February 17, 2006

Ronald Richards, Esq. and Anthony B. Gordon, Esq. represented a various parties in a complex real estate fraud action. The plaintiff, Shlomo Goldberg, an Israeli national, filed a four count complaint against his son-in-law, Yuval Stelmach, his daughter Taly Stelmach, their holding company Tul Investments, and other various entities. Ronald Richards, Esq. represented the plaintiff in intervention, Lea Goldberg. Anthony B. Gordon, Esq. represented all defendants.

The defense and the plaintiff in intervention worked together to defeat one groundless and reckless contention by the plaintiff’s "expert" accountant. The defense used Jason Engle, who did a fantastic job. The trial court issued an 80 page written decision finding in favor of the plaintiff in intervention. Lea Goldberg intervened in the case because her now former spouse of 40 years tried to contend that she was not entitled to 50% of the investments.

The trial court rejected plaintiff Shlomo Goldberg’s contention that he had an oral agreement with Yuval Stelmach to keep the investment separate property. Furthermore, the trial court rejected each and every fraud and fiduciary duty ground and found in favor of the defendants on each an every cause of action.

The relentless tag team cross examination during the six week bench trial exposed to the trial court to the speculative and groundless contentions. In the history of our combined legal careers, neither counsel has ever experienced an 80 page statement of decision. To say the least, the trial court exhibited the highest amount of judicial temperament and dedication. Also, working for the client instead of one’s ego was an essential component of the newly created legal relationship.

The prevailing party defense team would also like to acknowledge the hard work of plaintiff’s counsel, Leon Small, Esq. who wisely tried to convince his stubborn Israeli client to settlement. In hindsight, it was a $500,000 mistake by the plaintiff.

The defense will be filing a $100,000 cost bill and seek further damages against the remaining assets in the United States as well as future dividends if so appropriate.

Finally, the firm would like to thank the following individuals for their tireless work on this case and their appearances in court for support:
E. Christine Hehir, Esq.
Adam Gorfain, NBC News
William Hay, Melville Caste, Scotland
Razi Amrani

The Verdict and Settlement print out submitted to the Daily Journal is reprinted below for the specials.

From: DJOnline
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:40 PM
To: Verdicts
Subject: Verdict & Settlement

---- Case Information ----------------------------------------

Case Name: Shlomo Goldberg vs. Yuval Stelmach et. al.
Case No.: LC066042
Topic: Declaratory Relief
Court: Los Angeles Superior Court
Department: Q
Result Date: 02/16/2006
Result Amount: 50% of all holdings in Calif.
Case Type: BenchDecision
VerdictFor: Plaintiff in Intervention 
Trial Length: 6 weeks
Deliberation: hours

Name: Ronald N. Richards
Firm/Company: Ronald Richards & Associates
P.O. Box 11480
Beverly Hills, CA 90213-
Tel: (310) 556-1001
Fax: (310) 277-3325
Email: [email protected]
Representing: Plaintiff in Intervention
How Heard: DJPrint

---- plaintiff attorneys --------------------------------------

Ronald Richards, Esq.
Law Offices of Ronald Richards & Associates
P.O. Box 11480
Beverly Hills, CA 90213
310-556-1001 Office
310-277-3325 Fax
[email protected]

(For plaintiff in intervention)

---- defendant attorneys --------------------------------------

Leon Small, Esq.
Law Office of Leon Small, A.P.C.

The Atrium
16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 306
Encino, CA 91436

(For Plaintiff and intervening defendant where judgment was rendered
AGAINST Shlomo Goldberg)
Anthony B. Gordon, Esq.

A Professional Corporation
5550 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 200
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Fax: 818-887-5154
(For prevailing party defendants AGAINST plaintiff Shlomo Goldberg)

---- judge/arbitrator/mediator --------------------------------

Hon. Richard B. Wolfe
6230 Sylmar Ave.
Van Nuys, CA 91401

---- expert witness -------------------------------------------

Jason Engle for the plaintiff.
Scott Earvin for the defendant.

---- Facts ----------------------------------------------------

The plaintiff in intervention Le Goldberg brought an action against the
plaintiff Shlomo Goldberg who had filed four causes of action against
his own daughter and son in law. Shlomo Goldberg sued his own daughter
and son in law for fraud, accouuting, breach of fiduciary duty, and
concealment. Lea Goldberg sued Shlomo for declaratory relief, fraud,
and unjust enrichment. She also sued her daughter and son in law for
declaratory relief which was not contested by them.

---- Contentions ----------------------------------------------


Plaintiff in intervention Lea Goldberg contended she was entitled to 50%
of her husband's investments in California. She and her husband live in
Israel. Plaintiff Shlomo Goldberg contended that after a forty year
marriage, his investments made within the last few years were separate
property. Plaintiff Shlomo Goldberg said he had a secret deal with
defendant Yuval Stelmach. Plaintiff Shlomo Goldberg also contended that
his son in law committed fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and
concealment of the various real estate properties he invested in.


Defendants Yuval and Taly Stelmach and their various entities denied all
wrongdoing and agreed the Lea was entitled to 1/2 of the investments
made by Shlomo.

---- Settlement Discusions ------------------------------------

Defendants offered $500,000 to plaintiff Shlomo Goldberg to settle the

---- Result Comments -----------------------------------------------

Defense verdict on all counts. Plaintiff in intervention was granted a
50% interest in all investments.


The trial had 9,000 pages of exhibits and the trial court isseud a 80
page statement of decision. It was a six week trial.

---- Result Notes ---------------------------------------------

Case was a bench trial. The trial court found that the plaintiff in
intervention Lea Goldberg was entitled to 50% of the holdings of
plaintiff Shlomo Goldberg. Trial court also found that plaintiff Shlomo
Goldberg take nothing by way his complaint against the Stelmach
defendants and found in favor of the Stelmach defendants on every cause
of action against them.

-----------------------------7d73b9e60d12 Content-Disposition: form-data; name="section" Articles