A legal battle over a $600,000 loan has culminated in a significant court ruling, affirming the plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and fraud against the defendant. This high-stakes case was filed by Aaron Unger in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on December 16, 2016, against Laura Gottlieb.
The case revolves around a series of loans totaling $600,000 that Unger provided to Gottlieb between November 2013 and January 2014. According to Unger's complaint, these funds were meant for home renovations and securing a neighboring property. However, after making some initial interest payments, Gottlieb ceased further payments, prompting Unger to sue for breach of contract, common counts, and fraud. The jury sided with Unger, awarding him actual damages and an additional one million dollars in punitive damages.
Gottlieb appealed the decision on several grounds. She argued that their agreement was oral and thus subject to a two-year statute of limitations rather than four years. Additionally, she claimed that Unger failed to prove reliance on her statements for his fraud claim and contested the denial of her request to bifurcate the punitive damages portion of the trial. Lastly, she contended there was insufficient evidence to support the punitive damages award.
Unger’s allegations paint a picture of deceit and broken promises. He claimed that Gottlieb never intended to use the loaned money for its stated purposes but instead diverted it into speculative investments with her boyfriend at the time, Martin Grant. Unger discovered this alleged deception in September 2016 when he realized Gottlieb had no intention of repaying him.
During the trial held from November 30 to December 3, 2021, both parties presented their cases vigorously. Unger testified about his long-standing relationship with Gottlieb's family and detailed how he transferred funds from a joint account he shared with his mother into Gottlieb's account based on her assurances. He did not ask for promissory notes due to their decades-long family ties but did mark one cashier’s check with "loan" as an indication of their agreement.
Gottlieb’s defense hinged on her claim that she did not need Unger's money because she had substantial assets herself. She argued that any money received was either a gift from Unger's mother or part of an arrangement meant to help Unger learn investment skills using his mother's funds. Her narrative shifted multiple times during testimony regarding how she used or intended to use the money.
Martin Grant’s testimony further complicated matters as he described how Gottlieb invested millions in rare coins through him but failed to pay for them fully upfront. He corroborated parts of both sides' stories but ultimately supported Unger's claims about where some of his loaned money ended up.
Despite these defenses, substantial evidence led the jury to find in favor of Unger across all claims: breach of written contract (supported by written notations), common counts (for money lent), and fraud (based on false promises). The court found no error in denying Gottlieb's late request for bifurcation nor any issue with awarding punitive damages given her financial condition and conduct during litigation.
Ultimately, Judge Mark V. Mooney affirmed the judgment: $600,000 in compensatory damages plus one million dollars in punitive damages along with pre-judgment interest totaling over $658,000 across different causes of action—bringing total liabilities close to $2 million against Gottlieb who timely appealed this comprehensive defeat.
Representing parties were Stuart J Wald & James P Wohl for Defendant/Appellant Laura Gottlieb while Steven P Krakowsky stood counsel Plaintiff/Respondent Aaron Unger under Case ID B320440 at California Second Appellate District Division Four court jurisdiction.