Lee v. Litvak

1 MICHAEL MCCARTHY (SBN 89588)
VIKRAM SOHAL (SBN 240251)

2 NEMECEK & COLE
A Professional Corporation
3 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300
Encino, California 91436-2300
4 Tel: (818) 788-9500 / Fax: (818) 501-0328
5 Attorneys for Defendant

URI LITVAK
6
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16255 VENTURA BOULEVARD, SUITE 300, ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436-2300
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – WEST DISTRICT
10
TELEPHONE (818) 788-9500 FACSIMILE (818) 501-0328
11
JOAN CELIA LEE, as Trustee for the Lee Case No.: SC129127
NEMECEK & COLE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
12 Family Trust, [Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Mark H.

Epstein, Dept. I]
13 Plaintiff,
14 v.
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
15 JERARDO OLIVAREZ, an individual; 999
DOHENY LLC, a California limited liability
16 company; HAND OF RESPECT, LLC, a
California limited liability company; URI
17 LITVAK, an individual; and DOES 1-25,
inclusive,
18
Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 12, 2018
19 Trial Date: N/A
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3776929.1 1
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on September 12, 2023, the Court entered a Judgment in
3 this case, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto.
5 DATED: September 13, 2023 NEMECEK & COLE
7 By:
VIKRAM SOHAL, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for Respondent,
URI LITVAK
9
10
11
NEMECEK & COLE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3776929.1 2
1 MICHAEL MCCARTHY (SBN 89588)
VIKRAM SOHAL (SBN 240251)
2 NEMECEK & COLE
A Professional Corporation
3 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300
Encino, California 91436-2300
4 Tel: (818) 788-9500 / Fax: (818) 501-0328
Electronically Received 09/11/2023 10:01 AM
5 Attorneys for Defendant

URI LITVAK
6
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – WEST DISTRICT
10
11
JOAN CELIA LEE, as Trustee for the Lee Case No.: SC129127
NEMECEK & COLE
12 Family Trust, [Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Mark H.

Epstein, Dept. I]
13 Plaintiff,
14 v.
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
15 JERARDO OLIVAREZ, an individual; 999 CONFIRMING, AND ENTERED IN
DOHENY LLC, a California limited liability CONFORMITY WITH, THE FINAL
16 company; HAND OF RESPECT, LLC, a ARBITRATION AWARD
California limited liability company; URI
17 LITVAK, an individual; and DOES 1-25,
inclusive,
18
Defendants.
19
20 Complaint Filed: April 12, 2018
Trial Date: N/A
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3776929.1 1
JUDGMENT
1 IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Final Arbitration Award
2 (Exhibit 1, hereto), entered in favor of Defendant/Petitioner Uri Litvak (“LITVAK”) and against
3 Plaintiff/Respondent Joan Celia Lee (“LEE”), is CONFIRMED.
4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, in conformity with
5 such Final Arbitration Award:
6 1. Judgment is entered in favor of LITVAK and against LEE;
7 2. LEE’s claims against LITVAK asserted in her Second Amended Complaint that the
8 Court compelled her to arbitrate are dismissed with prejudice; and

