Practice areas: Real Estate
Licensed in California since: 2000
Education: University of San Diego School of Law
Selected to Super Lawyers: 2026 Call today:
844-689-7015
Free Consultation Castaneda & Co., PC
200 East San Martin AveUnit 540
San Martin, CA 95046 Visit website
Details 
With over 24 years of legal experience, Damian is a trusted advocate for property owners, businesses, and individuals navigating complex real estate and commercial lease disputes. Since founding his practice in 2000, Damian has earned a reputation for delivering exceptional results in high-stakes legal matters involving real estate transactions, agent disputes, and property ownership conflicts.
Damian’s practice focuses on a wide range of real estate issues, including disputes between property owners, real estate broker and agent controversies, and issues related to commercial lease negotiations and reviews. He is a skilled litigator, representing clients in:
- Real Estate Purchase Disputes
- Deposit Disputes (California Association of Realtors Form RPA-CA)
- Broker and Agent Disputes
- MLS Misrepresentations
- Failure to Disclose Material Conditions
- Partition, Co-Ownership, and Resulting Trust Disputes
- Commercial Lease Negotiation and Review
- Quiet Title Actions
Damian's extensive experience also includes handling disputes over property ownership and title issues, as well as guiding clients through the intricacies of commercial leasing. Whether you're involved in a contentious real estate transaction or need legal counsel for a commercial lease agreement, Damian offers practical, results-driven strategies to protect your interests.
Born and raised in Southern California, Damian is deeply committed to his local community. He earned his law degree from the University of San Diego, and has spent his career honing his expertise in real estate law. With a proven track record of successful outcomes, Damian continues to provide clients with diligent, reliable representation.
Practice areas
Real Estate: Consumer, Real Estate: Business- 60% Real Estate: Consumer
- 40% Real Estate: Business
First Admitted: 2000, California
Professional Webpage: https://castanedaco.com/
Videos
- Residential Real Estate LitigationWe represent property buyers in residential real estate disputes against sellers, real estate agents, and real estate brokers and agents. We have an expertise in representing clients who face significant legal and financial risks due to misrepresentations and non-disclosures in real estate transactions.Typical Case Intentional Misrepresentation and Concealment: The sellers misrepresented that all work on the property had been permitted. After the purchase, our clients discovered that substantial work, including basement renovations, outdoor structures, and electrical systems, was unpermitted, leading to city citations. The sellers knowingly withheld this information, intending to make the property more appealing.Negligent Misrepresentation: Both the sellers and the real estate agents failed to disclose accurate information regarding the property’s permits. The agents did not verify the information provided by the sellers, leading our clients to believe the property was compliant with city regulations.Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Our clients’ real estate agents failed to exercise due diligence, including checking public records to verify permit status, advising on market value, and ensuring the property was a safe and legal investment. Their failure to meet these obligations resulted in our clients unknowingly overpaying for the property and facing extensive costs for necessary compliance repairs.Breach of Contract: The purchase agreement required the sellers to provide full and accurate disclosures, yet they failed to do so, leading to substantial financial harm for our clients. The sellers’ breach meant our clients inherited multiple costly issues that were concealed before purchase.Complexity and Impact:Our cases exemplify the multifaceted challenges in real estate litigation, including misrepresentation, fiduciary duty, compliance with local regulations, and breach of contract. The legal issues are further complicated by the interactions between the various parties involved: sellers, agents, brokers, and contractors. Due to these layers of liability, our clients are seeking damages for out-of-pocket costs, attorney’s fees, loss of property use, and emotional distress caused by the defendants’ actions.Damages and Remedies Sought:Our clients seek remedies including:Compensatory damages to cover the costs of mandatory city corrections.Attorney’s fees incurred while pursuing action against responsible parties, including contractors.Emotional distress damages due to the prolonged legal and financial strain.Punitive damages to penalize intentional and reckless misconduct by parties involved. Our cases demonstrates our firm’s commitment to advocating for clients in complex real estate disputes, especially those involving concealment, fiduciary duty breaches, and substantial financial impact. Through cases like this, we defend the rights of buyers and uphold integrity in the real estate industry , Real Estate Lawyers, Real Estate Litigation, 2024
Representative Clients
- Residential Sellers vs. Real Estate Broker and Agent. I represent residential sellers against their listing broker and agent for statutory disclosure violations, breach of fiduciary duty, and attempted self-dealing in connection with a residential listing agreement. Claims Breach of fiduciary duty. Fraudulent concealment. Constructive fraud. Negligence. Violation of California Civil Code § 2079.16 (agency disclosure statute). Unauthorized use of confidential information. Elder financial abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30). Declaratory relief. Rescission of the listing agreement. Description.This matter arises from a residential listing in San Jose, Santa Clara County. The sellers, an elderly couple, signed a residential listing agreement with a broker and agent who failed to provide the statutory Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationships before execution, as required by California Civil Code § 2079.16. Because the disclosure was not delivered and acknowledged prior to signing, the agreement is voidable under California law. In addition, the agent solicited the listing while concealing a personal plan to purchase the property at a reduced price. By withholding this information, the agent misused confidential details about the sellers’ financial position and motivations, in direct violation of fiduciary duties owed under California agency law. Courts have long held that real estate agents owe trustee-level duties of loyalty and disclosure, which extend even before the execution of a listing agreement. Concealing a contemplated purchase is irreconcilable with those obligations. Further compounding the misconduct, the broker and agent failed to obtain informed consent from the sellers before pursuing a potential self-dealing transaction. California law requires that any purchase by an agent, directly or indirectly, be made with full disclosure and utmost fairness. By hiding their personal interest, the agents placed themselves in a conflicted position and breached both statutory and contractual duties. Because the sellers are elderly, the conduct also implicates the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Financial abuse occurs when someone in a position of trust appropriates or seeks to appropriate an elder’s property for wrongful use or with intent to defraud. The misuse of confidential information and concealment of purchase intentions fall squarely within this framework. On behalf of the sellers, Castaneda & Co., PC issued a pre-litigation demand for mutual cancellation of the listing agreement, waiver of commission claims, and return of all confidential information. Mediation was also demanded pursuant to the contract. If unresolved, the matter is positioned for litigation seeking rescission, restitution, and damages. This dispute highlights the critical importance of fiduciary standards in California real estate transactions and the protections afforded to elderly property owners. By representing these sellers, Castaneda & Co., PC demonstrates its role in safeguarding clients from broker misconduct, enforcing disclosure statutes, and protecting vulnerable homeowners in Santa Clara County and across the Bay Area., 2025
- Commercial Tenant vs. Commercial Landlord. I represent a commercial tenant operating a professional services business against the landlord of a multi-tenant office building in San Jose, Santa Clara County, in a dispute involving rescission of lease, nuisance allegations, and fraudulent inducement. Claims Fraud in the inducement. Constructive fraud. Mutual mistake. Breach of lease. Breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment. Declaratory relief. Rescission and restitution. Reimbursement for tenant improvements and relocation costs. Description.This matter arises from a commercial lease for an office suite in San Jose, Santa Clara County, where my client established a professional services practice. The lease expressly authorized this type of business use. Relying on that authorization, the tenant invested significant sums in tenant improvements to customize the space for their operations. Shortly after opening, the landlord issued a notice of default, alleging that ordinary sounds associated with the tenant’s business activities constituted an “excessive disturbance” and a private nuisance. This claim contradicted the lease’s express authorization and the landlord’s prior knowledge of the tenant’s intended use. Under California law, a landlord cannot consent to a lawful use and later recharacterize its foreseeable consequences as a nuisance. The dispute escalated when the landlord refused to address structural noise mitigation, despite the lease placing responsibility for structural components such as walls and ceilings squarely on the landlord. Instead, the landlord attempted to shift the burden onto the tenant, creating additional financial and operational hardship. On behalf of the tenant, Castaneda & Co., PC issued a pre-litigation demand seeking rescission of the lease based on fraud and mutual mistake, given that the premises were unsuitable for the intended use at the time of contracting. Alternatively, the tenant proposed reimbursement of improvement costs, return of the security deposit, relocation expenses, and mutual releases to resolve the matter equitably. This dispute underscores the risks small business tenants face when landlords attempt to undermine lease terms or convert authorized uses into grounds for eviction. It highlights the importance of clear lease drafting, disclosure of building conditions, and enforcement of tenant protections under California law. By representing the tenant in this matter, Castaneda & Co., PC reinforces its reputation as a Bay Area real estate litigation firm dedicated to protecting small business operators in Santa Clara County from landlord overreach, fraudulent inducement, and interference with quiet enjoyment in commercial leasing., 2025
