerks made misrepresentations, such as repairs being done and being entitled to storage fees.
The fraud was intentionally done to hold the car hostage to obtain more fees.
The Court of Appeals noted the Automotive Repair Act says no repairs can be done, or costs incurred, without written authorization from the customer.
Attorney Jason Buccat apparently argued the law did not apply to LT Motorwerks because it was a subcontractor of R's Tuning.
The justices said Buccat cited no authority for this position and that it was contrary to the purpose of the law.
The court of appeals said the contention argued by Jason Buccat, Esq., for his client was "entirely without merit".
The court added "No authority suggests otherwise."
The unanimous court of appeals quoted the trial judge, in response to attorney Buccat's argument: "You're kidding me".
They said the argument his client was making is not how the law works.
The justices said none of Buccat's other arguments had any merit either.
The judgment included:
- $97,050 Damages
- $50,000 Punitive Damages
- $108,555.80 Attorney Fees and Costs
From the online court docket it was not clear if Jason Buccat filed the original lawsuit, or when he became involved.
There are some substitutions of counsel, but none after the trial court was making its rulings and then the appeal.
To us, that is important because, from what we have read - what attorney would make these claims?
It seems idiotic to sue for repairs one did not do - before even getting to the authorization issue.
The justices said lies were made throughout the litigation. These lies were made by Buccat's clients. The lies may have been pursued when Buccat was representing LT Motorwerks before the judge.
It was so bad punitive damages were agreed to be awarded.
In our view it appears Jason Buccat was making arguments in the appeal that the justices said:
- Had no legal citation.
- Were contrary to the purpose of the law.
- With entirely without merit.
Ouch.
In our opinion we would want an attorney who knows the law and does not make arguments entirely without merit.
From this opinion we would not say attorney Jason Buccat meets that criteria.
There is also an issue of legal competence and were concerned the court of appeals made a point that many of the facts of the case would not be known by reading Buccat's opening brief.
The unanimous opinion from multiple judges may be something to consider before hiring this attorney.
Jason Buccat was admitted to the California Bar in 2008. Bar Number 255660.
Buccat Law Group
360 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2000
El Segundo, California 90245
Law School: University of Nevada Las Vegas
