A Malibu real estate investment company won a round in court when a judge denied a motion by a tenant-screening company that litigation concerning the hiring of a property manager with an alleged criminal record be moved from Los Angeles to San Diego.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elaine Lu ruled during a hearing Wednesday that the plaintiff company, Christina, had not agreed to a choice-of-venue clause in the parties’ service agreement as claimed by defendant CreditLink Corp., which is located in San Diego. The judge also said that many of the events described in the case occurred in Los Angeles County, that Christina could have brought the suit in either county and that in most such cases the plaintiff is given the choice.
Christina manages rental properties in the West Los Angeles area in buildings attracting tenants in highly sought-after locations, including Brentwood, Century City, Malibu and West Hollywood. In 2017, an applicant to manage property for Christina was screened by CreditLink, which promotes itself as being committed to providing quality credit reports and background reports based on transparency and by providing peace of mind to clients, the suit states.
Christina hired the person based on CreditLink’s assertion that said the applicant had no criminal history, according to the suit.
“CreditLink was wrong,” the negligence suit filed Aug. 3 states, adding that the applicant was actually a long-time registered sex offender with a violent criminal history that included at least six felony convictions.
The man was convicted in Los Angeles County of felony rape and lewd acts involving a 14-year-old child and was sentenced to three years in prison, and was also convicted in Orange County on felony counts of forgery, identify theft, theft by false pretense and burglary and sentenced to 16 months in prison, the suit states.
“None of these criminal records were caught by CreditLink,” the suit states. “There is no excuse for missing them.”
The state and national sex offender registries are easily searchable and the applicant’s criminal record can be found on those sites, the suit states.
Christina found out about the person’s history after one of the plaintiff’s tenants complained of harassing conduct and found out about the hiree’s record through her own research, causing Christina to launch an investigation and initially suspend, then fire the property manager, according to the suit.
The fired man demanded $300,000 and vowed to and ruin Christina if management refused, according to the suit, which states that the terminated person has retaliated by inciting fear and trying to disrupt the plaintiff’s business.