RDR LAW Case Results
RDR LAW Negotiates Favorable Settlement After Family with Children Exposed to Asbestos and Mold.
January 2018
Not long after renting a dream home on Camelback Mountain, a young family with two small children began to smell strange odors and getting sick. Further investigation revealed the presence of toxic molds and asbestos, neither of which were disclosed by the residential landlord. The client vacated the property and gave the landlord notice of the problem. When the problem was not remedied in five (5) days as required by the Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act, the family terminated the lease. The family further demanded compensation for their illness, cleaning their personal property, and for the property that was lost. The landlord claimed the family owed rent for the rest of the lease. Before a lawsuit was necessary, RDR LAW successfully negotiated a settlement to resolve the matter.
June 2019 With the explosion in popularity of the sharing economy and Airbnb in particular, RDR LAW was invited to speak on three-topics during a recent continuing legal education seminar on short term rentals hosted by the National Business Institute. Mr. Roach spoke on liability essentials, remedies for damages to a rental unit, and short-term agreement fundamentals.
June 2019 RDR LAW’s client was the target of a third-party claim in the U.S. District Court of Arizona asserting that he should have to indemnify a car dealership for any liability it may have for tampering with the odometer of a vehicle. RDR LAW filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of his client asserting that the indemnification claim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Faced with the motion, the third-party plaintiff dismissed the claim.
May 2019 A tenant renting a home abandoned the property months before the end of the lease and left the property damaged and filled with trash. RDR LAW was retained to prosecute claims for the damage and unpaid rent, late fees, and interest owed. Although the defendant refused to respond to communications from RDR LAW and/or its client, RDR LAW located and served her with a complaint and summons. After she failed to respond as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, a default judgment was entered against her for the full value of the plaintiff’s claim.
April 2019 RDR LAW’s client was in the process of opening Arizona’s first franchise of a popular east coast doughnut shop. RDR LAW was retained late in the transaction after most of the terms had been agreed upon and successfully negotiated additional concessions favorable to its tenant client into the lease.
January 2019 RDR LAW was retained by a woman who was in the process of selling her home (owned jointly with her parents) when she was informed by the title company handling the transaction that nearly all of the sale’s proceeds would be taken to pay a judgment lien. There was a judgment encumbering the sale of the property because one of the property’s co-owners, (our client’s father) was subject to a recorded judgment. RDR LAW intervened and demonstrated to both the title company and the creditor that the homestead exception applied and precluded any seizure of funds because the father lived in the home. Not only was the client able to proceed with the sale and keep all of the sale proceeds, but a new settlement was reached between her father and the creditor.
January 2019 Two new companies, including a professional limited liability company formed by a local certified public accountant starting his own practice and an online marketing company retained RDR LAW to prepare their company’s respective operating agreements and master services agreements.
December 2018 Although lenders want to take the position that usury is dead in Arizona, RDR LAW prevailed on a second motion for summary judgment on usury in three months. This time, RDR LAW represented an individual facing threats of foreclosure by a commercial lender. The lender demanded that it would initiate foreclosure proceedings unless the borrower paid a default penalty and a years’ worth of back interest (that the borrower had already paid). After oral argument, the court granted RDR LAW’s motion for summary judgment and held that the lender violated Arizona usury law and breached the promissory note by charging unlawful interest.
November 2018 An Arizona company performed work in California and – as a favor – took a family friend along as a temporary employee. In return, he filed a wage and hour claim with the California Department of Industrial Relation’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement asserting that he was not given breaks or properly paid for overtime hours worked. RDR LAW was engaged and after filing a response to the charges with the California authorities, RDR LAW was able to negotiate a nuisance value settlement of the claim resulting in the dismissal of the matter.
November 2018 After repeatedly borrowing tens of thousands of dollars for personal and professional business ventures, a man and his companies failed and refused to repay the sums due and owed (totaling over $200,000). RDR LAW was retained to prosecute claims against the defaulting borrower. While the merits of those claims were beyond dispute, the defendant individual and companies repeatedly failed to comply with Court orders and a default judgment for the full value of the claims was entered against them.
September 2018 When a commercial lender declared that its borrower was in default of a promissory note – only a month after the loan closed, it sent a demand seeking more than $1M in interest, late fees, and penalties from its borrower, including charging interest on sums that it had not even disbursed to the borrower. RDR LAW’s Ronald Roach drafted a motion for summary judgment arguing that the late fee was an improper and unlawful penalty and that the lender was trying to collect usurious interest – interest that exceeds the amount to which the lender was entitled – in violation of Arizona usury law. The Court agreed and entered summary judgment against the lender, prohibiting its effort to collect a windfall of more than $900,000 in improper interest.
