2
During his deposition in August, Pineda authenticated the rent ledger and testified
that every entry was true and correct. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Nick Reckas, then introduced
into evidence five checks totaling $6,800 that appeared to have been excluded from the
rent ledger. Pineda acknowledged that the five payments had been deposited to his bank
account.
Pineda was also questioned about his efforts to sell the leased premises. He
testified that he put the property up for sale in June or July and entered into a written
contract with a third party who wanted the building to be delivered vacant. The contract
was eventually cancelled, however, because the buyer “wanted a date when the eviction
was going to be over for vacating the house,” but Pineda “couldn’t give them that date.”
Defendants continued to prosecute the unlawful detainer for approximately two
more months until October 2, when they voluntarily dismissed the action without
prejudice. That same day, defendants served plaintiffs with a new three-day notice
demanding $9,2503 in unpaid rent and threatening legal action if plaintiffs did not timely
pay or quit possession (the October notice). The October notice attached a revised rent
ledger and copies of checks for the payments that had been made.
On October 5, Reckas wrote to Meyers and offered to “accept service of the
summons and complaint” on his clients’ behalf. Meyers responded the next day, saying
“No suit has yet been filed,” and asking if plaintiffs disputed the revised amount
demanded in the October notice. Meyers requested that Reckas send “any additional
payments they have made and we can adjust the balance and perhaps settle this amicably,
without the need to evict your clients.”
B. Plaintiffs’ Action
On October 25, plaintiffs filed the instant action against defendants. Reckas then
wrote to Meyers and asked if he would accept service of the complaint on Pineda’s behalf
even though Reckas assumed Meyers would not be representing Pineda because of “the
inherent conflict of interest” due to the attorney defendants’ inclusion in the action. In