California Lawyer: Civil, Business, Contracts, Real Estate, Asset Protections, Consumer Rights, Entertainment,
Rydstrom__OC_Metro_AVVO_Award_2012_smll
Rydstrom_2012_AVVO_OCMetro_Top_Attorney_Award
Avvo Badages

 

Feature Article
Rydstrom’s Work re Great Recession

Rydstrom Chairman of CMIS

NBI/CMIS Rydstrom Live Webcast 2Vol DVD Set CLE NAtional Event with Book\

News Release Secret Seconds Piggyback Mortgages

Rich Ivar Rydstrom Congressional Statement US Govt GPO 110th House Ways Means Committee

Rydstrom Esq Landmark Ca Case HAMP & Unfair Trade Practices West v. JP Morgan Chase

 

$1.6m

2023 Lawsuit Judgment Recap GROSS VERDICT OR AWARD
$1,571,828.46 Obtained by Attorney Rich Rydstrom Newport Beach Ca
ECONOMIC DAMAGES $1,571,828.46: Restitution, rental fees, lost past earnings, costs, and Treble Damages for Public Policy Violations (B&P 17,200, 17082; CC 1780(e), 1717, CCP 1021.5, Hadley v. Baxendale (includes all consequences).
Claimed: $500,000 ($250,000 Pain Suffering; $250,000 Punitive Damages)
Claimed: $250,000 Punitives
Richard Rydstrom, Esq.
Defense: Pro Per (Court Order Withdrawal by Defense Attorneys)
Named Defendants solicited Plaintiffs in Santa Clara as a qualified builder of food trucks for California commerce.  Plaintiffs, Kenitha Yim and Charlie Nguyen paid $84,340.12 to Food Truck Plus Inc for such performance. Both Defendants solicited sales in San Jose without being Qualified to conduct business in California, and without the HCD third-party contract authorization to build and deliver Food Trucks in California. Defendants were issued a Cease & Desist letter from HCD but failed to comply with same.  Named Defendants delivered a defective and code non-compliant food truck not capable of entering into the stream of business in California. Despite promises, Named Defendants failed to cure defects or non-compliance or return monies paid. 

Named Defendants and each of them made false promises to Plaintiffs and each of them, and advertised (to Plaintiffs and the Public at Large) in California and San Jose: that its food trucks and services were lawful in California and California code compliant, and also made false advertisement representations online and on Facebook (Exhibit 4) and to Plaintiffs. Defendants solicited sales in San Jose without being Qualified to conduct business in California, and without the HCD third-party contract authorization to build and deliver Food Trucks in California.

The Plaintiffs' theory was: one cannot lull Plaintiff into a false sense of security (with promises of California Qualifications, concealment, fraudulent inducement, and false promises without the intent to perform, etc.), and then fail to perform, and use its bad conduct as a shield, while also using it as a sword, to lessen or destroy the Plaintiff's rights; as such violates Supreme Court of California law under Carruth v. Fritch et al., L. A. No. 20946. Such conduct is prohibited in California for the protection of the public at large. Damages include Restitution, Treble Damages, Costs, and Attorney Fees. (B&P 17,200, 17082; CC 1780(e), CCP 1021.5, Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70 (includes all consequences).

Named Defendants engaged in the fraudulent inducement, false advertising, false promises, and common plan and scheme to defraud named Plaintiffs and the California public at large.

On September 8, 2017, the Department Of Housing And Community Development Division Of Codes And Standards Manufactured Housing Program (“HCD”) issued a CEASE & DESIST letter (EXHIBIT 2 – HCD CEASE & DESIST – Social Public Policy Violations), to named Joseph Dawoud and FOOD TRUCKS PLUS INC., quoting in part: 

a. “It has come to our attention that Food Trucks Plus Inc., of Las Vegas, Nevada, is manufacturing units for sale and offering for sale in California without a contract with an HCD approved third-party agency for design approval, quality assurance, and application of Department insignia of approval.”
b. “Be advised, the manufacturing of units sold, offered for sale, rented, or leased in California without third-party design approval; quality assurance, and application of Department insignia is a willful violation of State law and may result in citation and civil penalties. You are to cease and desist any further sales of SPCMs in California without a legitimate insignia of approval.”

