Plaintiff claims losses when defendant trespasses; 8-day trial. $6,780. Los Angeles County.


Defendant trespasses when she sets up outdoor lounge area at the intersection of two properties.

The Case

  • Case Name: Lilli Shoen v. Juliet Zacarias
  • Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / BC486560
  • Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, December 06, 2022
  • Date Action was Filed: Friday, June 15, 2012
  • Type of Case: Real Estate
  • Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Wendy Chang
  • Plaintiffs:
    Lilli Shoen
  • Defendants:
    Juliet Zacarias
  • Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

  • Gross Verdict or Award: $6,780
  • Economic Damages:


  • Trial or Arbitration Time: 8 days
  • Jury Deliberation Time: 2 1/2 hours
  • Jury Polls: 10-2 as to reasonable rental value or benefits obtained by defendant; 12-0 as to cost of repair or restoration; 12-0 as to cost of recovering possession; 12-0 as to annoyance/discomfort; 12-0 as to emotional distress.

The Attorneys

  • Attorney for the Plaintiff:

    Glaser Weil et al LLP by Craig Marcus, Los Angeles.

  • Attorney for the Defendant:

    Bice Murphy Law by Brandon C. Murphy, Pacific Palisades.

The Experts

  • Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):

    Ray Lombera, surveying.

    Jason Fischman, appraising.

  • Defendant's Technical Expert(s):


Facts and Background

  • Facts and Background:

    Plaintiff alleged that she suffered damages as a result of defendant trespassing on a 491-square-foot patch on the top of a hillside, at the property line of the two parcels. Defendant started occupying the land with a cabana and some patio furniture in 2003, and had been maintaining the plants and trees around it ever since.

  • Plaintiff's Contentions:

    Plaintiff alleged that she suffered damages as a result of defendant trespassing on a 491-square-foot patch of land adjoining the two parties' properties. Plaintiff sought approximately $500,000 in compensatory damages, including damages for loss of use of the property, cost of restoring the property, and cost of recovering possession of the property, and damages for annoyance and discomfort and for emotional distress.

  • Defendant's Contentions:

    Defendant contended that plaintiff's claimed damages were not supported by the evidence.

Additional Notes

Defendant had prevailed at two prior court trials but was overturned twice on appeal.

Plaintiff was also granted a permanent injunction.