- Commercial Tenant vs. Commercial Landlord. I represent a commercial tenant in a lawsuit against a commercial landlord in a dispute involving fraud in the inducement, mutual mistake, breach of lease obligations, and harassment in violation of tenant rights. Causes of Action. Fraud in the inducement. Constructive fraud. Mutual mistake. Breach of lease. Breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Private nuisance (alleged by landlord, contested by tenant). Breach of landlord’s duty to maintain structural components. Harassment and interference with tenancy. Declaratory relief. Rescission of lease and personal guaranty. Description.This case arises from a five-year commercial lease in Petaluma, Sonoma County, where a tenant opened a new sports-oriented facility with a mix of interactive activities and retail operations. The lease expressly permitted “interactive, simulated sports/fitness and accessory retail.” The tenant invested more than $150,000 in tenant improvements to prepare the premises for this specialized use. Shortly after opening, the landlord began asserting that ordinary noise generated by these activities constituted a nuisance—even though such activity was expressly permitted in the lease and was foreseeable. The landlord’s representatives had inspected and approved the use prior to execution, confirming its suitability. Under California law, noise inherent in an authorized use cannot later be recharacterized as a nuisance. The landlord also interfered directly with the business by entering without notice, leaving doors unlocked, and allowing the public inside outside of business hours, disrupting operations and damaging the tenant’s reputation. In addition, the landlord attempted to shift the cost of structural noise mitigation—responsibility assigned to the landlord under the lease—onto the tenant. In response, Castaneda & Co., PC filed suit seeking rescission of the lease and guaranty on grounds of fraud and mutual mistake. The case also seeks damages for breach of lease, breach of quiet enjoyment, and harassment. Settlement discussions have centered on reimbursement of tenant improvements, return of deposits, relocation expenses, and termination of all ongoing lease obligations. This matter underscores how landlords sometimes attempt to use nuisance provisions as a tool to force tenants out, even when the tenant’s activities are expressly authorized. It highlights the importance of protecting tenants who invest substantial sums into buildouts based on contractual rights. By prosecuting this case, Castaneda & Co., PC demonstrates its commitment to defending small business tenants in Sonoma County against landlord overreach, fraudulent inducement, and interference with quiet enjoyment in California commercial leasing disputes., 2025
- Commercial Tenant vs. Commercial Landlord. I represent a commercial tenant, the owner of a family-operated restaurant, against the landlord of a shopping center in San Jose, Santa Clara County, for nondisclosure of material conditions, unpaid rent disputes, and unlawful collection demands. Claims Fraudulent concealment and nondisclosure of material property conditions. Breach of lease and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Negligent misrepresentation. Constructive eviction. Declaratory relief. Rescission and restitution. Damages for lost profits, emotional distress, and punitive damages. Invalidity of liquidated damages and late fee provisions. Description.This dispute arises from a five-year commercial lease for a restaurant located in a shopping center in San Jose, Santa Clara County. My client signed the lease in 2023, investing heavily in buildout and operations. Soon after opening, severe plumbing problems surfaced that had existed long before the lease was executed. These problems included repeated sewage backflow, pervasive odors in the dining area, and defective plumbing lines, all of which materially interfered with restaurant operations and customer experience. The landlord had prior knowledge of these plumbing conditions but failed to disclose them during lease negotiations. Witnesses, including other tenants and contractors, confirmed that the issues were longstanding. As a result, my client incurred more than $50,000 in out-of-pocket repair expenses, yet the problems persisted. Customers were deterred by the sewage odor, leading to significant lost revenue and reputational harm. Despite the landlord’s failure to disclose and remediate these conditions, my client was served with three-day notices demanding more than $100,000 in unpaid rent and charges. The landlord also attempted to rely on “as-is” clauses in the lease as a defense. Under California law, however, such provisions do not shield landlords from liability where material conditions were known and intentionally concealed. Castaneda & Co., PC responded with a detailed pre-litigation demand asserting fraud, concealment, constructive eviction, and related claims. The demand also challenged the enforceability of excessive late charges, which functioned as unlawful penalties rather than reasonable liquidated damages. In settlement discussions, the tenant offered to resume rent payments once the premises were repaired, but reserved the right to seek rescission, restitution, compensatory damages, and punitive damages if the landlord pursued eviction or collection litigation. This matter underscores the importance of disclosure obligations in California commercial leasing and highlights the risks landlords face when concealing defects that interfere with a tenant’s ability to operate. It also demonstrates the power imbalance small business owners confront when negotiating with large commercial landlords, making legal representation essential to leveling the playing field. By representing this tenant, Castaneda & Co., PC reinforces its reputation as a Bay Area real estate litigation firm dedicated to protecting small businesses, challenging landlord nondisclosure practices, and ensuring fair treatment in Santa Clara County commercial leasing disputes., 2025
- Family Business Dispute — Co-Owners of Real Estate Investment Properties (San Mateo County, California) — Investor/Family Member vs. Co-Investor/Family Member. I represent a family member and real estate investor against another family member in a lawsuit involving ownership, fiduciary duties, and the division of equity and rental income from multiple residential investment properties located in the Bay Area. Causes of Action. Breach of fiduciary duty. Constructive fraud. Fraudulent concealment. Breach of oral contract. Accounting. Conversion. Unjust enrichment. Declaratory relief. Quiet title. Partition by sale. Rescission. Description. This matter arises from a long-running family business dispute in San Mateo County Superior Court concerning multiple residential investment properties located in the East Bay. The plaintiff, a family member, contributed substantial down payments and financing under an oral agreement with the defendant, another family member who also served as an attorney and property manager for the portfolio. In return, the plaintiff was to receive beneficial ownership of specific properties and a share of rental income generated across the portfolio. Despite transferring title and fulfilling his obligations, the plaintiff was deprived of both ownership rights and rental proceeds. The defendant failed to pay the agreed value for one property and retained full control over the investment portfolio, commingling rental income with personal funds and withholding accounting records. The properties collectively generated significant equity and rental income, yet the plaintiff received only a fraction of his rightful share. The case involves two oral agreements, one when the properties were acquired and a second when titles were transferred. Under both, fiduciary duties arose from the family relationship, shared business purpose, and the defendant’s dual role as legal advisor and manager. Courts in California recognize that such circumstances create trustee-level obligations of loyalty, honesty, and full disclosure. Instead of honoring those duties, the defendant used superior knowledge and control to mislead and deprive the plaintiff of his investments. The lawsuit seeks multiple remedies, including rescission of the later agreement, restoration of title to the investment properties, recovery of lost rental income, and damages for fraud and fiduciary breaches. Alternatively, the plaintiff seeks quiet title and partition to secure his share of equity, which is valued in the millions, plus additional recovery for misappropriated rental proceeds. This dispute highlights how oral agreements in real estate partnerships, especially within families, can generate significant risk when not formalized and when one party abuses a position of trust. It also underscores California law’s willingness to impose constructive trusts, enforce fiduciary obligations, and restore equity when property rights are obtained through fraud or abuse of confidence. By pursuing this case, Castaneda & Co., PC demonstrates its capacity to handle complex family business and real estate ownership disputes in San Mateo County and the Bay Area, blending real estate law with fiduciary duty principles., 2025
