Attorney, Esq.

(SBN XXXXXX)
1
LAW OFFICES OF ATTORNEY, PC
2 ______ Broadway, ____ Floor
Oakland, California 94612
3 Telephone: XXXXXXXX
Facsimile: XXXXXXXX
4
Email: [email protected]
5
Attorney for Plaintiffs
6

7
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
9

10
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

11
XXXXXX FORMAN; XXXXXX and Case No.:
12
DAVID XXXXXX,
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;
Plaintiffs, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
14
vs.
15

16 XXXXXX GARDNER; CRESCENT LLC;

XXXXXX and DOES 1-30, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18

19

20
Plaintiffs XXXXXX FORMAN, XXXXXX and DAVID XXXXXX, (hereinafter
21

22
collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

23 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

24 1. At all times herein relevant, plain tiffs XXXXXX FORMAN, XXXXXX, and
25
DAVID XXXXXX were competent adults. All plaintiffs resided in the city of Oakland, County
26
of Alameda, and State of California.
27

28 2. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, defendants XXXXXX

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 1
 GARDNER; CRESCENT LLC; XXXXXX and DOES 1-30 (hereinafter collectively referred to
1

2 as “Defendants”), owned, controlled, and/or managed the units that Plaintiffs resided in during

3 all relevant time periods in this complaint.

4
3. Defendants DOES 1-30 are individuals, business entities, non-profit
5
corporations, other organizations and entities, and/or alter egos of other defendants, doing
6

7
business in the County of Alameda and/or contracted to do work in the County of Alameda.

8 4. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe, and thereon allege, that at all times
9 relevant herein, named defendants and defendants sued as DOES 1-30 were the agents,
10
employees, and representatives of their fellow co-defendants, and in doing the things alleged in
11
this complaint, were acting within the course and scope of that agency and employment, and,
12

13 therefore, are vicariously liable for the acts of each other. Each act was ratified by each other

14 defendant. Each defendant is liable, in whole or in part, for Plaintiffs’ damages and injuries.
15
5. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of defendants sued, as DOES 1-30, but will
16
seek leave to amend this complaint when Plaintiffs discover the identity of any of the
17
Defendants now sued under the fictitious names DOES 1-30.
18

19 6. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants were negligently

20 and legally responsible for the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, and for Plaintiffs’ damages
21
and injuries.
22
7. This Court is the proper court because Defendants do business in its
23

24
jurisdictional area. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s jurisdictional

25 area. The events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s
26 jurisdictional area. The breach of contract causes are founded upon a contract entered into
27
within this Court’s jurisdictional area. The contractual obligations were to be performed within
28

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 2
 this Court’s jurisdictional area.
1

2 8. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, that at all relevant times,

3 Defendants were Plaintiffs' landlords, and Plaintiffs were the tenants of Defendants as those
4
terms “landlord” and “tenant” are defined under California common law, under California Code
5
of Civil Procedure sections 1161 et seq., and under California Civil Code section 1980.
6

7
9. On or about _______, 20____, plaintiff XXXXXX FORMAN and plaintiff

8 XXXXXX, as tenants, and defendants XXXXXX GARDNER; CRESCENT LLC and

9 XXXXXX, as owner and/or landlord and/or lessor, agent/property manager entered into a
10
written rental agreement to rent the premises located at _____________, Oakland, California
11
94610, to these plaintiffs. Such address is hereinafter referred to as “Subject Premises.” The
12

13 material terms of this residential rental agreement required these plaintiffs to pay monthly rent

14 of $3,250.00 and a security deposit of $3,000.00. After a diligent search, these plaintiffs have
15
been unable to locate a copy of this written agreement.
16
10. On or about November 21, 2001, plaintiff DAVID XXXXXX, as tenant, and
17
defendants XXXXXX GARDNER; CRESCENT LLC and XXXXXX, as owner and/or landlord
18

19 and/or lessor, agent/property manager entered into a written rental agreement to rent the

20 premises located at _______________, Oakland, California 94610, to these plaintiffs. Such

21
address is hereinafter referred to as “Subject Premises II.” The material terms of this residential
22
rental agreement required these plaintiffs to pay monthly rent of $1,075.00 and a security
23

24
deposit of $2,500.00. A true and correct copy of this agreement is attached hereto as EXHIBIT

