NOTICE CONCERNING STATUS OF LITIGATION
U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles)
Estakhrian et al v. Mark Obenstine, Case No. CV-11-3480 FMO-CW
If you are an individual who deposited funds to purchase a unit in the Cosmopolitan Resort and Casino Las Vegas, and you participated in and received a partial refund of your deposit through the settlement of the prior class action, Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al., Nevada Dist. Ct. Case No. A582541, this status update is directed to you.
MEMO TO CLASS
January 15, 2020
Dear Class Members,
Mr. Obenstine has communicated with numerous class members stating that he intends to sue them for violating agreements in the Cosmopolitan case and is seeking money from class members to settle his new claims. We have spoken to quite a few class members but at present do not know if everyone has been contacted or just a select number.
We view Mr. Obenstine’s contacts as entirely improper and in violation of the Court’s prior orders, clearly wrong on the merits as well as untimely. As you know, the Court entered a $12M Judgment against Mr. Obenstine in March 2019, which he has appealed.
On Tuesday January 7, 2020 we filed with Judge Olguin a motion and supporting materials asking for a court order requiring Mr. Obenstine to show why he should not be held in contempt of court for his actions against class members. The Court has scheduled a hearing on our motion for February 6, 2020. Copies of the motion papers and order can be reviewed at on the Cosmopolitan website www.Cosmo2017classaction.com , and on Pacer, the Court’s website.
We are sorry if Mr. Obenstine’s communications have caused you anxiety or concern. We believe these contacts, and Mr. Obenstine’s efforts to get class members to pay him money, are outrageous and improper. Our advice to class members is not to respond to any contacts from Mr. Obenstine but to keep a record of any communications from Mr. Obenstine for possible use in the future.
We will let you know when we receive Judge Olguin’s ruling on the pending motion.
Best wishes for the New Year. Class Counsel
Irvine Law Group, LLC, S. Ron Alikani 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92618 1-949-653-6153 ralikani@irvinelawgroup.com | Mehri & Skalet, PLLC Steven A. Skalet 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 1-202-822-5100 sskalet@findjustice.com |
Fay Law Group, PLLC Raymond C. Fay 1250 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 1-202-263-4604 rfay@faylawdc.com | Chavez & Gertler, LLP Mark A. Chavez 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 1-415-381-5599 mark@chavezgertler.com |
CASE UPDATE
On March 26, 2019 the Court issued a great
decision following the bench trial that took place in December, 2017. The
court made very detailed factual and legal findings and ordered full
disgorgement of the $12M fee Mr. Obenstine received from the prior litigation. You
can read the Findings of Fact and Conclusions and the Judgement in the Court
Document section.
Following the Judgment there have been
other favorable rulings. The Court
approved costs and expenses of $30,704.74 and fees for Class Counsel of $3.6M,
representing 30% of the $12M Judgment. The Court also approved a settlement between
Class and defense counsel relating to sanctions requests pending against
defense counsel arising from claimed discovery and litigation abuses.
Most importantly, Plaintiffs requested, and
the Court entered, a Revised Judgment that has the effect of maintaining the
injunction against Mr. Obenstine preventing him from transferring or
encumbering his Oregon property in order for it to be available as an asset for
collection.
As a result, the case has been concluded at
the District Court level. Mr. Obenstine
has noted an appeal to the Court of Appeals and Plaintiffs have noted an appeal
challenging the dismissal of the Nevada lawyers early in the case on
jurisdictional grounds.
The Court of Appeals has initiated a
mediation process and the parties are currently participating in
mediation. If not resolved by mediation,
opening briefs will be due in early October.
Collection efforts on the Judgment can begin approximately 30 days after
the Revised Judgment unless Mr. Obenstine posts a bond, which is highly
unlikely. Until those issues have been
resolved and Obenstine’s remaining assets located and made available there will
not be any funds to disburse. Collection may prove difficult as Mr.
Obenstine claims to have limited assets at this time.
There is no need to submit any forms or contact
counsel at this time. We will update this website from time to time as more
information becomes available.