- Residential Buyer vs. Residential Sellers and Real Estate Agents/Brokers. I represent a residential buyer against the sellers, the listing broker and agent, and the buyer’s own brokerage for their roles in nondisclosure of material conditions and misrepresentations during the sale process. Claims Fraud/intentional misrepresentation. Concealment/nondisclosure of material facts (including statutory disclosure violations). Negligent misrepresentation. Breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Rescission and restitution. Breach of fiduciary duty (buyer’s brokerage). Professional negligence (buyer’s brokerage). Deceptive business practices/false representation of competing offers (listing side). Declaratory and injunctive relief. Demand for mediation and evidence preservation. DescriptionThis Bay Area real estate matter centers on a single-family home purchase in San Jose, Santa Clara County. The buyer submitted an offer that was already significantly above the listing price. Immediately after, the listing side represented that there were multiple competing offers and pressed for a higher bid to “remain competitive.” Relying on that representation and the advice of their own brokerage, the buyer increased the offer to the mid-$1.5M range and removed nearly all contingencies except insurance. The sellers accepted the same day, and escrow closed about a month later. Once the property was vacated, sloped floors and structural concerns became immediately apparent. A contractor’s evaluation revealed significant foundation movement, with six-figure repair exposure on even conservative estimates. The sellers’ statutory disclosures referenced only “settling” and reassured that it had been the same “for many years” with “no problem.” The seller questionnaire denied knowledge of foundation defects, yet cosmetic patching and evidence of prior structural work suggested otherwise. The buyer also discovered that red flags noted during inspection—settlement cracks and recommendations for structural review—were not meaningfully explained by their own agent before contingencies were waived. The listing side’s representation of phantom “competing offers” further raised concerns about deceptive sales tactics. On behalf of the buyer, Castaneda & Co., PC asserts claims for rescission, restitution, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and statutory nondisclosure violations against the sellers, as well as fiduciary duty and professional negligence claims against the buyer’s own brokerage. Pre-litigation demands include mediation with all parties and preservation of all communications, disclosures, and inspection records. This matter highlights the serious consequences of misrepresentation and nondisclosure in California real estate transactions. It underscores the importance of statutory disclosure compliance, the duty of honesty in marketing, and the fiduciary obligation of brokers to protect their clients. By advocating for the buyer in this dispute, Castaneda & Co., PC reinforces its role as a leading California real estate litigation firm, protecting purchasers in Santa Clara County and throughout the Bay Area when property defects and false representations undermine the value of one of life’s most significant investments., 2025
- Residential Property Sellers vs. Real Estate Broker and Salesperson. I represented residential property sellers in a dispute against their listing broker and agent concerning violations of California agency disclosure law, improper supervision, and attempts to collect commissions not legally owed. Claims: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Negligence Fraudulent Concealment Constructive Fraud Violation of Agency Disclosure Statutes (Civil Code § 2079.14) Declaratory Relief Restitution/Disgorgement of Commission. DescriptionThis California real estate dispute arose from the listing of a residential property in San Jose, Santa Clara County. The sellers retained a brokerage to market their home, but the transaction was marred by serious statutory and fiduciary violations. The central issue was that the husband, one of the co-owners, signed a modification of listing agreement before he was ever provided with the mandatory agency disclosure form. Under California law, an agency disclosure statement must be presented and signed before or at the same time as a listing agreement. Because this did not occur, the listing agreement was void as a matter of law. Despite this defect, the broker attempted to enforce the listing agreement and pursue thousands of dollars in commissions. Castaneda & Co., PC intervened, sending formal representation letters and highlighting how the broker’s conduct not only violated the Civil Code but also breached fiduciary duties owed to the sellers. Additional issues compounded the dispute: the supervising broker never signed or reviewed critical documents, the salesperson involved was handling her first transaction without oversight, and misleading commission arrangements were concealed in mentorship agreements and marketing materials. These actions left the sellers vulnerable and created unnecessary financial risk. Our firm’s demands focused on eliminating any commission claim, clarifying that the brokerage’s agreements were unenforceable, and preserving the sellers’ right to seek restitution for unlawful demands. We also placed the broker on notice regarding potential claims for fiduciary breach, negligent supervision, and statutory violations. While the case proceeded in a pre-litigation setting, the strategy positioned the sellers to resolve the dispute favorably, protecting them from paying money they did not owe. This matter illustrates how easily California property owners can be taken advantage of when statutory disclosure rules are ignored. It underscores the importance of broker supervision, transparency in commission arrangements, and the fiduciary duty to counsel clients on significant financial decisions. For property owners in Santa Clara County and throughout the Bay Area, the case demonstrates how early legal intervention can neutralize improper commission claims before they escalate into costly litigation. By taking action on behalf of the sellers, Castaneda & Co., PC reinforced its reputation as a leading California real estate litigation and counseling firm, protecting clients from unlawful commission demands and ensuring accountability in real estate brokerage practices., 2025
- Commercial Tenant vs. Commercial Landlord. I counseled the commercial tenant, a restaurant operator, against its landlord in a dispute involving lease termination, personal guaranty obligations, and claims for unpaid rent and damages. Potential Causes of Action / Defenses (if litigated): Breach of Lease Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment Constructive Eviction Declaratory Relief Fraudulent Inducement Mitigation of Damages. DescriptionThis California commercial lease dispute involves a restaurant tenant that had operated within a large regional shopping center in San Jose, Santa Clara County. The landlord is a nationally recognized mall operator with billions of dollars in annual revenue and a portfolio that spans premier retail destinations across the country. Against that backdrop, the tenant’s restaurant, a local business, was a comparatively small operation with limited resources. After the tenant vacated the premises, the landlord issued a demand letter seeking recovery of approximately $700,000. This included past-due rent and projected rent through the remainder of the lease term. The demand also threatened immediate litigation against both the tenant and the personal guarantor, heightening the stakes. Castaneda & Co., PC counseled the tenant on strategies to minimize exposure and avoid being forced into litigation unprepared. Our analysis focused on challenging the landlord’s damage calculations, emphasizing the landlord’s legal duty to mitigate by re-leasing the space promptly, and developing defenses related to constructive eviction and breach of quiet enjoyment tied to mall operations and conditions that had impaired the tenant’s business. We also reviewed the personal guaranty for potential statutory protections and contractual defenses that could reduce or eliminate liability for the guarantor. Rather than rushing into court, the strategy centered on negotiation positioning. Pre-litigation actions included preserving defenses, preparing for potential declaratory relief filings, and compiling evidence of landlord conduct that could shift responsibility away from the tenant. By advising proactively, we placed the tenant in the strongest position to negotiate a resolution without having to endure the cost and uncertainty of prolonged litigation. This matter illustrates how California commercial lease disputes often pit small business operators against some of the largest commercial property owners in the country. It underscores the importance of experienced legal counsel in balancing that power disparity. By guiding this tenant through the dispute, Castaneda & Co., PC demonstrated its commitment to protecting small businesses in Santa Clara County, ensuring their voices are heard when powerful landlords pursue aggressive claims for rent and damages., 2025