25 A.
26 11. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were the owners and/or property
27
managers or the agents, employees, and/or representatives of the owners and/or property
28

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 3
 managers of the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II.
1

2 12. Since becoming owners and/or property managers or the agents and/or

3 employees of the owners and/or property managers of the Subject Premises and Subject
4
Premises II, Defendants have allowed the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II to contain
5
several substantial habitability defects, which rendered it unfit for human occupancy under
6

7
California common law and statutes. The defects were due to Defendants’ failure to maintain

8 the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II. These substantial habitability defects existed in
9 Plaintiffs' units, and together and separately, constituted violations of applicable housing laws,
10
including but not limited to California Civil Code sections 1941.1, California Health and Safety
11
Code sections 17920 et seq., and local housing and building codes.
12

13 13. At all times relevant herein, substantial defective conditions within and related to

14 the Subject Premises include, but are not limited to, the following: inadequate/defective wiring,
15
mold, defective plumbing, no heat, common areas unclean, water leaks intrusions, defective
16
windows, cracks in walls, and general dilapidation and lack of maintenance. These defects were
17
severe and longstanding. These defects resulted in injuries and damages to Plaintiffs.
18

19 14. At all times relevant herein, substantial defective conditions within and related to

20 Subject Premises II include, but are not limited to, the following: rodents, defective plumbing,
21
water intrusion in common areas, cracks in walls, lead peeling paint in kitchen, no hot water and
22
general dilapidation and improper maintenance. These defects were severe and longstanding.
23

24
15. Additionally, Defendants knew and should have known the Subject Premises and

25 Subject Premises II constituted illegal units because, at all times relevant herein, no Certificate
26 of Occupancy existed for the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II.
27
16. Defendants were on notice of the aforementioned defects. For example, Plaintiffs
28

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 4
 sent several repair requests to Defendants to have the aforementioned defects remedied.
1

2 Plaintiffs complained both, verbally and in writing. Further, the defective conditions were

3 severe and longstanding such that Defendants would have noticed them had they conducted a
4
reasonable inspection of the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II.
5
17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, Defendants violated
6

7
California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3 because they allowed the Subject Premises

8 and Subject Premises II to contain general dilapidation and improper maintenance, constitute a
9 nuisance, and to be substandard in every way identified herein and as defined by applicable
10
statutes, including Section 17920.3.
11
18. Despite Defendants having adequate opportunity and notice to repair said
12

13 defects prior to Plaintiffs filing this complaint. Defendants failed and refused to repair the

14 defects existing in the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II.

15
19. Defendants have also engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation toward
16
Plaintiffs, which included, but was not limited to, the following: entering Plaintiffs’ units
17
without notice; refusing to repair substantial habitability defects; making verbal threats to evict
18

19 Plaintiffs.

20 20. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants engaged in the
21
aforementioned neglect, retaliation, harassment and intimidation, to make Plaintiffs’ lives at the
22
Subject Premises and Subject Premises II as uncomfortable as possible such that they would
23

24
eventually move-out.

25 21. Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort
26 and annoyance, overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses, due to both Defendants’ acts
27
and omissions and the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises and Subject
28

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 5
 Premises II.
1

2 22. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages below.

3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
4
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ.
5 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)

6 23. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
7
preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
8
24. Plaintiffs made requests for repairs and reported uninhabitable conditions in their
9

10
units to Defendants. However, these requests were ignored, refused, denied, or inadequately

11 addressed. This resulted in Defendants failing to provide and maintain the Subject Premises and
12
Subject Premises II in a habitable condition.
13
25. Defendants had an obligation pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1941 et
14
seq., and common law, to provide and maintain the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II
15

16 rented to Plaintiffs in a habitable condition. Under these obligations, Defendants owed a legal

17 duty to Plaintiffs to use due care to provide and maintain a habitable premises. Defendants
18
breached their legal duty to Plaintiffs by making inadequate repairs, by failing and refusing to
19
make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary repairs to the Subject Premises and Subject
20
Premises II after they both knew and should have known of the poor conditions existing at the
21

22 Subject Premises and Subject Premises.

23 26. The defective conditions were substantial. Defendants’ breaches of their legal
24
duty caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort
25
and annoyance, overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages in amounts to
26

27
be proven at trial. Defendants’ breaches were both, actual and legal causes of Plaintiffs’

28 complained of injuries and damages. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 6
 damages.
1

2 27. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.

