LAW OFFICE OF BARTLEY BABCOCK
CASE RESULTS:
“Mr. Babcock Slays Real Estate Giant Douglas Emmett, Inc. and heavy-hitting law firm Kimball, Tirey & St. John in 6 day jury trial in Pomona Courthouse”
Representing a Defendant at the Pomona courthouse is as easy as a cake walk … said NO attorney ever! Douglas Emmett, Inc. owns billions of dollars worth of Class-A commercial and residential real state across the county, so I knew it would be a challenge of a lifetime for me. In the end, they needed 2 trial lawyers and still couldn’t beat me. The jury saw that this lawsuit was a greedy, money grab and they ruled in my client’s favor after a 6-day slaughter of each and every one of the witnesses that Douglas Emmett, Inc. put on the witness stand. At first, the trial didn’t seem to be going well with the judge threatening to “lock up” my client for felony criminal threat charges if I put her on the stand to testify. I didn’t hesitate for one second when the judge attempted to scare me with this. I pushed forward with trial and inevitably put my “criminal” client on the stand. She was a very sympathetic witness who trains search and rescue dogs for law enforcement and a local branch of the coast guard. The so called “criminal threat” was a conditional threat that was made in jest and something my client was not even capable of committing as she did not have the tools to do so. I skewered the alleged “victim” on the stand - getting her to admit that when she learned about the threat she (1) did not call the cops, (2) that she immediately went back to work at the office on site where my client lives in high-rise apartment building on the beach in Santa Monica, (3) just went about her business as usual, including sending emails to her corporate higher ups, “nickel and diming” tenants for illegal late fee charges, harassing other tenants who don’t obey her fascist orders, and lastly (4) that she was never literally “afraid for her life” as she had testified 10 minutes before I got a chance to ask her questions during trial. Client went home a free citizen to enjoy her rent controlled, 180-degree-ocean-view apartment in Santa Monica where she has lived for the past 35 years. Did I mention her rent was $1,300 a month?
“Mr. Babcock defeats Kimball, Tirey & St. John again in another jury trial and after second lawsuit is filed he prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment before any depositions take place saving client substantial amount of time and money”
Mr. Babcock, again, defeated KTS in two lawsuits involving the same tenant. At the time of the first lawsuit, tenant was alleged to have owed over $25,000 in rent, but with Mr. Babcock’s cross examination of the managing members of the LLC that owns the property, the case was thrown out by the judge on a motion for directed verdict. So KTS filed the case again against the same tenant and despite having been put on notice of all the deficiencies of their case, they did not manage to fix any of them when they filed the second lawsuit. So, before they took my client’s deposition, I drafted a motion for summary judgment that the judge granted, and the judge tossed this case out even though Plaintiff claimed she owed over $40,000 in rent. The tenant went home to her Beverly Hills apartment without having to write a check to anyone. If landlords don’t follow the law, they can’t collect any rent.
“Mr. Babcock Gets Tenant a Check for $50,000”
I refer to some eviction cases as “fake” nonpayment of rent cases. This is where the landlord sues the tenant based on alleged failure to pay rent on time but in reality, the landlord is just pretending that the tenant didn’t pay rent so they can kick them out and increase the rent to full market value. Depending on how many years the tenant has lived in the apartment, landlords can double, triple or quadruple the amount of rent they receive if they succeed in the eviction lawsuit. This is how some folks dance around the rent control laws which places a cap on the amount of rent that a landlord can charge. Well, I made them pay in this case. Some landlords take advantage of low-income, unsophisticated tenants who do not pay rent using certified mail, so the tenants can never show in court a paper trail reflecting the exact date they mailed their rent check. This leaves open the door for the landlord to claim that the tenant never paid the rent because with a certified mail receipt, it becomes a case of “he said/she said” which usually doesn’t end well for the tenant. However, it did not matter in this case because the landlord did not follow the legal process for transferring ownership of the apartment building, and so we knew that even if they didn’t pay to settle the case we would win at trial. We often get the best results by picking a jury, pointing out (again) the problems with the landlord’s lawsuit, and then enjoying the look of fear on opposing counsel’s face when they realize they can’t win the case.
