Complaint Review: CRONE HAWXHURST LLP - LOS ANGELES California

 BECAUSE I POSTED FACTS AND MY OPINION ON THE RIPOFF REPORT ABOUT THERS BAD LAWYER NOW ARE THREATENING TO FILE A LAW SUIT. GERALD "JERRY" HAWXHURST HAS SENT EMAILS TO ME AND MY LAWYERS THAT IF REPORTS AGAINST THEM ARE NOT TAKEN DOWN THEY WILL SUE ME AND LET THE JURY DELIVER ME A MESSAGE.

To begin with, a California District Attorney has called the author of this "report" (Atul Mehta) and the author's brother (Rajendra Mehta) "a menace to the consuming public" who "have demonstrated an absolute disregard for" their customers.  Specifically, the District Attorneys for the Counties of Kern and Fresno, on behalf of the public, sued the Mehtas after they abruptly closed a chain of jewelry stores and were accused of absconding with various customers jewelry that had been entrusted to them for repair.  Judgment was entered against the Mehtas in that case, approximately ten years before the Firm represented them when they were defending a federal court action alleging extensive false advertising in their new business, El Paseo Jewelry.
 
The Firm took over the defense of the case from another law firm.  Prior to the Firm's involvement, the defendants had been sanctioned by two federal court judges, in the total amount of more than $40,000, for significant procedural and discovery misconduct.  Their prior counsel also had blown several important deadlines, which significantly impacted the posture of the case.

The Firm was hired in November 2011 to turn the case around, which is precisely what the Mehtas acknowledged the Firm did.  For example, the federal court tentatively granted the Firm's summary judgment motion, but ultimately allowed the case to be tried.  (The Mehtas later refused to pay the Firm to prosecute an appeal from the courts rulings.)

The Mehtas cannot seriously think themselves blameless for their adverse verdict, in which a jury found that they had repeatedly and intentionally defrauded their customers concerning the price they had promised to pay for scrap gold jewelry (despite the parade of favorable expert and
third-party customer witnesses that the Firm interviewed, readied for trial and presented in their defense).  Among other things, the plaintiff's expert had opined that Atul Mehta's accounting records demonstrated he and his brother ran an "illegitimate" enterprise. 

Following Mr. Mehta's own testimony concerning his slipshod accounting records (among other improprieties), the trial became an exercise in minimizing damages.  Due to the Firms efforts, the verdict was a fraction of what plaintiff sought; the Firm avoided an attorneys' fees award (despite the jury's finding of intentional misconduct by the Mehtas); the Firm avoided entry of a permanent injunction; and the Firm avoided a statutory trebling of damages.  For this, the Firm was rewarded with non-payment of its invoices, which included significant out-of-pocket costs the Firm had incurred at the Mehtas insistence.  (The Mehtas also have refused to pay third-parties for services provided to them at trial, including the invoice submitted by their business associate who had agreed to testify as an expert witness.)  As for the claim of supposed inflated billing, the Mehtas never complained about a single charge until long after they lost their trial, and have never substantiated their false accusations.  The Firm only withdrew as counsel (long after trial had concluded) after being forced to do by the Mehtas repeated failure to provide payment or security towards the Firms invoices.

No court has agreed with Mr. Mehta's version of events, his tactics or his allegations of supposed misconduct by the Firm.  The proof of his improper attempts to hide assets from creditors was so significant that, on November 14, 2012, a California state court awarded the Firm a writ of attachment against his brother (for the full amount of the fees owing to the Firm).  He later admitted under oath (in response to questioning by a court-appointed third-party) to recording an entirely fictional deed of trust with the Los Angeles County Clerk-Recorder.  And a court has twice issued orders sua sponte finding his papers to be frivolous.  Meanwhile, the state court has ordered a contempt hearing regarding his brother's own willful disregard of court orders.  If all this werent bad enough, Atul Mehta authored the following, thinly-veiled anti-Semitic email to the Firm on January 18, 2013, after the Firm merely requested that he stop harassing one of its
paralegals:


From: ATUL MEHTA <[email protected]>
Date: January 18, 2013, 6:57:09 PM PST
To: 'Josh Gelbart' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: CH v. EP

Look who is talking about harrassing. The ... is telling me to stop harrassing. [] I guess the ...'s now talking about harassing which they are expert in.

________________________________________

From: Josh Gelbart [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 1:07 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Daryl Crone; Michael Cantor; Jerry Hawxhurst
Subject: CH v. EP

Atul:

Please stop harassing Anna, she is our paralegal and not a lawyer.  Anything that she sends you is on behalf of a lawyer at this office.  Please take notice that Anna will block all future incoming messages from you.  Accordingly, you act at your own peril if you decide to continue to communicate with her.

***

In short, the author of this "report" simply cannot be believed..