3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

CONTRACTUAL BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
4
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ.
5 (All Plaintiffs v. XXXXXX GARDNER, and DOES 1-30)

6 28. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
7
preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
8
29. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into written rental agreements to lease the
9

10
Subject Premises and Subject Premises II. Every lease for residential property contains an

11 implied warranty of habitability.

12
30. During Plaintiffs' tenancies and prior to filing of this complaint, Plaintiffs
13
performed their obligations or were excused from performing their obligations under the written
14
rental agreements.
15

16 31. Here, Defendants breached said agreements by making inadequate repairs, by

17 failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary repairs to the Subject
18
Premises and Subject Premises II after they knew and should have known of the poor conditions
19
of the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II.
20
32. Defendants further breached the rental agreements on multiple occasions by
21

22 collecting rent from Plaintiffs to which Defendants were not entitled because of the substantial

23 habitability defects.
24
33. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including
25
overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to
26

27
be ascertained at trial. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages.

28 34. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 7
 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
1
BREACH OF C ONTRACT
2 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3300 ET SEQ.
(All Plaintiffs v. XXXXXX GARDNER, and DOES 1-30)
3
35. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
4

5 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.

6 36. Defendants were obligated to perform under the terms of their rental agreements
7
with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs performed, or were excused from performing, their obligations under
8
the rental agreements. A covenant to provide a habitable premises and a covenant of good faith
9

10
and fair dealing are contained in every residential rental agreement in the State of California.

11 37. Regarding the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendants made an
12
implied promise not to do anything that would unfairly interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to
13
receives benefits under their residential rental agreement. Defendants also made an implied
14
promise not to mislead or take unfair advantage of Plaintiffs.
15

16 38. Furthermore, Defendants warranted that the Subject Premises was in a habitable

17 condition at the time of entering into each agreement.

18
39. Defendants breached the terms of each agreement on multiple occasions during
19
the period preceding the filing of this complaint by failing to make requested repairs, failing to
20
provide a habitable premises to each Plaintiff, and collecting rent without repairing habitability
21

22 defects at the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II after being given notice and reasonable

23 opportunity to do so. Defendants also failed to reasonably inspect the Subject Premises and
24
Subject Premises II for defects, including health and safety hazards. Defendants also failed to
25
warn and protect Plaintiffs from harm due to the aforementioned defective conditions, and
26

27
health and safety hazards.

28 40. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages including over-

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 8
 payment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be
1

2 ascertained at trial. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages.

3 41. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.

4
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1927
6 (All Plaintiffs v. XXXXXX GARDNER, and DOES 1-30)
7
42. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
8
preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
9

10
43. Every residential rental agreement includes the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

11 This covenant prohibits lessors and landlords from taking actions and inactions that diminish
12
Plaintiffs' beneficial enjoyment of the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II. The covenant
13
also places on lessors and landlords, an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to protect
14
Plaintiffs' quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II from interference by
15

16 other persons on or about the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II.

17 44. Defendants, by and through the acts and omissions alleged herein, breached the
18
covenant of quiet enjoyment. Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the
19
Subject Premises and Subject Premises II by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions
20
to exist after both, knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these
21

22 conditions.

23 45. Defendants also breached Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment by engaging in a pattern of

24
harassment, intimidation and retaliation toward Plaintiffs, as alleged throughout this complaint.
25
46. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages including
26

27
overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to

28 be ascertained at trial. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages.

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 9
 1

2 47. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.

