Breach of lending agreement, guarantor won't pay; $871,000. Los Angeles County.
Lender on accounts receivable (factor) goes after guarantor when business defaults on loan.
- Case Name: A-1 Business Products, Inc. v. Paul A. Wiebel
- Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / SC117797
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, November 10, 2015
- Date Action was Filed: Wednesday, July 18, 2012
- Type of Case: Breach of Contract
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Phase 1 - Hon. Richard Stone; Phase 2 - Hon. Lawrence Cho
Plaintiffs: A-1 Business Products, Inc.
Defendants: Paul A. Wiebel
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
- Gross Verdict or Award: $871,803
- Net Verdict or Award: $871,803
Award as to each Defendant:
$871,803 against Paul A. Wiebel
- Contributory/Comparative Negligence: None.
- Trial or Arbitration Time: Phase one of the case re: statute of limitations was tried without a jury over a three-day period. Phase two of the case was tried to a jury over nine days.
- Jury Deliberation Time: 5 hours over two days
- Jury Polls: 12-0
- Post Trial Motions & Post-Verdict Settlements: JNOV by Defendant - Denied; Prevailing Party by Defendant - Denied; Prevailing Party by Plaintiff - Granted; Motion for New Trial by Defendant - Pending; Motion for Attorney Fees by Plaintiff - Pending.
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Gershuni Law Firm by Gregory Gershuni, Los Angeles.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Vivoli Saccuzzo LLP by MIchael Vivoli, San Diego.
The Marchese Law Firm, LLC by Daniel Marchese, Newton, New Jersey.
Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Jay Mangel, CPA, Sherman Oaks.
Bryan La Rock, computer forensics, El Segundo.
Donald Nunnari, factoring, Los Angeles.
Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
Francis Christian DeVito, CPA/fraud examination, New Jersey.
Facts and Background
Facts and Background:
Plaintiff/lender (a factor for accounts receivable) advanced money to debtor pursuant to factoring agreement over a seven-year period; defendant guaranteed debtor's obligations; debtor defaulted; guarantor failed and refused to honor guaranty.
Plaintiff contended that $3.8 million was owed on underlying outstanding debt inclusive of interest through date of jury deliberations; that defendant's liability was uncontestable.
Defendant/guarantor contended that nothing was owed because of alleged careless lending practices, modification of the debtor's obligations without prior consent & notice to defendant/guarantor, and expiration of statute of limitations; defendant further contended that if any money was due and owing it could not exceed $200,000.