- Residential Property Owner vs. Neighbor. I represent the property owner in a dispute against a neighboring property owner regarding unlawful interference with long-standing water rights and easements. Claims : Interference with Express Easement, Interference with Implied Easement, Interference with Prescriptive Easement, and Nuisance. Description This dispute arises from residential property located in Blairsden, Plumas County, California. For decades, my client and other homeowners relied on irrigation water delivered from ponds and waterways located on neighboring property. This right to irrigation water was secured by a recorded easement dating back to 1959, which granted continued access for landscaping and property maintenance. The water system had operated openly and continuously for more than forty years, forming part of the property’s established value and use. In 2022, the neighboring property owner unilaterally shut off the irrigation supply, claiming the service could be discontinued at will because it had been provided at no cost. This action ignored the recorded easement and disregarded the prescriptive and implied rights that had accrued over decades of use. The shutoff forced homeowners to scramble for alternate water sources, damaging landscaping, creating unnecessary expense, and disrupting the quiet enjoyment of their property. Despite repeated demands, the neighbor refused to restore the water, continuing to interfere with the easement rights of adjoining owners. Castaneda & Co., PC asserted claims for interference with express, implied, and prescriptive easements, as well as nuisance. California law provides strong remedies for these types of disputes, including damages tied to property value diminution, compensation for annoyance and discomfort, and injunctive relief to restore service. At its core, this dispute highlights the importance of easement rights in California real estate law and the liability that arises when a neighbor unilaterally cuts off long-standing access to shared resources. For property owners in rural communities like Blairsden, irrigation easements are essential to property use and value. By pursuing this claim, Castaneda & Co., PC reinforces its role as a leading California real estate litigation firm, protecting property owners’ rights, ensuring continued access to vital resources, and holding neighbors accountable when they unlawfully interfere with established easements. , 2025
- Real Estate Buyer vs. Real Estate Seller. I represent the plaintiff, a real estate buyer, against the seller in a dispute over nondisclosure of material property conditions. Causes of Action (from Complaint): Breach of Contract Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Fraudulent Concealment Negligent Misrepresentation Breach of Fiduciary Duty Violation of California Civil Code §1102 (Transfer Disclosure Statute) Rescission Restitution Declaratory Relief. Description This California real estate litigation involves the sale of a residential property located in San Jose, Santa Clara County. The buyer purchased the property based on statutory disclosure documents and representations made during the transaction. After closing, the buyer discovered previously undisclosed conditions that significantly impacted the property’s value and habitability. The complaint alleges that the seller knew about these conditions but failed to disclose them, depriving the buyer of the benefit of the bargain and forcing them to incur unexpected repair and remediation costs. The lawsuit filed by Castaneda & Co., PC asserts contract-based claims, including breach of the purchase agreement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It also raises fraud-based claims, alleging intentional concealment of material facts and negligent misrepresentation during the sale process. Statutory claims under California’s Transfer Disclosure Statute are central to the case, with the buyer arguing that mandatory disclosure obligations were ignored. Equitable remedies are also sought, including rescission of the sale, restitution to restore the buyer to their pre-transaction position, and declaratory relief clarifying the parties’ rights and obligations under California law. The case underscores the high stakes of nondisclosure disputes in California real estate transactions. In a competitive market like San Jose, where property values are substantial, undisclosed conditions can create hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial exposure. This matter also highlights the importance of compliance with California Civil Code §1102, which governs residential transfer disclosures and is designed to protect buyers from precisely these types of surprises. By litigating this dispute, Castaneda & Co., PC demonstrates its role as a leading Bay Area real estate litigation firm, representing buyers in claims involving fraud, nondisclosure, and statutory violations. The outcome will not only determine the buyer’s financial recovery but will also reinforce the legal standards governing seller obligations in Santa Clara County and across California’s residential real estate market., 2025
- Commercial Tenant/Guarantor vs. Commercial Landlord. I represented the defendant and cross-complainant, the personal guarantor of a commercial tenant, against the commercial landlord in a dispute over lease rights and liquor license restrictions. Causes of Action (cross-complaint): Actual Fraud: Concealment Negligent Misrepresentation Constructive Fraud. Description This California commercial lease dispute arose from a restaurant and bar property located in San Francisco, San Francisco County. The tenant signed a long-term lease based on a business plan that relied heavily on operating until 2:00 a.m., with late-night alcohol service forming the cornerstone of projected revenue. The lease required minimum operating hours of 11:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. but did not disclose any maximum closing time. The guarantor, who personally backed the lease, signed the guarantee on the understanding that late-night operations were permitted. The landlord required the tenant to operate under a liquor license it controlled. Unknown to the tenant and guarantor, the license contained an undisclosed restriction prohibiting service after midnight. This restriction surfaced only months later, when the license paperwork was delivered, after the tenant had already invested substantial sums in build-out costs, security deposits, and permanent improvements. The undisclosed midnight cutoff undermined the viability of the entire business model, leading to the collapse of the restaurant and bar. Through Castaneda & Co., PC, the guarantor filed a cross-complaint alleging fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud. The claims seek rescission of the personal guarantee, compensatory damages tied to lost investments, punitive damages for fraud, and attorneys’ fees. Central to the dispute is whether the landlord had a duty to disclose the license restriction, given that it directly conflicted with the lease structure and business plan discussed during negotiations. This litigation highlights how undisclosed liquor license restrictions can derail commercial ventures in California and how such disputes are increasingly central to landlord-tenant conflicts in San Francisco. It also underscores the importance of transparency in commercial leasing, particularly in the food and beverage industry where late-night operating rights can determine profitability. By prosecuting this matter, Castaneda & Co., PC demonstrates its experience in defending guarantors and tenants in high-stakes commercial lease litigation, addressing fraud claims, and protecting clients against hidden licensing conditions that threaten their businesses., 2025
- Residential Seller vs. Residential Buyer and Real Estate Brokers/Agents.Causes of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Constructive Fraud (Civ. Code § 1573). Negligence. Declaratory Relief: Equitable Indemnity. Disgorgement of Commission (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031). Breach of Fiduciary Duty for Negligent Referral of Unlicensed Contractor. Fraudulent Concealment (Civ. Code § 1710). Description. I represent a residential seller in Contra Costa County who faced a series of escalating disputes after selling her longtime home. The buyer purchased the property subject to a short leaseback agreement, during which the seller remained in possession for a few weeks after closing. During that time, a plumbing leak occurred and was promptly repaired. Despite this, the buyer later claimed that mold and flooring damage arose, seeking six-figure damages and threatening litigation. The case did not stop at buyer vs. seller. The seller’s defense turned to her real estate brokers and agents, who had steered her through the transaction. It was revealed that the buyer’s agent and broker made material misrepresentations and failed to advise properly regarding inspection disclosures. Worse, the seller’s own listing agent referred her to an unlicensed contractor for repair work — exposing her to additional liability. The combination of broker negligence and concealment left the seller vulnerable to claims that should never have arisen in the first place. Through Castaneda & Co., PC, the seller filed cross-claims for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and negligence against both the buyer’s real estate professionals and her own listing team. Remedies sought include disgorgement of commissions, indemnity against the buyer’s claims, and damages for professional negligence. The claims also highlight California’s strong public policy against unlicensed contracting, which prohibits recovery of compensation by those who fail to hold proper licenses. This matter underscores the risks sellers face when real estate professionals place expedience above their fiduciary duties. Brokers and agents owe their clients trustee-level duties of loyalty, honesty, and full disclosure — duties that cannot be delegated or ignored. When they breach those duties, sellers can be left defending claims that stem from professional misconduct rather than their own actions. By prosecuting these claims, Castaneda & Co., PC is protecting the seller’s equity, enforcing statutory protections, and holding brokers accountable in Contra Costa County. The case demonstrates the firm’s ability to litigate complex multi-party disputes arising from California home sales, where sellers, buyers, and professionals collide in high-stakes real estate litigation., 2025