9 3. LEE is not entitled to any recovery from LITVAK.
10
11
NEMECEK & COLE
12
September 12, 2023
Dated: _________________________ ___________________________________________
13 Honorable Mark H. Epstein
14 Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3776929.1 2
JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT 1
JAMS ARBITRATION CASE REFERENCE NO. 1220065903
Lee, Joan Celia
Claimant
and
Litvak, Uri
Respondent
FINAL AWARD
February 9, 2023
BACKGROUND
Stan Lee was a famous Hollywood executive, producer, comic book writer, editor,
actor, publisher, television personality, and the former president and chairman of
Marvel Comics. He acquired great wealth, prestige and the affection of his peers
and fans during his long tenure in Hollywood.
In the final years before his death on November 12, 2018, Mr. Jerardo Olivarez and
Mr. Uri Litvak entered his life. Olivares, who had insinuated his way into Mr.
Lee’s acquaintance via Mr. Olivarez’ personal relationship with Mr. Lee’s
daughter, Joan, became a purported manager of his business interests. At Mr.
Olivarez’ instance, Mr. Lee agreed to retaining Mr. Litvak as his attorney for his
business dealings with Olivarez.
As a result of his relationship with these two persons, according to Mr. Lee’s
complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on April 12, 2018, Mr. Lee suffered
financial losses due to the malfeasance of both Olivarez and Litvak.
Stan Lee having died in November, 2018, an action for professional negligence
against Mr. Litvak is now before this arbitrator, brought by Mr. Lee’s survivor, his
daughter, Joan Celia Lee, as trustee of the Lee trust.
EXHIBIT 1
IMPORTANT DATES
May 10, 2017: Mr. Lee retains Mr. Litvak as counsel for personal and business
purposes.
December 13, 2017: Mr. Lee informs Mr. Litvak by letter that he has retained new
counsel for all matters and to send his files to his new attorney, Mr. Thomas Lallas.
April 12, 2018: Complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by Stan Lee
alleging malfeasance by Mr. Olivarez and Mr. Litvak, naming Mr. Olivarez
(among others) as a defendant, but not naming Mr. Litvak as a defendant.
April 13, 2018: First Amended Complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court,
substantially the same as the first complaint.
April 17, 2019: One year and five days after the first complaint, a Second
Amended Complaint was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court naming Uri Litvak
for the first time as a defendant, alleging professional negligence.
THE PLEADINGS
Lee’s April 12, 2018 complaint alleges that Mr. Litvak’s cohort, Jerardo Olivares,
engaged in various fraudulent business undertakings in order to take advantage of
the aged Mr. Lee. These involved Olivarez convincing Lee to give him power of
attorney, invading Lee’s financial resources without Lee’s consent, purchasing real
property, stealing personal property, and similar nefarious actions, as well as
procuring Mr. Litvak to act as Lee’s counsel in his business dealings with Olivarez,
while concealing the conflict of interest derived from Mr. Litvak’s simultaneous
representation of Olivarez.
The use of Mr. Litvak as counsel to Lee was done, according to the 2018
complaint, to evade the disapproval of Mr. Lee’s long-time attorney, Mr. Kirk
Schenck, leaving Olivarez and Mr. Litvak to proceed “without ethical or legal
supervision of their activities with Lee.” (Complaint paragraph 16.)
The complaint alleges Mr. Olivarez and Mr. Litvak “…used their fiduciary powers
and positions of trust to cause Mr. Lee to unknowingly enter into [various]
disadvantageous agreements…” resulting in Mr. Lee’s eventually facing lawsuits
for potentially millions of dollars. Olivarez and Mr. Litvak gave themselves special
privileges in the businesses they had created to give them “free reign” in running
those businesses. (Compliant paragraph 20.)
EXHIBIT 1
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Respondent, Litvak, moves for summary judgment against Mr. Lee and related
entities, citing the one-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure
section 340.6 as a bar to this action. Respondent argues, in light of Mr. Lee’s
complaint filed April 12, 2018, alleging Mr. Litvak’s malfeasance, that Mr. Lee
was necessarily on notice of said malfeasance no later than April 12, 2018. Hence,
the complaint on April 17, 2019 is five days late.
Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 provides in relevant part:
(a) An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other
than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional
services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff
discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have
discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission, or four
years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, whichever occurs
first. … the time for commencement of legal action shall not exceed
four years except that the period shall be tolled during the time that
any of the following exist:
(1) The plaintiff has not sustained actual injury.
(2) The attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the
specific subject matter in which the alleged wrongful act or omission
occurred….
Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6 (a). [Italics added.]
CLAIMANT, LEE’S, OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION
Ms. Lee argues Mr. Litvak’s representation of her father continued beyond April
12, 2018 to within one year of the April 17, 2019 complaint, tolling the statute of
limitations.
RESPONDENT’S REPLY
Respondent disputes Mr. Litvak’s continued representation beyond December 13,

