Complaint Review: 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 July 17,2014, an undercover operator ofthe Bureau ("operator") took
the Bureau's 2003 Honda to Brake Masters #131. The front brake pads on the Bureau-
documented vehicle were in need of replacement and the #5 fuel injector was defective, causing
the engine to misfire. The operator told Respondent's employee, "Owen", that the check engine
light had come on while she was driving and the vehicle was making a squeaking sound when
stopping. The operator signed a written estimate authorizing an inspection of the vehicle, but did
not receive a copy. The operator left the facility.
At approximately 1730 hours that same day, Owen called the operator and told her
that the front brake pads needed replacement and the front brake rotors needed resurfacing.
Owen also stated that the vehicle had a misfire on all six cYlinders and required additional
diagnosis, and that it would cost $98 for the diagnosis and approximately $I 74 for the front brake
service. The operator authorized the work.

On or about July 18, 20 J4, the operator called the facility and spoke with Owen.
Owen told the operator that they had identified the cause of the misfire and illuminated check
engine light, that the vehicle needed six new spark plugs and ignition coils, and that it would cost
$934.65 for the brake repairs and the replacement of the spark plugs and ignition coils. The
operator authorized the additional work.
On or about July21, 2014, at approximately 0909 hours, the operator telephoned the
facility end spoke with Respondent's employee, "Brian". The operator requested an update on
the repairs. Brian told the operator that they replaced the spark plugs and ignition coils, but the
replacement parts "repaired" only "70% of the misfire", and that further diagnosis was needed.
At approximatelY 1510 hours that same day (July 21,2014), the operator called the
facility and asked Brian for another update. Brian stated that they were still inspecting the vehicle
and that he "assumed" the valves were improperly adjusted. Brian told the operator that the
facility would be perfonning a valve adjustment on the vehicle and that she would be required to
pay an additional $200. The operator authorized the work.

ACCUSATIONI 45. On or aboutJuly 22,2014, the operator called the facility and was advised by Owen
that the valve adjustment on the vehicle was incorrect and the valves were too tight.
On or about July 24, 2014, the operator caIled the facility to check On the status ofthe
vehicle. Owen told the operator that they had taken the vehicle to the dealer for inspection and
that it required additional repair.
On or about July 30,2014, the operator telephoned the facility and was informed by
Owen that the #5 fuel injector was leaking. Owen stated that they replaced the fuel injector, that
they had also repaired a leaking EGR (exhaw;t gas recirculation) valve, and that the total repair
costs were now $1,243.74.
At approximately 1139 hours that Same day (July 30, 2014), the operator went to the
facility to pick up the vehicle, paid the facility $1,181.07 in cash for the repairs, and received a
copy of the final invoice.

On or about July 30, 2014, the Bureau inspected the vehicle and found that the
facility had performed approximately $731.42 in unnecessary repairs.
On or about August 14,2014, a Bureau Representative went to Maita Honda
("Maita") located in Citrus Heights and spoke with the service advisor, J. W. J. W. told the
representative that on July 23,2014, Brake Masters #131 drove the vehicle to Maita and
requested a diagnosis of the illuminated check engine light. Maita inspected the vehicle and
found that the c:- fuel injector needed repl8cement. Brake Masters f! 31 told Maita that they
would replace the part themselves. On July 24,2014, Brake Masters #131 returned the vehicle to
Maita and reponed that they had replaced the fuel injector, but the vehicle was still in need of
repair. Maita inspected the vehicle again and found that Brake Masters #131 had failed to install
the replacement fuel injector in the correct cylinder.