Our Firm

  • Where we can add value, our job is to first educate, then execute.

  • Follow through with clients and expect clients to do the same.

  • Seek support and give support.

  • We help you define the boundaries of what can be understood.

  • Say what you are going to do and do what you say.

A Little Background

Ajay Gupta founded Gupta Evans and Associates, then Gupta Legal Center, over 10 years ago in 2008. Mr. Gupta graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2005 and began his career with a boutique real estate firm in La Jolla, California focused on real estate title disputes.  At its inception in 2008, the Firm focused largely on secured debtor and creditor matters in bankruptcy court.

Chris S. Evans is also a graduate of USD Law. Mr. Evans spent his first two years with a real estate litigation firm in Los Angeles, California prior to joining the practice in 2015. Mr. Gupta and Mr. Evans developed an excellent working relationship and together quickly began to grow the Firm. In 2018, Mr. Evans became an equity partner of the Firm and Gupta Legal Center became Gupta Evans and Associates.

The Firm has grown and developed its practice primarily around the areas of corporate and real estate litigation with a strong leaning towards creditor and debtor matters.  Our approach and “win column” is addressed in a little more detail below, but, ultimately, the firm centers around Ajay and Chris.  It’s their personality that permeates everything that happens here.

AT IT’S CORE, THE FIRM IS ABOUT PEOPLE

Objective Empathy, Open Communication, Education and Execution are the fundamental pillars upon which the Firm is built.

People come to us with issues that need a resolution.  In many instances, we don’t have the tools or the resources to help those people. At that point, we try to find the right resources for the prospective client. Other times, there are no options and, in with those situations, our job is to let the client know the nature of his or her position.  There’s value in understanding that there are no options.

Where we can be of service, our job is to first educate, then execute. There is rarely 100% certainty with any litigation or transactional matter, but through educating our clients, we can help them understand the risks and the process. Second, our focus is on execution with skill and precision coupled with communication.  What separates our practice is our ability to help client potential outcomes that are 2 and 3 years away so that they can make practical decisions today.

The “Win” Columns

The Firm has been involved with over 500 bankruptcy cases in the Southern District of California.  In addition to the bankruptcy practice, the following are a few of the litigation cases represent success stories and exemplify the type work that we do for clients:

  • The Firm represented the Client, a Buyer of residential real property, who was subject to the Seller refusing to finalize the sale of the residence. The Firm navigated the case through two mediations and was able to negotiate a favorable settlement that allowed the Client to avoid a trial and, more importantly, enabled the Client to finalize the purchase of her home.

  • The Firm represented the Client, a landlord and owner of a residence in San Diego County, in an eviction proceeding.  Client was dealing with multiple former tenants who became squatters at the property, and was unable to get them to vacate without court interference.  With just a couple days’ notice, the Firm was able to step in, represent the Client at trial and obtain a Judgment for possession of the residence.  The Client was finally able to obtain possession of his property shortly after trial.

  • Ongoing litigation wherein the Firm represents Client, a homeowner and recipient of what is argued to be a loan modification, against GMAC Mortgage and Ocwen Loan Servicing.  Upon Client realizing that the alleged loan modification was not being honored by the defendants, a lawsuit was commenced and the Firm quickly obtained a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction that has allowed Plaintiff to remain in his home to date while paying the reduced loan modification payments.  A bankruptcy by GMAC delayed the matter for multiple years, and the case is currently set for trial in June 2018.

  • Successful Motion to Dismiss Trustee’s adversary complaint against the Firm’s Clients.  Chapter 7 Trustee sued clients alleging that the assets of certain corporations were alter egos for the Debtor and therefore, property of the bankruptcy estate under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.  At the Motion to Dismiss stage, the Firm was able to show that all possible legal theories that allow for recovery, reverse piercing, single business entity, and the alter ego doctrine, were inapplicable.  The Court dismissed the case with leave to amend, however, the Trustee was warned that if the amendment was unsuccessful, the Trustee would be subject to Rule 11 sanctions.  The Trustee did not amend and the case was dismissed.

  • Defense of commercial lease dispute that was dismissed through a successful Motion For Summary Judgment.  The Clients were facing a claim for over $200,000 in damages based upon an alleged breach of a written commercial lease. The Firm was able to forward a nuanced legal argument that the lease in question was actually an oral agreement, not written.  As a result, the Firm argued the claim against the Clients should be barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.  The Court agreed with the Firm’s position and granted the Clients Motion For Summary Judgment and awarded Clients their attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the action.

  • Client’s parent company is a real estate investment company that had purchased second position deeds of trust and foreclosed on the properties taking the properties subject to the rights of the first position deeds. Three properties were spun off into the Client where the properties were upside down. The Firm took over the case after several unsuccessful attempts to get a Chapter 11 plan confirmed. The Firm was retained in August 2015 and filed Amended Plans in August and again in September. The plan was confirmed after balloting to all creditors was finalized by December 2015. The order crammed down the secured interests on the first position deeds for all three parties making those projects feasible.

  • Successful Motion for Relief from Stay related to the Trustee’s abandonment of the University of Georgia’s Intellectual Property.  Debtor filed for Chapter 11 which was converted to Chapter 7.  The Chapter 7 trustee failed to assume the licenses of the Client and Client needed relief from stay in order to trigger contractual rights to reclaim license and resell to another third party.  Case required a nuanced understanding of executory contracts and basic intellectual property law.

  • Successful Defense of Adversary complaint to determine dischargeability under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code.  Plaintiff alleged that Client made fraudulent representations that induced Plaintiff into providing a loan to Client.  As a result of the fraudulent representations, Plaintiff alleged that the debt to Plaintiff should be non-dischargeable.  After a two-day bench trial, the Court ruled that Defendant did not fraudulently procure the loan and that the debt to the Plaintiff was in fact dischargeable.

  • Client was sued for an alleged preference transaction related to the South Bay Expressway.  The South Bay Expressway bankruptcy was one of the largest bankruptcies filed in the Southern District of California.  Client was a vendor that performed and were paid for services rendered.  The matter settled prior to trial due primarily to financial considerations of both parties.

  • Client had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  After filing, the Creditor on her vehicle repossessed the vehicle.  Initially, the Creditor claimed that the repossession was a mistake because he had no notice of the bankruptcy and that the vehicle had been sold.  After an evidentiary hearing, it was shown that the Creditor did have notice and that he had in fact simply transferred the vehicle to his wife.  The court ordered that the vehicle be turned over and issued sanctions against the Creditor.

  • Defense of attempted partition of Client’s property, his primary residence.  The plaintiff in the action asserted an interest in the Client’s property that enabled her to force the sale of the property through a partition action.  After successfully defeating the plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment, the Firm was able to avoid trial and negotiate a favorable settlement for the Client that enabled him to keep all interest in the property.

Recent Posts

 

Reviews

I contacted the Gupta legal center for advice regarding a real estate litigation case. Ajay gave me sound and knowledgeable advice. I would feel comfortable choosing him and his services, agree with the previous reviews that recommend his agency.

John K., Milford city (balance), CT