3 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

PRIVATE NUISANCE
4
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3501 ET SEQ.
5 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)

6 48. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
7
preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
8
49. Defendants owned, controlled and/or managed the Subject Premises and Subject
9

10
Premises II.

11 50. Defendants created a nuisance on the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II
12
by interfering with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment, by allowing the aforementioned defective
13
conditions, and others, to exist after being knowing of their existence and having an opportunity
14
to correct these defective conditions.
15

16 51. These conditions were harmful to Plaintiffs' health, offensive to their senses, and

17 an obstruction to their free use of the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II, which
18
substantially interfered with the comfortable enjoyment of Plaintiffs' life and property.
19
52. Plaintiffs made several complaints to Defendants regarding the uninhabitable
20
conditions of the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II. Plaintiffs complained of these and
21

22 other disturbances to their possession and quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises and Subject

23 Premises II. Defendants failed and refused to repair the defective conditions of the Subject
24
Premises. Defendants’ failure to make repairs was intentional and unreasonable because
25
Defendants knew of the defects, and failed and refused to make repairs. In the alternative,
26

27
Defendants’ conduct was negligent and/or reckless.

28 53. Any reasonable person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 10
 Defendants’ conduct.
1

2 54. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. As a direct and proximate

3 result of the aforementioned defective conditions, Plaintiffs were harmed. Plaintiffs suffered
4
injuries and damages, including the following: emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance,
5
loss of use, overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages, in amounts to be
6

7
proven at trial. Plaintiffs are also seeking statutorily authorized interest on their damages.

8 55. The harm to Plaintiffs outweigh any potential benefit, if any, of Defendants’
9 conduct.
10
56. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
11
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
PREMISES LIABILITY
13 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1714
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
14
57. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
15

16 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.

17 58. Defendants owned, controlled, and/or managed the Subject Premises and Subject
18
Premises II. Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages because of the way Defendants owned,
19
controlled, and/or managed the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II.
20
59. As tenants, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care that included maintaining
21

22 the Subject Premises and performing repairs in a reasonable and safe manner.

23 60. The Subject Premises contained substantial habitability defects, which included,
24
but were not limited to, the following: inadequate/defective wiring, mold, defective plumbing,
25
no heat, common areas unclean, water leaks intrusions, defective windows, cracks in walls, and
26

27
general dilapidation and lack of maintenance. Further, Subject Premises II also contained

28 substantial habitability defects, which include, but are limited to, the following: rodents,

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 11
 defective plumbing, water intrusion in common areas, cracks in walls, lead peeling paint in
1

2 kitchen, no hot water and general dilapidation and improper maintenance.

3 61. Defendants knew and should have known about the aforementioned substantial
4
habitability defects, and that exposure to these defective conditions posed a risk of injuries and
5
damages to Plaintiffs. For example, Plaintiffs complained to Defendants about the
6

7
aforementioned defective conditions. Moreover, a reasonable inspection would have revealed

8 the aforementioned defective conditions.

9 62. After Defendants knew and should have known of the aforementioned defects,
10
Defendants failed and refused to repair the defective conditions. Defendants also had the ability
11
and opportunity to warn Plaintiffs about the defective conditions, including the risk of injuries
12

13 and damages, but did not do so.

14 63. Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ negligence. At a

15
minimum, Defendants were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.
16
64. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages included the following: emotional distress,
17
discomfort and annoyance, overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiffs are
18

19 seeking statutorily authorized interest on their damages.

20 65. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.

21
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 NEGLIGENCE
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
23
66. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
24

25 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.

26 67. Defendants owed a duty of care to maintain the Subject Premises and Subject
27
Premises II in a habitable condition, and not violate Plaintiffs' rights. When Defendants knew
28

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 12
 and should have known of the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises and Subject
1

2 Premises II, Defendants had a duty to take action such as repairing the defective conditions.

3 68. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by failing to maintain the Subject
4
Premises and Subject Premises II, and by failing to repair the aforementioned defective
5
conditions.
6

7
69. Defendants also breached their duties by retaliating against Plaintiffs for

8 exercising their rights as described above.

9 70. Defendants violated California Civil Code sections 1941.1and 1942.5 because
10
Defendants intentionally and/or negligently failed and refused to remedy the defective,
11
dilapidated, and appalling conditions at the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II.
12

13 71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs suffered

14 injuries and damages.

15
72. Plaintiffs are also in the class of persons that California Civil Code sections
16
1941.1and 1942.5 were intended to protect. The harm that Plaintiffs suffered is the kind that
17
California Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 was designed to prevent. Defendants violated
18

19 these statutes by failing and refusing to repair defective conditions existing at the Subject

20 Premises and Subject Premises II. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a breach of said statutes.
21
Therefore, Defendants’ statutory breaches constitute negligence per se.
22
73. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of Defendants,
23

24
Plaintiffs suffered harm, including emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, overpayment

25 of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other injuries and damages, in amounts to be proven at
26 trial. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages.
27
74. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
28

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 13
 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
RETALIATION
2 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1942.5
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
3
75. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
4

5 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.

