Case Background
The Hohne family—Victor, Starlie, Chloe, and Sophia Hohne—filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County challenging the conduct of GAL Starlie Hohne. Appointed by the court as guardian, Starlie was responsible for making decisions concerning the welfare of a minor or other protected individual. The family alleged that her actions as guardian warranted judicial review.
Cause
The Hohnes claimed that Starlie failed to act in the ward’s best interests. They alleged she mismanaged her responsibilities, acted without proper authorization, and neglected essential duties. According to the complaint, she placed her own interests above those of the ward and withheld important information from the family, limiting their ability to remain informed and involved.
Injury
The family asserted that Starlie’s actions caused them emotional distress and eroded trust in the guardianship. They claimed her conduct created uncertainty about the ward’s care and excluded them from meaningful participation in critical decisions, adversely affecting their emotional well-being and family unity.
Damages
The Hohnes sought damages for emotional harm and the strain on their family relationships. They also asked the court to modify or revoke Starlie’s authority to ensure proper oversight and care for the ward.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Hohne Chloe | Hohne Sophia | Hohne Starlie | Hohne Victor
Counsel for Plaintiff: John Bryant Richards
Defendant(s): Juul-Dam Delia | Richardson Brian
Counsel for Defendants: Thomas Sands
Claims
The lawsuit alleged breach of fiduciary duty, misconduct, and failure to fulfill legal obligations. The Hohnes requested Starlie’s removal as guardian or other corrective measures to protect the ward’s welfare.
Defense
Defendants Delia Juul-Dam and Brian Richardson generally denied all allegations in the Hohne family’s complaint, disputing that their actions caused any injury or damage. They asserted multiple affirmative defenses, including failure to state a cause of action, expiration of the statute of limitations, and plaintiffs’ failure to mitigate damages. They also alleged that the plaintiffs bore comparative fault, assumed the risk, and that third parties contributed to or caused the alleged harm.
Additional defenses included apportionment of fault among other defendants, laches, waiver, estoppel, and intervening or superseding causes that occurred after the alleged incident. The defendants reserved the right to add further defenses as new facts emerged, and sought dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, statutory damages, and any other relief the court deemed appropriate.
Jury Verdict
On March 3, 2025, a Los Angeles County jury returned a $4,157,000 verdict in favor of plaintiffs Chloe and Sophia Hohne in their premises liability and negligence case against defendants Delia Juul-Dam, Brian Richardson, and others, arising from alleged lead-based paint hazards and negligent property management. The jury found that the defendants’ conduct, including violations of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act and negligent ownership, use, and maintenance of the property, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs’ harm. Damages awarded covered past and future economic losses, including lost earnings and medical expenses, as well as past and future noneconomic losses for physical pain, mental suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. Responsibility was apportioned among the parties to total 100%, with the award reflecting the combined economic and noneconomic damages for all plaintiffs.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
