Official faces city, tenant suits

Patrick F. Larkin is a seasoned Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner with 15 years on the bench ruling on thousands of criminal cases.

He also is a landlord and -- it is alleged in two civil lawsuits, one by the city of Los Angeles and the other by a group of tenants -- not a good one.

Eleven former tenants of Larkin’s Eastside houses say in their suit, filed in 2002, that he ignored their repeated calls to clean up slum conditions at the Lincoln Heights properties.

“If you were to take a shantytown from India and put it on his property, that’s what it looked like,” said Manuel Duran, an attorney for the families.

Last year, the city also sued Larkin, accusing him of taking a loan from the Los Angeles Housing Department to rehabilitate his cluster of dilapidated houses, which included the units used by the suing tenants. But he failed to bring them up to code, instead allowing houses to deteriorate further, the city alleges.

Additionally, some have complained that Larkin has used his insider’s knowledge of the court system to delay resolutions in both cases. A judge in the city’s lawsuit complained in writing that Larkin had made “inappropriate” contact with her over the matter, prompting her to recuse herself and delaying the case.

Trial for the city suit is scheduled to begin Monday, but attorneys involved in the case expect it to be delayed until February because Larkin has filed papers to change his legal counsel.

Larkin, 59, denies that he has used his position to cause delays in the cases. He also said he has repaid the city loan and begun repairing some of the properties.

“All the allegations that the city made and the tenants made are untrue,” Larkin said in an interview last week.

Unlike Superior Court judges, who are appointed by the governor and later stand for election, commissioners are appointed by the judges to help ease large caseloads.

They have almost all the powers of a judge but generally preside over cases in which both sides have agreed to their involvement.

Larkin is assigned to the Metropolitan Courthouse near downtown. One recent morning found him dispensing punishment to dozens of defendants, most of whom had been caught driving without a driver’s license or auto insurance.

The commissioner said in an interview last week that he acquired the properties at 2117 through 2129 Vallejo St. in the mid-1980s from his grandmother and wanted to preserve houses that had sentimental value to him and his family.

Larkin said that he was born and raised in one of the homes and that his grandparents began a business in the basement of one of the others; that business later became Pocino Foods.

He said he bought the properties without knowing how difficult they would be to bring up to code. “I led with my heart instead of my head in acquiring the property,” he said.

The properties consisted of three deep lots with houses in the front and five detached residential units in the back. The oldest house dates from 1895, but some of the buildings were constructed in the 1920s.

The city loan called for the rehabilitation of all eight units.

“Mr. Larkin’s goal is to fix up all those properties,” said Ryan G. Baker, the latest of several attorneys the commissioner has had. “I dare say that that whole part of the city is kind of run-down. The properties are also run-down.”

In the first suit, filed in April 2002, 11 people in three families alleged that they lived in squalid conditions in shacks at the backs of the properties.

The suit seeks reimbursement of rent as well as other monetary damages.

“Plaintiffs have had to endure deplorable conditions, including leaking roofs, substandard and unsafe plumbing, unsafe electrical service and a generally unsafe and dilapidated structure,” the lawsuit alleges.

Despite city Building Code citations and tenant complaints, Larkin “refused to repair the premises and make them fit for human habitation while plaintiffs were living there.”

Duran, the tenants’ attorney, said that when it appeared recently that the two sides had reached a tentative settlement, he moved to dismiss the case. But the agreement fell apart last week, so he will seek to reinstate the case and go to trial.

Larkin said that the tenants were moved out and that he is in the process of “deconstructing” the back buildings, with the idea that they will be rebuilt with new material.

The city charges in its March 2005 suit that the Los Angeles Housing Department approved an $815,000 zero-interest line of credit for Larkin in 1998 to renovate the residential units and that Larkin received $172,000 but did not meet requirements that the properties be renovated and rented at affordable rates.

As a result, the properties remain a blight on the neighborhood, the city charged.

“The fact that Mr. Larkin is a Superior Court commissioner does not mitigate his responsibilities, nor does it shield him from being accountable for failing to live up to them,” said City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo.

The city has asked that a receiver be appointed to complete the renovation of the houses and make sure that rents are appropriate, said Deputy City Atty. Suzanne Spillane.

“Years after obtaining a very favorable $815,000 loan from [the city], Larkin’s property remains unsafe,” the city said in court papers filed last year. “In this case what defendant Patrick F. Larkin is trying to do is get out of his obligations ... so he can make more money in rent. Having enjoyed for years the benefits of his affordable-housing rehabilitation loan, he should not now be able to reject its obligations.”

One current tenant, Ryan DellaMaggiora, a witness in the city case, said Larkin charged him a monthly rent of $1,500 for 2 1/2 years for the four-bedroom house; the city loan agreement limited the rent to $933.

The second-year medical resident at County-USC Medical Center said in an interview that Larkin reduced the rent when the city stepped in, but he still anticipates legal action to seek reimbursement for the years of overpayment.

In court papers, Larkin said he was surprised to learn later that the loan required him to charge reduced rents.

“Testimony at trial will establish that defendant was unaware of the rent restrictions under the regulatory agreement, which make the project financially unfeasible,” according to a recent filing.

A Housing Department inspector went to the properties in April and May 2005 and found more than 60 code violations, including broken and boarded-up windows, holes in interior walls and electrical problems, according to court records filed as part of the city case.

Larkin said he made the repairs within the five days given him, but a housing inspector disputed the work and said in court papers last year that new problems were found, including security bars on windows that lacked required quick-release latches, according to the city’s court filing.

Another housing inspector returned to the property June 21 this year and cited three houses at the front of the properties for 135 building and safety code violations, involving faulty electrical systems, a damaged roof, substandard flooring supports, dry rot and broken glass.

A visit to the property last week by The Times found that DellaMaggiora’s home has undergone exterior repairs and painting. Larkin said the inside has been fixed as well. But next door, on another Larkin parcel, sat a house in poor shape behind a wire security fence, much of its roof gone and unpermitted wiring visible.

Behind the main buildings, former dwelling units had been partly dismantled, with large amounts of the old wooden frames standing.

In court documents, Spillane, the city’s attorney, accused Larkin of putting up unreasonable obstacles in the case, including overly broad discovery requests.

Larkin said city officials have been deceitful and have obstructed his efforts to preserve and improve the property.

Baker, his attorney, said that city bureaucrats have unfairly interfered with Larkin’s property rights and that he plans to file a cross-complaint against the city this week.

“This action is an abuse of the legal process and must be dismissed,” Larkin’s attorneys argued in a recent filing. The court has declined to dismiss the case, taking action instead to schedule it for trial.

The city’s case was originally assigned to Judge Mary Thornton House, but on May 17, 2005, she reported that Larkin had contacted her by phone and, as a result, she no longer could handle the case.

“The court informs counsel that because of ex parte communication from the defendant ... the court was bound to report the incident to administration and now determines that she should recuse herself,” House wrote, adding that she advised Larkin “that such communication is inappropriate.”

Larkin called the incident “a misunderstanding” and said he called her only for a fax number.

Delgadillo said he would enforce the loan agreement that Larkin signed, no matter how long it took.

“Neither my client nor my office have any intention of permitting those who have benefited from affordable housing programs to reject their obligations,” Delgadillo said.

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com