> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Jury to decide if landlord should pay for break-in - URL: https://www.smdp.com/jury-to-decide-if-landlord-should-pay-for-break-in/ - Published: 2004-01-21T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T03:36:33.000Z - Author: John Wood - Tags: Real Estate & Housing, Santa Monica, #archive-import *At issue is whether apartment building was secure enough* SM COURTHOUSE — A jury here is now set to decide whether a landlord should pay millions of dollars to tenants who were victims of a violent break-in at a seaside apartment more than three years ago. Deliberations in the case against landlord Marvin Engineering Co. Inc. are expected to begin today. The company is accused of allegedly failing to protect two tenants, whose luxury apartment was stormed by four gunmen in August of 2000. Lawyers on Tuesday said Oliver Starr, 36, a fitness specialist and sales consultant, and his ex-girlfriend, Julien Serrano, should be paid in excess of $1.5 million. Both were bound and beaten by the gunmen, who also threatened to rape Serrano, stole her jewelry and demanded $30,000 in cash from Starr. The gunmen, who were never caught, apparently had the wrong apartment. They were looking for drug money from a man named “Matt,” who lived in a different unit in the same building at 17351 Sunset Blvd., but had fled in the middle of the night one month ear-lier, said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Blaine Greenberg. At issue in the case is whether Marvin Engineering should have known the building lacked property security and as a result, a break-in was likely. Greenberg alleged there were three other breaches of security at the building just months before the incident. What’s more, many of the security mechanisms — the locks on the elevator and fire doors, among others — at the commercial and residential use building weren’t working the afternoon the gunmen broke in, he said. “They didn’t say a word about any of that to anyone,” Greenberg said. “What makes them think that this couldn’t have happened to anyone else?... Is it any surprise that something awful happened when you see how this place was run?” Gilbert Garcia, the defendant’s attorney, said there was no way Marvin Engineering could have foreseen the attack. He said the gunmen were intent on getting in and any security measures likely would have failed at stopping them. “That’s just not reasonable,” Garcia argued before the jury. “These guys aren’t out there casing the joint with a sign that says, ‘I’m a burglar, I’m going to break in.’ “How do we anticipate those four people coming in? We don’t,” he continued. “Maybe we should start tucking (tenants) into bed at night. I don’t know what else we can do.” If jurors find Marvin Engineering responsible, they will then have to decide how much money to award the former couple. Greenberg is asking for more than $1.5 million in lost wages for Starr, whose career took a slide after the incident, and an unspecified amount in pain and suffering for both Starr and Serrano. Medical expenses were covered by insurance and the amount of property stolen by the gun-men was less than $10,000, he added. Greenberg told jurors any amount of money to compensate the victims for enduring the violent incident would be too low for his clients. Instead of offering a road map to help jurors reach a figure, he rehashed the details of the incident. “How do you compensate Julien Serrano for the days she spent looking over her shoulder nervously or the nights she spent dreaming that these guys we’re going to come back and rape her?” he asked, later asking similar questions of Starr, who had difficulty walking for months after the beating, and whose morale was shattered, Greenberg said. “I’m going to ask each of you on this jury to think about these issues... and reach a number you can live with,” Greenberg told jurors. Garcia countered that no evidence was laid out by experts detailing how much money was lost by Starr, why it was lost or whether it could have been earned despite the incident. He said Starr and Serrano failed to “tip the scales of justice” in their direction, and should be awarded nothing. “What is the true loss of earnings? I don’t know. I’m not an accountant. They’re not accountants... We can’t speculate on this stuff, they have to prove it,” he said. The case, which is being heard by Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Valerie Baker, started more than a week ago and has included testimony from former tenants of the complex, Marvin Engineering officials, a police officer familiar with the building, as well as Starr, Serrano and two guests also in the apartment when the four gunmen broke in. The break-in occurred when the couple was entertaining guests — who also were victims — for lunch. Marvin Engineering is countersuing Starr and Serrano for $40,000\. They said the former couple, who broke their lease by moving to a house in Venice one month after the incident, should pay for the eight months the $4,500-a-month apartment was off the market, as well as for cleaning fees and the cost of hiring a broker. Starr and Serrano maintain the company agreed to let them out of their lease after the break-in, and are demanding the return of their $9,000 security deposit. *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 21, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/012104.pdf?ref=smdp.com)