Complaint Review: MATAN SIMCHA

SHALOM LAYTIN, ERIC LAYTIN, MATAN SIMCHA OZER LAYTIN, MATAN LAYTIN,

Warning, Run Away from these persons,

Please be aware and please stay away,

Read carefully the multiple case for fraud,

Case No. 77/16-22 / OAHNo.2016030421

https://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/accusations/ard274417_2015_11_09_acc.pdf

https://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/accusations/ard233690_2017_06_08_dec.pdf

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2rkdy634g/superior-court-of-california-county-of-los-angeles/sanda-nevada-llc-v-shalom-laytin/

PLEASE READ:

UNDERCOVER OPERATION
On or about February 26,2015, an undercover operator ofthe Bureau ("operator")
took the Bureau's 2001 GMC to Brake Masters #220. The front brake pads on the BureauS documented vehicle were in need of replacement and the #2 cylinder spark plug was defective,
causing an engine misfire and the check engine light to illuminate. The operator met with a male
employee, who identified himself as James Estep ("Estep"). The operator told Estep that she
wanted the brakes inspected and the rough running condition diagnosed. Estep had the operator
sign a written estimate for the inspection and gave her a copy. The operator requested that Estep
contact her by email and provided him with her email address. The operator Ieft the facility.
At approximately \309 hours that same day, Estep sent the operator an email, stating
that the vehicle needed front brakes and a tune up. Estep identified himself as the "Area
Manager, Sacramento". Estep also provided the operator with a written estimate in the amount of
$781.55. The estimate indicated that the vehicle needed front brake pads, front brake rotors,
spark plugs, ignition wires, a distributor cap, and an ignition rotor. A representative of the
Bureau, posing as the operator, sent a return email to Estep authorizing the repairs on the vehicle.
On or about February 27, 2015, the operator retumed to the facility to retrieve the
vehicle, paid a female employee $641.26 for the repairs, and received a copy of a final invoice.
The employee told the operator that the brake rotors were resurla, .. rl and not replaced as
previously estimated.

On or about March 3, 20 \5, the Bureau inspected the \'chicle and found that the front
brake pads had been replaced and the front brake rotors had been resurfaced. The Bureau also
found that the facility had performed approximately $231.74 in unnecessary repairs