6 76. Plaintiffs made requests for repairs and complained about habitability defects
7
existing at the Subject Premises and Subject Premises II to Defendants. In particular, Plaintiffs
8
consistently exercised their rights to inform Defendants about the above-mentioned nuisance
9

10
and breach of Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Plaintiffs were within their

11 rights to make the aforementioned requests for repairs and complaints and are, and were,
12
protected from being retaliated against for making these requests and complaints.
13
77. Plaintiffs were not in default as to their rent payments. Further, Plaintiffs are
14
informed, believe, and allege, no rent was owed because the substantial habitability defects
15

16 negated rent for each month.

17 78. Defendants violated Section 1942.5 because they decreased services such as
18
repairs. Defendants continually denied repairs and maintenance to Plaintiffs' units and
19
surrounding common areas for the stated reason of retaliating against Plaintiffs for engaging in
20
the protected activity.
21

22 79. Defendants engaged in the aforementioned conduct within 180 days of Plaintiffs

23 complaining to Defendants about habitability defects.

24
80. The aforementioned retaliatory conduct constitutes harassment and intimidation.
25
Further, Defendants engaged in the aforementioned retaliatory conduct for the stated reason of
26

27
retaliating against Plaintiffs for exercising their rights, which included, but were not limited to,

28 the following: making complaints about tenantability; organizing as tenants to resist

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 14
 Defendants’ efforts to deprive Plaintiffs of beneficial use and enjoyment; and demanding respect
1

2 and accountability from Defendants.

3 81. Plaintiffs suffered actual damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Defendants

4
are also liable for punitive damages.
5
82. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
6

7
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
OAKLAND JUST CAUSE ORDINANCE
8 VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 8.22.300 ET SEQ.
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
9

10
83. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of

11 proceeding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.

12
84. As tenants of residential property located in Oakland, California, and subject to
13
Oakland Municipal Code Sections 8.22.300 et seq. (the “Just Cause Ordinance”), Plaintiffs are
14
entitled to bring an action against all defendants who have violated the Just Cause Ordinance to
15

16 Plaintiffs’ detriment.

17 85. The Just Cause Ordinance provides safeguards for Oakland tenants. When a
18
landlord wrongfully endeavors to recover possession of a property in violation of the Just Cause
19
Ordinance, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, including damages for emotional distress.
20
86. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by failing to make repairs to the
21

22 Subject Premises and by not advising Plaintiffs of the Just Cause Ordinance or their right to

23 contact the City of Oakland Residential Rent Adjustment Program.

24
87. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by unlawfully influencing or
25
attempting to influence Plaintiffs to relinquish possession outside of the legal eviction process.
26

27
88. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by wrongfully endeavoring to

28 recover possession of the Subject Premises when Plaintiffs exercised their rights as tenants,

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 15
 including demanding repairs.
1

2 89. Plaintiffs also suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ violations.

3 Here, Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages included emotional distress and out-of-pocket expenses.
4
90. Defendants acted in knowing violation or reckless disregard of the Just Cause
5
Ordinance, which justifies an award of treble damages to Plaintiffs.
6

7
91. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.

8 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

OAKLAND TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE
9 VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 8.22.600 ET SEQ.
10
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)

11 92. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of
12
proceeding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
13
93. As tenants of residential property located in Oakland, California, and subject to
14
Oakland City Ordinance 8.22.600, et seq. (the “Tenant Protection Ordinance”), Plaintiffs are
15

16 entitled to bring an action against all Defendants who have violated the Tenant Protection

17 Ordinance to Plaintiffs’ detriment.

18
94. The Tenant Protection Ordinance provides safeguards for Oakland tenants.
19
When a landlord and property manager, or agent thereof, wrongfully harasses tenants or fails to
20
provide a habitable premises, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, including damages for
21

22 emotional distress.