- Real Estate Buyer vs. Real Estate Seller and Probate Lenders. I represent the plaintiff, a real estate buyer, against the estate administrator acting as seller and multiple probate lenders who attempted to interfere with the sale of estate property. Causes of Action: Breach of Contract: Specific Performance Breach of Contract: Damages Promissory Fraud Declaratory Relief: Usury and Liquidated Damages Invalidity Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). Description This case arises from the sale of residential estate property located in San Jose, Santa Clara County. The buyer entered into a purchase agreement with the estate administrator to acquire the property. Shortly after the agreement was executed, several probate lenders who had advanced funds to the estate sought to assert repayment rights and impose conditions that jeopardized the closing. These lenders demanded repayment of loans at extremely high interest rates and attempted to divert proceeds from the transaction, creating direct conflict with the buyer’s contractual rights. On behalf of the buyer, Castaneda & Co., PC filed suit to enforce the contract through specific performance and recover damages for breach of contract. The case also challenges the legality of the financial arrangements made by the probate lenders, alleging that the interest rates violate California’s usury laws and that the penalties operate as unlawful liquidated damages. A claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law broadens the case by framing these lending practices as unfair business conduct that threatens the integrity of probate real estate transactions. The litigation is significant because it highlights the growing role of probate lenders in California real estate and the risks these practices pose to legitimate buyers. Probate lenders often extend financing at extremely high rates to heirs or estate representatives, but their repayment demands can disrupt property sales and violate consumer protection statutes. By asserting claims for fraud, unfair competition, and declaratory relief, this case tests the boundaries of what financial practices courts will allow in probate contexts. For Santa Clara County and Bay Area real estate markets, the case underscores the importance of protecting buyers from hidden lender interference in probate sales. It also demonstrates how California courts balance contract enforcement with broader public policies limiting predatory lending. Through this litigation, Castaneda & Co., PC is working to safeguard the buyer’s contractual rights while also challenging unfair financial practices that could affect future estate property transactions., 2025
- Co-Owner v. Co-Owner and Family Member. Causes of Action (Complaint):Quiet Title. Partition by Sale. Causes of Action (Cross-Complaint):Partition. Breach of Contract. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Specific Performance.Description. I represent a co-owner of residential property in Santa Clara County, California, against another co-owner and a related family member. This dispute arose from a written buy-out agreement concerning a jointly inherited property in San Jose. Both co-owners inherited equal 50% interests after the probate of their father’s estate. The agreement included a strict time-is-of-the-essence clause requiring one party to pay over $300,000 by March 2020 to purchase the other’s half interest. When payment was not made by the deadline, the agreement automatically terminated, and my client exercised his right to pursue partition and quiet title. The opposing co-owner and family member filed a cross-complaint alleging partition rights, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and specific performance. They argued that financing delays should excuse their failure to perform. However, the record showed the loan applications were denied due to their own ineligibility and that payment was never tendered by the contractual deadline. They further claimed a greater ownership share based on alleged liens and guardianship issues, but title documents confirmed equal ownership under a prior probate distribution order. My client moved for summary judgment on his complaint and also against the cross-complaint. After full briefing and continuances, the Santa Clara County Superior Court issued a detailed 12-page order granting both motions in their entirety. The court held that the buy-out agreement was unenforceable once the payment deadline passed, that my client had an absolute right to partition, and that the cross-complainants failed to present admissible evidence creating a triable issue of fact. As a result, judgment was entered in favor of my client, clearing title, authorizing partition by sale, and extinguishing all adverse claims. This victory demonstrates the power of enforcing time-is-of-the-essence provisions in real estate contracts and the availability of partition as a remedy for co-owners of inherited property. It also highlights Castaneda & Co., PC’s ability to win complex real estate litigation at the summary judgment stage, sparing clients the time, cost, and uncertainty of trial. By successfully defeating both affirmative claims and cross-claims, our firm protected our client’s equity, secured clear title, and confirmed the principle that California law will not rewrite failed contracts or excuse untimely performance in real estate transactions. , 2025
- Seller/Trustee vs. Buyers and Real Estate Brokers/Agents. I represent a residential seller, acting as trustee of a family trust, against the buyers, the buyers’ real estate broker and agent, and the seller’s own listing real estate broker and agent in a multi-party residential real estate lawsuit involving disclosure disputes, foreclosure on a seller-financed note, and indemnity for professional negligence. Causes of Action. Judicial foreclosure on a seller-financed note. Breach of promissory note and deed of trust. Fraudulent concealment. Negligent misrepresentation. Breach of fiduciary duty by seller’s real estate broker and agent. Breach of fiduciary duty by buyers’ real estate broker and agent. Constructive fraud. Negligence. Indemnity and contribution under the “tort of another” doctrine. Declaratory relief. Description.This matter arises from the sale of a residential property in San Jose, Santa Clara County. The seller, acting as trustee of her late mother’s trust, relied on licensed real estate professionals to market and complete the transaction. The property included a garage and workshop that had historically been converted without permits, issues the trustee disclosed to her listing broker and agent. She was advised, however, to leave statutory disclosure forms blank on the basis of her trustee status. The listing nevertheless marketed the property as having multiple “move-in ready” homes, while privately noting that some structures were unpermitted. The transaction closed with an appraisal far below the purchase price, requiring the seller to finance more than $200,000 through a carryback note. After closing, the buyers received citations related to the unpermitted conversions and claimed nondisclosure. They have since withheld the balloon payment on the carryback note, triggering the seller’s judicial foreclosure action. The seller, through Castaneda & Co., PC, asserts that the unpermitted status was disclosed in at least five ways: through the MLS, appraisal, title report, escrow documents, and direct communications to the buyers’ broker and agent. Moreover, subsequent confirmation by the city validated that original permits were still in effect, effectively resolving the concerns with minimal cost. As a result, the buyers’ claimed damages are unsupported under Civil Code § 3343, which limits recovery in real estate fraud cases to the difference in actual value at the time of purchase. Beyond enforcing foreclosure, the seller also seeks indemnity from both her own listing real estate broker and agent and the buyers’ real estate broker and agent for their negligent advice, misrepresentations, and failures to properly explain material facts. By mischaracterizing unpermitted spaces and misleading the parties, these brokers and agents created liability for the seller that she would not otherwise have faced. This case highlights the critical role of real estate brokers and agents in ensuring compliance, fiduciary obligations, and proper disclosure in California transactions. It also underscores the remedies available to sellers when buyers default on seller-financed obligations. By pursuing foreclosure and indemnity, Castaneda & Co., PC is protecting trustees, sellers, and property owners from both buyer defaults and broker misconduct in Santa Clara County., 2025
Transactions
