Milan Properties Suck

Concerning the information used on this blog - it's all public. No illegal methods were used to research the owners of the building or anyone affiliated with them. In fact most of the information can be found online or by calling the local county assessors office. This is due to the fact that it's all public information; and no matter how much people may hate you being educated about your rights...it's your choice to seek info out and use it constructively.

To find out the information on an LLC you can go here

To find the owner (or at least who is on the deed) go here

Short story - it's all either online or a phone call away......

We've written our first letter to the owner of the building click here to read it. We did this to formally state our opinion. Click here to read it.

Be sure to read the last paragraph - "Basic Defense for libel: The truth"

USATODAY.com - Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites

California Code of Civil Procedure

Sec. 425.16. Claim Arising from Person's Exercise of Constitutional Right of Petition or Free Speech -- Special Motion to Strike.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.

(b) (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.

(2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

(3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent action, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination in any later stage of the case or in any subsequent proceeding.

(c) In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5.

(d) This section shall not apply to any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor.

(e) As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

(f) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be scheduled by the clerk of the court for a hearing not more than 30 days after the service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.

(g) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision.

(h) For purposes of this section, "complaint" includes "cross-complaint" and "petition," "plaintiff" includes "cross-complainant" and "petitioner," and "defendant" includes "cross-defendant" and "respondent."

(i) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall be appealable under Section 904.1.

(j) (1) Any party who files a special motion to strike pursuant to this section, and any party who files an opposition to a special motion to strike, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the Judicial Council, by e-mail or facsimile, a copy of the endorsed, filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition for a writ, and a conformed copy of any order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees. (2) The Judicial Council shall maintain a public record of information transmitted pursuant to this subdivision for at least three years, and may store the information on microfilm or other appropriate electronic media.

---

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: Added by Stats.1992, c. 726 (SB 1264), sec. 2. Amended by: Stats.1993, c. 1239 (SB 9), sec. 1, adding subd. (i) and substituting "shall" for "may" preceding "award costs" in subd. (c); Stats.1997, c. 271 (SB 1296), sec. 1, adding last sentence in subd. (a), adding subd. (e)(4), numbering subds. (e)(1)-(3), moving second sentence of subd. (g) to be second sentence of subd. (f), adding new subd. (h), and relettering former subd. (h) as subd. (i); and Stats.1999, c. 960 (AB 1675), sec. 1, adding subds. (j) and (k). Amended by Stats. 2005, c. 535 (AB 1158), amending subds. (b)(3), (f), deleting old subd. (i), relettering accordingly, and amending subd. (j)(1).

Uncodified legislative intent for amendment to subd. (f): "It is the intent of the Legislature, in amending subdivision (f) of Section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to overrule the decisions in Decker v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1382, 1387-1390, and Fair Political Practices Commission v. American Civil Rights Coalition, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1174-1178." (Stats. 2005, c . 535, sec. 3.)

What's new you may ask - if you've been checking out this blog - and we know several people have....you are probably asking what's new?

Well one of the most striking things was that the alleged owner of the building came over and while talking with at least 6 of the tenants who belong to our newly formed tenants assoc. - actually mentioned something about matches and gasoline - and "why not just burn it down?".

This coupled with the fact that one of the tenants here has woken up @ 2:30am to the smell of lighter fluid. While other tenants have experienced a strong gas smell in the elevator (AFTER THE FACT - not before) makes us all a little nervous. So someone mentions burning a building down - and then you smell lighter fluid @ 2am...would probably make people very suspicious.

It made more than 5 of us nervous - so we called the LAPD and filed an incident report (for those of you really interested #9A79) stating what we heard and what's been going on here lately. It never hurts to let someone know that the owner said something so drastic to more than one person....I mean sure one person hears it, whatever. Four people hear it.....then you really can't let it go.

Other than that - things still are not fixed around here. Even though as a group we met with the alleged owner and he claimed he would start fixing things right away. We were not shocked when there was no movement made after that. Recently though there has been some interest in this building, primarily by the state (health,building safety,rent stabilization, and many more) - we have spoken with them and they have come out to visit more than one tenant here.

Funny fact for the day - Rent Stabilization has received more than 6 complaints alone in the month of September from separate individual people and one in October. Yes - on this building alone.

The owners of this building don't appear to be concerned with their liability if people get injured while on the premises. Mainly because the pregnant woman on the first floor fell down the stairs Friday night after the police left. She fell because there was no lighting on the stairs; which she was promised would be fixed. Now doesn't this seem like something that is easily repairable - after all it's light bulbs. How hard can it be to screw in a light bulb?

In closing please feel free to comment - we love to hear from you!

So per our other post - as you may have seen earlier - the following LLC's are all some how related to Amy -

23935 Madison LLC
A&M Property Acquisition LLC
2719 Sunset LLC

Doesn't it make you wonder exactly why would a person operating a legal property management business need with all these old address, bad information, weird LLC's ? Maybe cause it's not all legal - or legit.....

As it turns out - researching a bit today - Milan Managment is an LLC and guess who is the agent for service? You guessed it none other than Amy Rubenstein:

LP/LLC
MILAN MANAGEMENT LLC
Number: 200424010123	Date Filed: 8/24/2004	Status: active
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Address
7360 SANTA MONICA BLVD STE 101
WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA 90046
Agent for Service of Process
AMY RUBENSTEIN
7360 SANTA MONICA BLVD STE 101
WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA 90046

Apparently we have solved the mystery of what the tenants in apartment #1 are really responsible for. Obviously the tenants here have been fed a line of bs from the owners of the building.

Now mind you tenants here have been told multiple times that these "onsite" people are managers...yet the people in question keep refuting this over and over again. We can't seem to figure out why they deny being employed by Milan Mgmt.

Forget the onsite management issue for a moment and break it down to other reasons why this place currently sucks.

One of them being the wanna be rock band, pot head kids that don't seem to understand that normal, non-entertainment, non-daddy funded human beings have to actually get sleep at night - and wake up in the morning to actually do the thing called work.

We understand that smoking weed on the patio all night, and playing music loud at 2:45am is very taxing and this could cause you to sleep all day, however the rest of the tenants in this building actually need SLEEP.

On that note - we're gathering people to make some extremely loud noises on a Saturday morning after 7am when we know said pot heads will be asleep and basking in the rays of their drunken stupor.

So despite the previous email posted on this blog about them being "onsite" apparently they are no more than glorified house boys. Anyway - see the note bby clicking the photo....this shit gets funnier every day.

no extra charge for the self peeling paint - just think of it a quick change decorating

It only happens when it rains... free of charge - indoor rain!

No this apartment was not under the pool - it's just filled with water damage and mold... UM

And for an extra charge of 19.99 we have the exclusive "dead oven" feature.

Fungus - from a luxury building