s
SEITlEMENI
where the
LTT customers for loans. Since the
Assalis had LTT customer infixmation, they could solict LIT
customers who they
LTT's
had good
LIT knew the
were soliciting LTT customers,
ing to the defense, because some
customers complained
to LTI:
denied any wrong doing.
CASE
COURT
JUDGE
DATIE
PLAINTIff
AITORNEY(S)
Antoine
M.arlene Assali et a1v. LIT
Gourmet Foods, Ine, et aI, No. pcm 7200
Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
CA
John P.Farrell
Terry A. Nelson, Nelson and Lawless,
Huntington Beach, CA
INjIIJBIIE:S/'DJ!~M.A(;'ES The plaintiffs sought the return of the
funds lent to their employers, in addition to the money owed
under the terms of their employee contracts.
RESULT A settlement was reached between the parties, com-
of both complaint and cross complaint, and the
tiffs were awardleda combined $28,000 to avoid spending the
money on a trial.
-Michael
& ALLEGATIONS
In 1996, plaintiff Dionisio Topacio,
a businessman, allegedly made a loan to Manuel Osmena,
defendant,
in the amount of $100,000 for his import-export
business, in consideration of defendant's verbal promise to repay
plaintiff $120,000 after four months. Topacio met Osmena
approximately two weeks earlier in California, and the
tiff inquired to mutual associates and individuals in the area
about Osmena's rep~
mation, for whom
The plaintiff lent the money
to the
confident that he would pay the money back
as promised.
Plaintiff testified that Osmena provided him a check in the
skipped out all.
Chang,
Law Offices of
CA
Norberto E Reyes,
Reyes &
Associates, Anaheim, CA
Dionisio Topacio v. Manuel Osmena,
No. VC043969
Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Norwalk, CA
Thomas McKnew
8/28/2006
PLAINTIFf
AITORNEY(S)
DEFENSE
ATIDRNEY(S)
JUDCE
DATE
COURT
VERDICT
CASE
Ronald S. Parsons, Woodland Hills, CA
FACTS & ALLEGATIONS
In August 2003, plaintiffs Antoine and
Marlene Assali, both sales managers, began working for long-
time friends at the Chatsworth based LTT Gourmet Foods Ine
The Assalis signed a contract with LTT for undisclosed
salaries,whic