- Commercial Real Estate Lease in San Jose involving a 1,400 sq. ft. retail spaceThis 57-page lease for a 1,400-square-foot retail property was designed for a quick-service restaurant. The lease included detailed provisions for rent, starting at $5,110 per month with annual increases of 3% across a 10-year term. Additionally, the lease involved a tenant improvement allowance of $43.57 per square foot, a significant investment in customizing the space. Complexity was heightened by clauses governing tenant responsibilities for common area charges and specific use restrictions, as well as a right for the tenant to extend the lease for five additional years. The lease also addressed indemnification, insurance requirements, and specific provisions for default remedies, adding depth to the landlord-tenant relationship., 2023
- Commercial Landlord vs. Commercial Tenant. I represent a commercial property owner against a tenant regarding lease reassignment, guaranty enforceability, and potential liability exposure under a five-year commercial lease. Claims Enforcement of lease terms against successor entity. Validity and enforceability of personal guaranty. Declaratory relief regarding tenant reassignment. Verification of tenant’s legal standing. Risk management and liability protection for landlord. Description.This matter involves a 13,600-square-foot commercial property located in Hayward, Alameda County. My client, the property owner, previously operated a family-owned machine shop on the premises. After selling the business, the property was leased to a kitchen cabinet company under a five-year commercial lease signed by one entity with an individual guarantor. Two years into the tenancy, the property owner discovered that the company currently operating in the space is not the original tenant entity but a different LLC that was never formally added to the lease. Although rent has been paid consistently during this period, all payments have come from the new LLC, raising concerns about enforceability and legal standing. The original entity may no longer exist due to acquisition or dissolution, leaving questions about whether the landlord could enforce the lease and guaranty in the event of default. The replacement LLC has requested a formal reassignment of the lease, assuring that no terms will change and that the original guarantor remains involved. However, the property owner has only been provided limited financial documents from the new entity and has not yet validated their accuracy or reliability. Without proper reassignment and due diligence, the landlord risks being left without recourse if the new entity defaults. On behalf of the landlord, Castaneda & Co., PC is reviewing the lease documents, evaluating the enforceability of the original guaranty, and advising on the proper procedure for lease reassignment. The focus includes ensuring the new entity has the legal capacity to assume the lease, verifying the guarantor’s continued obligation, and protecting the landlord’s rights to approve or deny the proposed transfer. The strategy also includes guiding the client through due diligence, such as reviewing financial statements, verifying corporate standing, and ensuring that assignment documents include updated guaranty protections. This matter underscores the importance of careful lease management in California commercial real estate, particularly when tenants change corporate structures mid-term. It demonstrates how landlords can safeguard themselves from liability through proper documentation, financial due diligence, and enforceable guaranty provisions. By representing the landlord in this dispute, Castaneda & Co., PC reinforces its reputation as a Bay Area real estate litigation and counseling firm dedicated to protecting property owners’ interests in commercial leasing matters., 2024
- Residential Real Estate Purchase in San Jose, CaliforniaTransaction Overview:This transaction involved a residential property in San Jose, California, purchased for $1,085,000 with an initial deposit of $32,550 and financing through a conventional loan. The complexity arose from post-purchase discoveries regarding significant structural and code issues with unpermitted renovations, which were not disclosed before closing.Key Dispute Summary:Failure to Disclose Structural Defects and Fire Damage: The sellers and agents allegedly failed to disclose prior fire damage to the property and significant plumbing issues, including a faulty sewer line that required an estimated $70,000 in repairs. These undisclosed issues have substantial implications for the buyer’s ability to use the property safely and legally.Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Agents: The buyer’s agents are accused of failing to adequately investigate or inform the buyers about the unpermitted work and the potential legal repercussions, thereby breaching their fiduciary duty. This alleged lack of due diligence has led to substantial legal and repair costs for the buyers, who claim they were misled regarding the property’s condition and legality.Interest Rate Liability in Rescission Claim: The buyers are also pursuing equitable damages under a rescission claim due to the fraudulent misrepresentation of the property’s condition. They argue that rescission should include compensation for increased mortgage interest rates over a 30-year term if they purchase a new property at current rates, a complex legal issue involving the calculation of future damages over a long-term financial impact.Legal Implications and Complexity:The disputes in this transaction present complex issues around fiduciary duty, real estate disclosure laws, and the equitable calculation of damages in rescission. The buyers are seeking extensive remedies, including disgorgement of agent commissions and future interest rate compensation, under California’s real estate and fiduciary laws., 2024
- Residential Real Estate Purchase in Alviso, CaliforniaTransaction Overview: This residential real estate transaction involved a property in Alviso, California, with a purchase price of $1,299,000. The buyer initially placed a deposit of $38,970 and secured financing of approximately $1,040,000. This complex 10-page purchase agreement included various contingencies, seller financing arrangements, and comprehensive clauses for disclosure, inspections, and compliance with governmental requirements.Key Dispute Summary:Disclosure and Misrepresentation: The primary dispute centers on allegations that the seller, through her agent, misrepresented the condition of the property by describing two buildings as “move-in ready.” In reality, these structures, including a converted workshop, lacked proper permits and were subject to existing code violations. The buyer claims that critical information was withheld, affecting the property’s usability and value.Failure to Disclose Active Code Violations: The seller allegedly failed to disclose ongoing code violations on the property, including unpermitted work in a converted garage and workshop, which the city classified as illegal living spaces. After closing, the buyer received notice of these violations and was informed that significant renovations or demolitions would be required to bring the structures into compliance. This has resulted in unexpected expenses and legal proceedings for the buyer.Agent Misrepresentation: The seller’s agent reportedly informed the buyer’s agent that due to the property’s annexation history, unpermitted structures might be “grandfathered” in or permitted without issue. This alleged statement was misleading, as it contradicted the city’s position on unpermitted work, ultimately exacerbating the buyer's financial obligations and regulatory compliance burdens.Legal Implications and Complexity: The complexity of this case lies in California’s disclosure laws, which require transparency in real estate transactions, particularly regarding unpermitted structures. The buyers contend that they relied on these misrepresentations to their detriment, leading to significant unforeseen costs for compliance and corrective actions. The dispute is compounded by allegations of agent negligence, as both agents in the transaction failed to ensure adequate verification of the property's permit status and habitability, 2024
- Residential Real Estate Purchase in San Martin, CaliforniaTransaction Overview: This transaction involved a residential property in San Martin, California, with a purchase price of $2,000,000. The buyers initially deposited $60,000, with additional financing specified in the contract. Given the substantial investment, this 16-page purchase agreement outlines complex contingencies for property inspections, title review, and financing, making it highly comprehensive.Key Dispute Summary:Disclosure Failures and Permitting Issues: The buyers alleged that the seller failed to disclose that the property was not permitted as a residential dwelling and had received prior red-tag violations from the county. These non-disclosures are significant, as they impact the property’s value and habitability, justifying the buyer’s demand for rescission and reimbursement of costs.Agent Misrepresentation: The listing agent reportedly described the property as a “residential single-family home” and indicated it had a “bedroom,” even though the property was a former sales office never intended for habitation. The agent’s misrepresentations misled the buyers, complicating the transaction with claims of intentional misrepresentation and reliance on inaccurate property use descriptions.Right to Rescind Based on Fraud: The buyers argue that the misleading disclosures entitle them to rescind the contract under California’s real estate laws, which impose a duty on sellers to fully disclose material facts. They seek full rescission and restitution, as well as recovery of consequential damages due to alleged fraud and reliance on incorrect property information.Legal Implications and Complexity: The disputes in this transaction underscore complex legal issues around disclosure requirements, the duty of real estate professionals, and the statutory right to rescind. With multiple layers of statutory and common law requirements, this case illustrates the challenges in ensuring full compliance with California’s rigorous real estate disclosure laws, 2024