Named Defendants have failed to register and enter a contract with an HCD approved third-party agency as required under California law and the September 8, 2017 HCD CEASE & DESIST letter.  However, named Defendants again (mis) represented to Plaintiffs again on October 20, 2017 that: “…your truck was built to the codes provided by HCD.” (email 10/20/17 6:28PM) However, HCD cited various violations as enunciated in EXHIBIT 1 – CA HCD Violations. The HCD enunciated California Health and Safety Codes (HSC) sections in which are violated by named Defendants' conduct include but are not limited to: 18006.3. “Manufacturer”; 18025; (etc., as alleged in the complaint).

Additionally, Defendants have been issued a CEASE & DESIST letter from the California HCD for “a willful violation of State law” which is an intentional unlawful business in California. (See above sections: Willful Conduct/Unauthorized to do Business in California; Continuing Public Violations to Date; Assessed CA HCD Inspection Violations of Plaintiffs’ Food Truck; etc.

Violation of California law and public policy allows jurisdiction and venue in California. The agreement also invokes Nevada law. Named Defendants concealed from Plaintiffs that FOOD TRUCK PLUS INC., and the other named defendants were NOT QUALIFIED to do business in California for the various reasons alleged herein. (Exhibit 2, 1) The written Agreement was entered into under false pretenses and or by use of fraudulent inducement as alleged, and the subject matter is unlawful or illegal as Defendants are not legal to enter into the subject agreement or promise to buildout, manufacture, outfit or deliver the Food Truck to California. Defendants use the written agreement and its false promises as a tool of fraud to shield, hide, delay, deflect, frustrate, lessen or impair rights, and or as an attempt destroy the rights of Plaintiffs including choice of law.

Alter-Ego, Piercing Veil & Lack of Capacity Allegations: Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Joseph Dawoud used Food Trucks Plus Inc as a tool of fraud to shield himself from “a willful violation of State law and may result in citation and civil penalties” of California HCD and requirements and California laws (EXHIBIT 1 – CA HCD Violations), etc.
Rescission, Partial/Total: Plaintiffs allege Rescission of Written Contract by Fraud/Other (Ca R&T 23304.1(b), 23304.5; Offered Tender and Demanded Return of $84,340.12 Paid [Ca Civil 1688 et seq., 1689(b)(6) Public Interest; 1689(b)(7); Cal Corp. C. 17708.07(a).]

Defense attorneys withdrew, and Defendants failed to Answer the Third Amended Complaint. Judgment: default court proveup.

Claimed: $250,000 pain and suffering

Summary of Damages per Court:
Damages: $1,398,940.12
Plus Prejudgment Interest $32,255.34
Plus Attorney Fees $125,000
Plus Costs $1550
Other: The Court also awards Restitution, Rental Fees, Lost Past Earnings, Treble Damages, and Costs.
Total Judgment for Plaintiffs:
$1,571,828,46

SPECIAL DAMAGES CLAIMED - PAST LOST EARNINGS
$1,295,000
ADDITIONAL NOTES
This case was about Willful Conduct, Code Violations, and Disobedience of California Public and Social Policy, while fraudulently inducing contract, compounded by its/his own Lack of Capacity to contract and produce and deliver Food Trucks in California, all while Not Qualified to do Business in California with HCD, FTB and the SOS.

The Plaintiffs' theory was: one cannot lull Plaintiff into a false sense of security (with promises of California Qualifications, concealment, fraudulent inducement, and false promises without the intent to perform, etc.), and then fail to perform, and use its bad conduct as a shield, while also using it as a sword, to lessen or destroy the Plaintiff's rights; as such violates Supreme Court of California law under Carruth v. Fritch et al., L. A. No. 20946. Such conduct is prohibited in California for the protection of the public at large. Damages include Restitution, Treble Damages, Costs, and Attorney Fees. (B&P 17,200, 17082; CC 1780(e), CCP 1021.5, Hadley v. Baxendale (includes all consequences).

Call 1-877-WIN-4-YOU