2017. According to his separate statement, Mr. Litvak agreed to represent Mr. Lee
(presumably personally as well as his various entities) on May 10, 2017, rendering
various legal services to them until his discharge on December 13, 2017. On that
day, Mr. Litvak received a letter from Mr. Lee informing him that Lee had engaged
EXHIBIT 1
attorney Tom Lallas to represent him for all purposes. Included in that letter was a
second letter from Mr. Lallas himself instructing Mr. Litvak to transfer all files to
him, which Mr. Litvak did, performing no legal services thereafter.
LEE’S SUR-REPLY
Ms. Lee argues issues of material fact remain unresolved concerning the subjective
question of Mr. Litvak representation of Mr. Lee. She asserts, for example, with no
authority, that Mr. Litvak’s filing of various forms with state authorities on behalf
of the Lee entities through November of 20121, an activity Mr. Litvak described as
“ministerial” in his deposition, is tantamount to continued representation.
DISCUSSION
The letter from Mr. Lee on December 13, 2017 leaves no doubt in the arbitrator’s
mind that Mr. Litvak’s professional services were terminated, both in the minds of
Mr. Litvak and Mr. Lee. No reasonable person could conclude otherwise and Ms.
Lee has raised no issue of fact or law suggesting the contrary.
RULING
Respondent. Uri Litvak’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Claimant is to take nothing by her demand in arbitration. The arbitrator will
maintain jurisdiction to entertain such post-judgment motions as may be
forthcoming.
February 9, 2023
__________________________
Hon. David H. Brickner (Ret.)
Arbitrator
EXHIBIT 1
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300,
5 Encino, CA 91436-2300.
6 On September 11, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as: [PROPOSED]
JUDGMENT CONFIRMING, AND ENTERED IN CONFORMITY WITH, THE FINAL
7 ARBITRATION AWARD, upon the interested parties in this action as follows:
Jonathan D. Freund
8 Craig A. Huber
FREUNDLEGAL
9 427 North Camden Drive

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
10
(310) 247-2165
11 (310) 247-2190 - fax

jonathan@freundlegal.com
NEMECEK & COLE
12 craig@freundlegal.com
13  BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE: I caused the document(s) listed above to

be filed and served via the Court’s Electronic Filing System through an approved third-
14 party vendor, and such document(s) were electronically served on the addressee(s) at the
email addresses noted above.
15
Executed on September 11, 2023, at Garden Grove, California.
16
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
17 true and correct.
18
19
20 Vikram Sohal
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3776929.1 3
JUDGMENT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300,
5 Encino, CA 91436-2300.
6 On September 13, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as: NOTICE OF
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, upon the interested parties in this action as follows:
7
8 Jonathan D. Freund
Craig A. Huber
9 FREUNDLEGAL
427 North Camden Drive
10 Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 247-2165
11
(310) 247-2190 - fax
NEMECEK & COLE
12 jonathan@freundlegal.com
craig@freundlegal.com
13
 BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE: I caused the document(s) listed above to
14 be filed and served via the Court’s Electronic Filing System through an approved third-
party vendor, and such document(s) were electronically served on the addressee(s) at the
15 email addresses noted above.
16 Executed on September 13, 2023, at Garden Grove, California.
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
18
19
20
Vikram Sohal
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3776929.1 3

Lee v. Litvak

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee v. Litvak

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 MICHAEL MCCARTHY (SBN 89588)

VIKRAM SOHAL (SBN 240251)

5 Attorneys for Defendant

12 Family Trust, [Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Mark H.

3 this case, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto.

5 DATED: September 13, 2023 NEMECEK & COLE

5 Attorneys for Defendant

12 Family Trust, [Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Mark H.

3 Plaintiff/Respondent Joan Celia Lee (“LEE”), is CONFIRMED.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, in conformity with

5 such Final Arbitration Award:

6 1. Judgment is entered in favor of LITVAK and against LEE;

8 Court compelled her to arbitrate are dismissed with prejudice; and

9 3. LEE is not entitled to any recovery from LITVAK.

Lee, Joan Celia

Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6 (a). [Italics added.]

CLAIMANT, LEE’S, OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION

Respondent disputes Mr. Litvak’s continued representation beyond December 13,

Respondent. Uri Litvak’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

9 427 North Camden Drive

11 (310) 247-2190 - fax

13  BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE: I caused the document(s) listed above to

16 Executed on September 13, 2023, at Garden Grove, California.

You might also like