“Mr. Babcock Gets Tenant $115,000”
I represented a tenant who was being evicted for non payment of rent. The defense was that she obviously tried paying the rent on time but the landlord wouldn’t take it. They told her “our lawyers said not to take your check because it’s late.” Total lie. Owners were 20 real estate investors who were lying to evict every African-American tenant out of the building so they could fix up the building and flip it for a huge profit. I showed them that they have to spend money to make money.
“Mr. Bartley Babcock Gets Tenant a Check for $17,000”
I represented a tenant who was being evicted for non payment of rent. He owed 4 months of rent and therefore he was not legally entitled to any relocation money. After conducting discovery and working up the unlawful detainer case and finding numerous affirmative defenses to the case, such as failure by the landlord to register the apartments with the city, and pay the annual rent registry and code enforcement fees, I convinced the landlord to pay $17,000 to the tenant on the day of trial. Tenant was not "qualified" under the rent control laws in L.A. and was not even entitled to any relocation money because he was admittedly at fault. I also got the landlord to forgive the 4 months rent he owed, saving the client an additional $5,000.
“Bartley Babcock Successfully Terminates 1 Year Lease on an Apartment Days After Tenant Signs Lease”
Tenant wanted to terminate her lease so that she could start a new life for herself in Europe. There really was no legal grounds to terminate the lease until I became creative and found a way out. Landlord lied directly to my client about a material condition of the property which caused my client to sign the lease. But for those lies, my client would not have signed the lease. That's fraud. Client moved in and discovered horrid conditions that deeply disturbed her right to quiet enjoyment and to live peacefully and comfortably in her apartment. Landlord threatened to sue for the rent remaining on the entire contract, which was around $50,000. I pointed out, through a few polite phone calls and a letter, that his actions were unreasonable. One can't demand rent when one has known about substantial defects that have a material affect on the value or desirability of property for a long period of time and subsequently failing to act as a reasonable person. The landlord, here, was under a duty to reduce his financial losses by finding a new tenant. Landlord did not do anything to try to reduce his losses, which is a legal requirement, and so the case never even got to court and the tenant, years after, has not been sued for this money.
"CASE DISMISSED"
Case dismissed in court when Mr. Babcock lets the landlord’s attorney know that the landlord committed numerous violations of law by harassing the tenant by shutting off his cable and internet as well as violating the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. At trial, landlord begrudgingly dismisses the case WITH prejudice. My client was an alleged "ringleader" and stirred up controversy with property management and other tenants by filing complaints about poor conditions at his apartment. Did I mention the numerous months of free rent my client received as well as the 60 days he got to move out of the apartment?
"Default judgment against my client "set aside" by the Judge and case dismissed with prejudice"
In another unlawful detainer case where I was representing the Tenant, my client had lost the case by the time he hired me because the landlord entered a "default" judgment against him. This is happens when landlord's lie and claim they properly served the tenant with a lawsuit when in fact they did not. This is colloquially known as “gutter” service. In this case, landlord said they personally served my client, however, at an evidentiary hearing in court we put on undisputed facts the proved my client was not even in the state of California at the time the fraudulent service took place. The default was set aside and landlord agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice as a result of my tenacious negotiations.
"Unlawful Detainer case dismissed yet again Due to Bartley Babcock's Aggressive and Fearless Advocacy for Tenant"
My client, the tenant, lived in an apartment that had a fire. He was forced to move out while workers fixed the fire damage. The repairs took over 3 months to complete and my client exercised his right to terminate his 2-year lease. Landlord accepted this. 6 months after terminating his lease, my client was sued for 'unlawful detainer' by this landlord despite the fact that my client was not in possession of the apartment at the time nor had he been in possession for over 6 months! Attorney Bartley Babcock made one phone call to landlord's Attorney and the case was dismissed! Client extremely happy but very outraged at this particular plaintiff.