Please visit www.Cosmo2017classaction.com for additional information and updates.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This is a class action lawsuit brought by two individuals, James Estakhrian and Alex Naziri, arising out of their efforts to purchase condominium units in the Cosmopolitan Resort and Casino Las Vegas. The case is called a “class action” because Mr. Estakhrian and Mr. Naziri are suing not only on behalf of themselves, but also on behalf of all the other people who, like them, paid tens of thousands of dollars as a deposit on the condominiums. (The term “plaintiffs” in this Notice refers to everyone in the class.)
Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the decision of the owners and developers of the Cosmopolitan not to build the condominiums, but instead to build only a hotel. Other plaintiffs sued the owners/developers in Nevada to recover the money they had paid. That lawsuit was called Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al. The Watt case was settled in 2010. As a result of that settlement, purchasers like you who did not opt out of the Watt settlement class were paid back some but not all of the money they had deposited.
Several attorneys and law firms participated on the side of the plaintiffs in the Watt case. They are: King & Spalding LLP, a law firm; Benjamin F. Easterlin IV, an attorney who worked for King & Spalding; Mark Obenstine; another law firm called Marquis & Aurbach P.C.; and Terry Coffing, an attorney who worked at that firm. The plaintiffs claim, or allege, that the settlement in the Watt case was inadequate, and was structured so that the defendants could quickly obtain
$20 million in attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, committed malpractice, and engaged in unlawful business practices in connection with their representation of the plaintiffs in Watt, and that Obenstine was not legally entitled to the attorneys’ fees he obtained. In addition, Plaintiffs contend that Obenstine breached his retainer agreement with some class members whose deposits for Obenstine’s services were not repaid in full.
Plaintiffs sued all the attorneys who were involved in the Watt settlement. Plaintiffs subsequently settled their claims against King & Spalding and Mr. Easterlin. That settlement was approved by the Court, and all settlement funds have been paid out. Marquis & Aurbach and Mr. Coffing, who are not located in California, were dismissed for jurisdictional reasons. Mr. Obenstine is the sole remaining defendant.
On February 4, 2017, the Court certified this case as a class action. A class action lawsuit is a legal action in which one or more people represent a large group, or “class,” of people. The purpose of a class action is to resolve at one time all of the similar legal claims of the members of the group. This means that any judgment or settlement in the case will affect the rights of all of the consumers who could assert similar claims against the defendant, in this case Mark Obenstine (the “class members”). The Court has defined the class as:
All individuals who were class members in, i.e., did not opt out of, Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al., Nevada District Court, Case No. A582541, excluding Sanjay Varma.
The Court also certified the following “subclass” with respect to plaintiff Estakhrian’s claim that Obenstine breached his contract (retainer agreement) with those class members who were also Obenstine’s individual clients:
All class members who entered into a retainer agreement with Defendant Mark Obenstine regarding the subject matter of Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al., Nevada District Court, Case No. A582541.
The Court has not yet decided the claims against Obenstine. There is no money available currently for an additional distribution and there is no guarantee that there will be additional funds to disburse even if the class succeeds on the remaining claims, since Obenstine’s ability to pay on any judgment is questionable.
Additional information about the lawsuit is available at www.Cosmo2017classaction.com, and by clicking on the other links on this page.
FURTHER INFORMATION
This website and the Notice contain a summary of the
case. For more details regarding the litigation, please reference the
documents filed in the case under the “Court Documents” link on the left.
You may also contact the Case Administrator or Class Counsel for further
information:
Case Administrator: Cosmopolitan 2017 Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Inc. P.O. Box 173001 Milwaukee, WI 53217 1-866-905-8101 info@cosmo2017classaction.com |
Class Counsel:
Irvine Law Group, LLC,
S. Ron Alikani
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, California 92618
1-949-653-6153
ralikani@irvinelawgroup.com
|
Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
Steven A. Skalet
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
1-202-822-5100
sskalet@findjustice.com
|
Fay Law Group, PLLC
Raymond C. Fay
1250 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
1-202-263-4604
rfay@faylawdc.com
|
Chavez & Gertler, LLP
Mark A. Chavez
42 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
1-415-381-5599
mark@chavezgertler.com
|