- Transaction Overview: This residential real estate purchase involved a property located in Hayward, California. The transaction encountered significant legal disputes regarding the buyer's right to rescind the agreement and the return of the earnest money deposit. While the total purchase price and the amount of the earnest deposit are not specified, the complexity of the issues indicates a transaction of considerable value.Key Dispute Summary:Incomplete Disclosure: The sellers failed to provide a completed Transfer Disclosure Statement (TDS) required under California Civil Code section 1102.3. The TDS was missing a key attachment—the Agent Visual Inspection Disclosure (AVID) form—which is necessary to trigger the rescission period for the buyer. As a result, the buyer argued that the statutory period for rescission never began, justifying a refund of the earnest deposit.Improper Delivery Method: Instead of delivering the TDS through personal delivery or mail, the seller made the documents available for download on a third-party website. California Civil Code section 1102.10 mandates delivery by mail or in person and does not permit electronic delivery as a substitute. This discrepancy further supported the buyer's demand for a return of their earnest money, as the legal requirements for disclosure were not met.Non-Waivable Right to Rescind: The buyers contended that the right to rescind is non-waivable and protected by public policy. Under California law, any attempt to bypass these disclosure requirements is considered void as against public policy, adding complexity to the case, especially in arbitration or potential judicial review if unresolved.Legal Implications and Complexity: This dispute highlights the complexity of compliance with California’s disclosure requirements in real estate transactions. The issues of proper document completion and delivery methods add layers of legal intricacies, especially with statutory provisions that prohibit waivers of these rights. , 2024
- Commercial Real Estate Lease in San Jose involving a 15,233 sq. ft. industrial spaceThis detailed 60-page lease was structured for a 15,233-square-foot industrial space intended for use as a commercial environmental services office and storage facility. The lease term spans three years with a base monthly rent beginning at $7,616.50, subject to a 3% annual increase. Complexities in this agreement arise from several unique provisions, including a sub-metered utility sharing arrangement between the tenant and another occupant on the property. This requires the tenant to manage a master utility account, with specific invoicing and dispute resolution protocols. Additionally, the lease includes a two-year extension option, which requires fair market rent negotiations or a third-party appraisal if the parties cannot agree on rent. Environmental compliance was another key area, with extensive requirements on managing hazardous materials, reflecting the tenant’s business operations. Tenant improvements, indemnity clauses, and detailed insurance requirements further complicated the agreement. This lease also disclosed unpermitted structures and systems on the property, such as a mobile office and septic system, placing full risk and maintenance responsibility on the tenant, 2024
- Commercial Real Estate Lease in Mountain View involving a 1,435 sq. ft. restaurant spaceSpanning 72 pages, this lease covered a 1,435-square-foot restaurant space with a 10-year term. The lease began at $7,175 per month, increasing to $7,892.50 in the latter half. A five-year renewal option was included, along with a tenant improvement allowance of $40 per square foot. The complexity arose from specific provisions regarding usage limitations to avoid conflicts with nearby tenants, requiring detailed review and coordination. Further, the lease detailed tenant obligations for repair and maintenance, common area expenses, and environmental compliance, particularly given its location in a densely populated retail area., 2021
- Commercial Real Estate Lease in Daly City involving a 1,214 sq. ft. quick-service restaurant spaceThis comprehensive 70-page lease covered a 1,214-square-foot restaurant space in a major shopping center. The rent started at $7,284 per month, increasing every five years, with a percentage rent component of 5% on sales exceeding a designated breakpoint. The lease's complexity was underscored by the tenant improvement allowance of $75 per square foot and provisions for common area maintenance cost sharing. Additionally, the lease featured detailed clauses on business exclusivity within a five-mile radius and specific requirements for percentage rent reporting. Extensive default clauses and stringent lease termination conditions made this a particularly robust agreemen, 2016
- Commercial Real Estate Lease in Santa Cruz involving a 365 sq. ft. experiential retail spaceAt 46 pages, this lease was negotiated for a 365-square-foot unit to be used as an experiential outdoor activity business. The lease, spanning three years with two two-year renewal options, included an initial rent of $930.75 per month, with modest annual increases. The complexity in this document was centered on the tenant’s exclusive rights to a 200-square-foot outdoor patio space, which required a tailored provision allowing shared access when necessary for building maintenance. Additional details covered tenant liability for customer safety and structured limitations on event types and frequency, which required careful negotiation, 2022
- Commercial Real Estate Lease in San Jose involving a 1,590 sq. ft. café spaceThis 65-page lease covered a 1,590-square-foot unit for a café and take-out restaurant. With starting rent at $5,962.50, escalating by 3% annually, the 10-year term included two five-year renewal options. The lease allowed a generous tenant improvement allowance of $75 per square foot and provisions for outdoor seating to enhance the tenant's customer experience. Complexity in this lease lay in the tenant’s rights to co-brand operations within the space, as well as highly specific use clauses and indemnification obligations. The lease also required detailed coordination with the landlord on tenant improvements and imposed stringent timelines for the commencement of rent payments post-possession, 2013
- Commercial Real Estate Lease in San Jose involving a 2,560 sq. ft. grocery spaceSpanning 62 pages, this lease involved a 2,560-square-foot grocery store intended for a specialty meat and seafood market. Rent started at $9,344 per month with a 3% annual escalation over a 10-year term. The tenant received a $20 per square foot improvement allowance, along with a six-month rent-free period to complete build-outs. This lease’s complexity stemmed from extensive obligations regarding health and safety standards for food retail and the detailed extension clause allowing a seven-year renewal. Provisions on permitted signage, strict compliance with zoning laws, and tenant rights over adjacent spaces for customer use added further specificity, 2023
Special Licenses / Certifications
- California Bar License, 1999
- California Real Estate Broker License, 2006
- California Real Estate Broker License, 2005
- California Real Estate Broker License, 2004
- California Real Estate Broker License, 2003
- California Real Estate Broker License, 2002
Educational Background
- A committed and detail-oriented professional, Damian Castaneda earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Accounting from California State University, Long Beach, where he studied from 1988 to 1992. Graduating cum laude, Damian demonstrated a strong academic aptitude and a deep understanding of both business principles and financial management. His rigorous coursework laid a solid foundation for his successful legal career, blending analytical thinking and a methodical approach to problem-solving that continues to inform his work as an attorney today., 1988-1992
White Papers
- I am the host of Challenge Me, The Ultimate Student Challenge. I inspire students to bett The number one lie that we tell ourselves is that you have to be smart to get A’s in school. But it’s not true. Did you ever have a sick feeling in your stomach because everybody else in class was getting it, but you didn’t? Is it like World War 3 every night to get your high school student to do their homework? Or if you are a student, are you suffering from depression, stress, or anxiety because you feel like you are defined by your grades, but you want so much more out of your life? Hi, my name is Damian Castaneda. I have been a litigation attorney in California for 21 years. I struggled in school. And I felt less than everybody else because I was in the slow group. I never understood what the heck the teacher was talking about. But one day all of that changed. And I want to show you how that can change for you. I am on a mission to create a worldwide movement to help students learn the secret skills to getting “A’s” in school and still have a social life. I am doing this because I am the student that nobody believed in. But I believe in you. I believe that you CAN excel in school. I believe you really CAN be the person you have dreamed of becoming. I believe that you are just one A away from self-confidence, one A away from getting your parents off your back, and one A away from getting into the college of your dreams. Stop listening to people who just tell you to get better grades, but don’t show you how. Join me on the ultimate student journey that I call Challenge.Me. Read less https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/challenge-me/id1561514855, Challenge Me, The Ultimate Student Challenge, Education, 2024
