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 2 | 32. On or about April 10,2014, an undercover operator with the Bureau (“operator”) took | the Bureau’s 2000 Pontiac to Brake Masters 135. The front brake pads on the Bureau- | documented vehicle were in need of replacement and the ~J cylinder spark plug was defective, | causing the check engine light to illuminate. The operator told a male employee that she wanted | the brakes and illuminated check engine light inspected and presented him with a wupon from | Brake Masters 135 for a free brake inspection and check engine lamp inspection. The operator | signed and received a copy of a written estimate and left the facility. | 33. At approximately 1420 hours that same day, the operator received a call from | Respondent’s employee, “Bo”. Bo told the operator that the front brake pads were badly worn | and needed replacement and that the front brake rotors needed replacement as well. The operator | told Bo she would call him back. At approximately 1435 hours, the operator called the facility | and asked Bo if they could resurface the rotors instead of replacing them. Bo claimed that he | 9 | could not resurface the rotors because tbey would be too thin after machining. Bo also told the | operator that the check engine light was illuminated because ofa diagnostic trouble code for a 1 | engine misfire and that they would require an additional $98 for a diagnosis of the check engine | light. Bo stated that the repairs and diagnosis would cost $532.43, which the operator authorized. | 34. On or about April II, 2014, the operator received a voice mail message from | Respondent’s employee, “Mike”, requesting a return phone call. At approximately 1045 hours, | the operator called the facility and spoke with Mike. Mike told the operator that all six spark | plugs were worn out and were the incorrect type for the vehicle, the coil pack was burnt and had | high resistance, and the spark plug wires were bad. Mike claimed that all of these parts would | need to be replaced in order to correct the illuminated check engine light. Mike gave the operator | a revised estimate price of$l, 137.73 for the repairs, which the operator authorized. | 35. At approximately 1600 hours that same day, the operator returned to the facility to | retrieve the vehicle, paid $1,135 for thc repairs, and received a copy of an invoice. | 36. On or about April 14, 2014, the Bureau inspected the vehicle and found that the | facility had performed approximately $777 in unnecessary repairs.