"Mortgage Broker Who Was Being Sued to the Tune of over $200,000"
This, unfortunately for my client, was another “sue everyone you can think of” lawsuit - going after him because he had deep pockets. Again, my client was the alleged "ringleader". Plaintiff's attorneys filed numerous frivolous motions seeking sanctions and threatening to call the police, FBI and others to investigate my client in all his real estate transactions going back deep into his past. Their case fell apart after my client was deposed and we learned that he had nothing to do with any of the bad acts by a rouge "loan mod" officer who was the real fraudster.
When I convinced Plaintiff that their case was bad, he agreed to dismiss my client thereby letting him out of the lawsuit, upon my client sending a check for $1,000. This was comical given that opposing counsel had insisted for the past 2 years that my client running the point on this real estate fraud scheme.
"Bartley Babcock persuades Judge to Dismiss entire case WITH PREJUDICE"
Defending an unlicensed general contractor in a lawsuit where the contractor was accused of building a house without the required license (which is illegal), Mr. Babcock was able to get all the fraud charges dismissed from the complaint as a result of a legal brief he submitted to the court. At oral argument before the judge, Mr. Babcock prevailed by persuading the judge that the fraud claims were completely frivolous and without any merit whatsoever. Demurrer sustained without leave to amend. Client was really happy because then he was able to file bankruptcy which stopped the civil case dead in it's tracks and he did not have to pay the Plaintiff any money in the lawsuit.
"Attorney Bartley Babcock wins $10,000 for client in small claims appeal"
My client was defrauded by a chop shop owner who never properly repaired his car after a car accident. The parts allegedly used to fix my clients car were either stolen or non-existent. Client got his car back from the chop shop in much the same condition in which it was after the car accident. The chop shop owner stole $3,000 of my client's car insurance proceeds without refunding client for services not performed. We had the car inspected by a licensed professional after my client got the car back and the inspector concluded that the agreed upon repairs were not performed. We were awarded bad faith damages and attorney's fees.
“Initial offer of 54 Months State Prison reduced to 20 Days Community Service and immediate release from Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles”
In People v. S.O., the defendant, who for the past 25 years had worked tirelessly as a plumber, was charged by prosecutors with felony grand theft. Before Mr. Babcock was retained, prosecutors offered the client 54 months in state prison (because of his prior violent felony conviction stemming from 1994), and his maximum exposure if he proceeded to trial and lost was ten years in state prison. Mr. Babcock persuaded the prosecutor to drop the felony grand theft charge and Babcock obtained for the defendant 20 days of community service.
“Attorney Bartley Babcock Convinces City Prosecutor to Dismiss Excessively High Blood Alcohol Level Enhancement”
In People v. R.R., client was pulled over for DUI as he was pulling into the driveway at his private residence. Client admits that he was “hammered” and the police video of the incident showed that client miserably failed all field sobriety tests with flying colors. The blood test taken at the hospital did not help our case as it registered an “excessively high blood alcohol” content at .21. Before Mr. Babcock was retained, client’s only option was to take a 9 month alcohol program due to the high BAC. However, Mr. Babcock came on the case and convinced the city attorney to dismiss the BAC enhancement (greater than .15) which allowed the client to take a 3 month alcohol class, thereby saving hundreds of dollars and months of wasted time.
“Speeding with No Proof of Insurance - Case dismissed”
In People v. M.R., the defendant, who was pulled over for speeding more than 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, in addition to not having proof of insurance for the vehicle, was afraid that he was going to be hit with a ridiculous amount of fines, fees and penalty assessments that traffic courts commonly dole out in Los Angeles County. By filing various motions and subpoenas for records, Mr. Babcock’s efforts resulted in a dismissal of the case thereby saving client about 1500 dollars in fines and fees.