Other Outstanding Achievements
- We have 180 Yelp reviews with an average rating of 4.8 Stars. https://www.yelp.com/biz/castaneda-and-co-san-jose-2?sort_by=rating_desc and https://www.yelp.com/biz/castaneda-and-co-oakland, 2020
- I am the host of Challenge Me, The Ultimate Student Challenge. I inspire students to bett The number one lie that we tell ourselves is that you have to be smart to get A’s in school. But it’s not true. Did you ever have a sick feeling in your stomach because everybody else in class was getting it, but you didn’t? Is it like World War 3 every night to get your high school student to do their homework? Or if you are a student, are you suffering from depression, stress, or anxiety because you feel like you are defined by your grades, but you want so much more out of your life? Hi, my name is Damian Castaneda. I have been a litigation attorney in California for 21 years. I struggled in school. And I felt less than everybody else because I was in the slow group. I never understood what the heck the teacher was talking about. But one day all of that changed. And I want to show you how that can change for you. I am on a mission to create a worldwide movement to help students learn the secret skills to getting “A’s” in school and still have a social life. I am doing this because I am the student that nobody believed in. But I believe in you. I believe that you CAN excel in school. I believe you really CAN be the person you have dreamed of becoming. I believe that you are just one A away from self-confidence, one A away from getting your parents off your back, and one A away from getting into the college of your dreams. Stop listening to people who just tell you to get better grades, but don’t show you how. Join me on the ultimate student journey that I call Challenge.Me. Read less https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/challenge-me/id1561514855, 2024
- We have 169 Google Reviews with a 5.0 Star Rating. https://www.google.com/search?aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l3j69i65j69i59.3310j0j4&ie=UTF-8&oq=castaneda%20%26&q=castaneda%20%26%20co.%20san%20jose&sourceid=chrome#mpd=~8520868253855723062/customers/reviews, 2025
Honors
- I'm honored to have been recognized by ThreeBestRated.com as one of the top three real estate attorneys in the region, a distinction that speaks to our firm’s dedication to quality, client care, and integrity in legal practice. This recognition by ThreeBestRated is especially meaningful due to their comprehensive 50-Point Inspection, which scrutinizes each aspect of a business's operations, from professional expertise and client satisfaction to transparency, reputation, and overall excellence. ThreeBestRated’s review process examines our track record in real estate law, including our work in residential and commercial transactions, complex co-ownership disputes, commercial lease reviews, partition actions, and quiet title cases. They also consider our strong reputation for trustworthiness and positive client outcomes. Our firm, Castaneda & Co., has earned high marks for our consistent performance in complex real estate matters, addressing the specific needs of both individuals and small businesses across California. The 50-Point Inspection also reviewed our commitment to clear communication and client accessibility. Our firm prioritizes responsiveness to provide clients with practical, personalized guidance. This award reflects our daily efforts to provide knowledgeable, reliable legal representation and our dedication to making legal services accessible and effective for the communities we serve. , 3 Best Real Estate Lawyers in San Jose, CA, https://threebestrated.com/real-estate-lawyers-in-san-jose-ca, 2024
- I'm truly honored to be recognized by ThreeBestRated.com as one of the top real estate attorneys in our region. This acknowledgment from ThreeBestRated reflects Castaneda & Co.’s commitment to exceptional client service and thorough expertise in real estate and business law. Their detailed 50-Point Inspection evaluates numerous aspects, including a firm’s reputation, client satisfaction, experience, and commitment to quality. Our firm was selected based on our dedication to guiding clients through complex legal issues such as residential and commercial real estate transactions, contract disputes, co-ownership challenges, commercial lease analysis, partition actions, and quiet title claims. This recognition underscores our approach of providing comprehensive, individualized representation that meets the needs of both individuals and businesses navigating real estate matters. Additionally, the award reflects our emphasis on client care and accessibility. This recognition from ThreeBestRated is a meaningful reminder of our mission to provide trusted, high-quality legal support to our community, 3 Best Real Estate Lawyers in San Jose, CA, https://threebestrated.com/real-estate-lawyers-in-san-jose-ca, 2020
- I’m honored to be recognized by ThreeBestRated.com as one of the top real estate attorneys locally. This distinction reflects Castaneda & Co.’s dedication to excellence and client-focused service in real estate and business law. ThreeBestRated’s selection process is comprehensive, involving a 50-Point Inspection that assesses key factors such as experience, client satisfaction, reputation, and reliability. This award highlights our expertise in handling a range of complex real estate issues, from residential and commercial transactions to co-ownership disputes, lease negotiations, contract litigation, partition actions, and quiet title cases. ThreeBestRated acknowledged our commitment to helping clients navigate challenging legal landscapes, emphasizing our attention to detail, in-depth knowledge, and tailored approach for both individuals and small businesses. The recognition also affirms our dedication to accessibility and responsiveness. We place a high value on client communication to ensure each client feels supported and informed. This honor from ThreeBestRated serves as a meaningful reminder of our mission to deliver impactful, trustworthy, and client-centered legal services that make a difference in the lives of those we serve. , 3 Best Real Estate Lawyers in San Jose, CA, https://threebestrated.com/real-estate-lawyers-in-san-jose-ca, 2021
- I am honored to have been recognized by ThreeBestRated.com as one of the top three real estate attorneys in the area. This distinction is a testament to Castaneda & Co.'s dedication to excellence in real estate and business law. ThreeBestRated’s selection process involves an in-depth 50-Point Inspection, which rigorously evaluates key aspects such as client satisfaction, reputation, responsiveness, and service quality. At Castaneda & Co., we are proud to be acknowledged for our comprehensive expertise in handling complex real estate issues. Our work spans residential and commercial transactions, contract disputes, commercial lease reviews, co-ownership challenges, partition actions, and quiet title cases. ThreeBestRated’s inspection highlighted our commitment to providing skilled representation for individuals and small businesses alike, and our client-first approach to tackling these multifaceted legal matters. This recognition also underscores our commitment to client care and accessibility. We prioritize clear communication and tailored guidance that meets each client’s unique needs. This award is a meaningful affirmation of our efforts to make reliable legal support accessible and impactful for the communities we serve, and it encourages us to keep delivering trusted, high-quality service in every case. , 3 Best Real Estate Lawyers in San Jose, CA, https://threebestrated.com/real-estate-lawyers-in-san-jose-ca, 2022
- I’m deeply honored to be recognized by ThreeBestRated.com as one of the top real estate attorneys in the area. This recognition highlights our firm’s unwavering commitment to delivering exceptional service in real estate and business law. ThreeBestRated’s rigorous 50-Point Inspection thoroughly evaluated Castaneda & Co. on criteria such as reputation, client feedback, service quality, and responsiveness—qualities that we continuously strive to uphold. Our firm was recognized for our work in complex areas of real estate law, such as residential and commercial transactions, lease reviews, contract disputes, co-ownership matters, partition actions, and quiet title cases. ThreeBestRated’s inspection particularly emphasized our expertise in addressing a range of client needs and providing clear, dependable guidance through complicated real estate issues. This honor also reflects our commitment to building strong client relationships. We’re known for our accessibility, and fostering open, honest communication at every stage. Being acknowledged in this way inspires us to continue our dedication to quality and accessibility in legal services, ensuring that our clients have the confidence and support they need to navigate any real estate or business law challenge. , 3 Best Real Estate Lawyers in San Jose, CA, https://threebestrated.com/real-estate-lawyers-in-san-jose-ca, 2023
Industry Groups
- Business/Corporate
- Commercial Leasing And Property Management
- Construction and Property Development
- Financial Services and Title Insurance
- Investment and Commercial Real Estate
- Real Estate
- Real Estate Brokerage and Agency
Office location for Damian Castaneda
200 East San Martin Ave
Unit 540
San Martin, CA 95046
Phone: 844-689-7015
Selections
1 Year Super Lawyers
- Super Lawyers: 2026