23 95. Defendants have violated the Tenant Protection Ordinance by wrongfully

24
endeavoring to recover possession of the Subject Premises, by failing to make repairs to the
25
Subject Premises, influencing or attempting to influence Plaintiffs to vacate the Subject
26

27
Premises, substantially interfering with Plaintiffs’ rights to quiet use and enjoyment of the

28 Subject Premises, and retaliating against Plaintiffs for exercising their rights as tenants.

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 16
 96. Plaintiffs were harmed by these violations in that they suffered emotional
1

2 distress, bodily injury, pain and suffering, physical discomfort and annoyance, over-payment of

3 rent, loss of personal property, and out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiffs have also been forced to
4
hire an attorney to enforce their rights.
5
97. Defendants acted in knowing violation or reckless disregard of the Tenant
6

7
Protection Ordinance, justifying an award of treble damages to Plaintiffs.

8 98. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.

9 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
11 SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ.
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
12

13 99. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the

14 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.

15
100. By reason of Defendants' failure to comply with state and local laws for the
16
management of real property, Defendants' conduct constitutes an unfair business practice under
17
California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and 17500 et seq.
18

19 101. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, it is the regular practice of

20 Defendants to intentionally disregard the rights of tenants and violate applicable laws relating to
21
tenancies in their buildings in ways that include, but are not limited to, failing to provide quiet
22
enjoyment, retaliating against tenants, and allowing the defects identified herein to continue to
23

24
exist despite having adequate opportunity to remediate said defects.

25 102. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were conducting business under the laws
26 of the State of California, the County of Alameda, and City of Oakland. In conducting said
27
business, Defendants were obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California, the
28

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 17
 County of Alameda, and the City of Oakland.
1

2 103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have

3 accrued unjust enrichment.

4
104. Wherefore Plaintiffs pray for an order for restitution requiring Defendants to
5
restore to Plaintiffs, all money obtained from Plaintiffs, including but not limited to, all monthly
6

7
rent payments.

8 105. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for an order enjoining Defendants from engaging in
9 retaliatory conduct.
10
106. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for an order requiring Defendants to repair all
11
defective conditions at the Subject Premises.
12

13 CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
14
107. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this claim for exemplary damages, the
15

16 allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.

17 108. Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiffs' rights and retaliated against Plaintiffs
18
for enforcing their rights as tenants.
19
109. Defendants' actions were willful and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs'
20
rights. Such willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' rights justifies an award of punitive
21

22 damages because Defendants’ conduct was oppressive and malicious as defined by California

23 Civil Code section 3294. The willful failure and refusal to repair longstanding defects existing
24
in Plaintiffs' units also merits an award of substantial punitive damages against all Defendants.
25
Defendants knew or should have known that their intentional failure to maintain and repair the
26

27
Subject Premises posed a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ actions arose to

28 despicable conduct carried out with willful and conscious disregard of the consumer and tenant

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 18
 rights and safety of others including Plaintiffs.
1

3 PRAYER
4
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows as to all Defendants:
5
A. For general damages according to proof for each cause of action;
6

7
B. For special damages including property damage and loss according to proof for

8 each cause of action;

9 C. For punitive and exemplary damages according to statute and according to proof,
10
to be determined at trial;
11
D. For statutory damages of $2,000.00 for violation of Civil Code section 1942.5;
12

13 E. For incidental expenses, past, present and future,

14 F. For interest on the amount of losses incurred at the prevailing legal rate;
15
G. For attorney's fees according to contract and statute, in the amount of
16
$100,000.00, pursuant to Civil Code sections 1942.5(i) and Code of Civil Procedure section
17
1021.5;
18

19 H. For pre-judgment interest;

20 I. For costs of suit incurred herein;

21
J. For an order requiring Defendants to disgorge any improper profits and restore
22
Plaintiffs’ monetary losses resulting from Defendants' unfair business practices; for restitution to
23

24
Plaintiffs of those profits and losses; and any prejudgment interest thereon;

25 K. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent

26 injunction, all enjoining Defendants and each of them, to repair and remedy defective conditions
27
existing at the Subject Premises; and to cease and desist from retaliating against Plaintiffs for
28

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 19
 exercising their rights as tenants.
1

2 L. For such other and further relief which this Court deems just and proper.

5 Dated: June 12, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF ATTORNEY, PC

6
____________________________________
7
Attorney, Esq.
8 Attorney for Plaintiffs

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 20
 1

8
EXHIBIT A
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

______ et al. v. _________, et al.

Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial 21