"Attorney Bartley Babcock gets multiple charges dropped at preliminary hearing in 47-defendant auto theft conspiracy case in Rancho Cucamonga"
In People v. R.M., defendant was charged with multiple counts of grand theft auto, conspiracy to commit grand theft auto, and receiving stolen property. While cross-examining the police officer on the stand, Attorney Mr. Babcock was able to get officer to admit that prosecutors had no evidence whatsoever that defendant had knowledge that the cars he was driving were stolen nor that defendant had the intent to steal the cars from their rightful owners. Multiple charges were dropped as a result.
"In a vehicular manslaughter case where Client's bad driving resulted in death of the victim Bartley Babcock gets client community service"
In People v. B.S., defendant fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into another car killing the driver instantly. The normal penalty for this crime is four years in prison. The case was held at the Pomona Courthouse which is notorious for being about as tough on crime as the courts in Orange County. Pomona is an extremely hostile environment for defendant's as well as their lawyers. As a result of a deep investigation conducted by my own personal private investigator and non-stop, aggressive to-the-point-of-annoying negotiations with the prosecutor, Mr. Babcock was able to get the case reduced to a misdemeanor with no jail time. Probation, community service and a brief suspension of defendant's driver's license were the only penalties imposed. Great result. Unheard of in a Pomona case.
"Bartley Babcock prevails at the DMV's APS Drunk Driving Hearing. Client keeps driver's license."
Defense attorneys lose 90% of the time at a DMV Hearing in a drunk driving case. Mr. Babcock somehow miraculously won at the DMV hearing in a drunk driving case where client crashed into two parked cars causing over $20,000 in damage and made statements admitting to drinking wine "all day" and having just come from the store where she bought more booze. Client blew a .12 BAC (which is way over the legal limit of .08). In the end, Babcock prevented the DMV from suspending his license for any period of time.
"In a DUI case where client crashes into 2 parked cars and BAC was .12, Attorney Babcock gets offered a 'Wet Reckless'!"
Sometimes, in LA County, prosecutors offer a 'wet reckless' instead of DUI when the driver's blood alcohol concentration is very close to or under the legal limit of .08. However, if there was a traffic accident you will almost NEVER get offered a 'wet,' unless you have Mr. Babcock working your case. Client crashed into 2 parked cars causing $15,000 in damage, multiple witnesses, booze found in the car, client tells police she had been drinking all day, yet Mr. Babcock smooth talked all 3 prosecutors and the judge and presented the client as the 'victim' of a disease for which she had open heart surgery to correct, and was on several heart medications at the time of the accident. As a result, client did not have to install the 'ignition interlock device' in her car, did not have to do a 3 month alcohol class, and did not have to be on probation for 3 years, and only had to pay HALF the fines and fees commonly applied in a DUI case.
"Bartley Babcock gets client a "wet reckless" (instead of DUI) in a drunk driving case where client runs from the cops and blows a .16, .17 on the chemical breathalyzer test."
Don't ask me how this was pulled off. Really bad facts for the defense considering client was running away from the cops at the time of the arrest. The blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit too. Not a lot of mitigating facts for my client, however, he had no prior arrests whatsoever and there was evidence that the arresting officer had been "sidelined" by a previous employer for abusing his power and using excessive force on citizens.
Your Case is Treated as If It Were My Own Case.
Disclaimer: This website is for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this website constitutes legal advice in any way. The information on this website does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Law Office of Bartley Babcock. Although the case results listed in this website are typical of the results Mr. Babcock regularly obtains for his clients, every case is factually and legally different, so Mr. Babcock cannot guarantee a specific outcome in your situation. Please note that the use of this website or any of the email links does not create an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Babcock. You are not considered a client until Mr. Babcock accepts your case and you sign an agreement of representation.
Powered by Squarespace