Preview
ELECTRONICALLY
1 TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP FILED
JOSEPH S. TOBENER, SBN 203419 Superior Court of California,
2 JULIA O. WOBBE, SBN 284516 County of San Francisco
21 Masonic Avenue, Suite A 05/03/2024
3 San Francisco, California 94118 Clerk of the Court
Telephone: (415) 504-2165 BY: MARK UDAN
4 Facsimile: (415) 418-3492 Deputy Clerk
5
6 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CGC-24-614397
10
11 SHARON FESTINGER and Case No.:
JAMES KINDLER,
12 (Unlimited Civil Case)
13 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR
(1) NEGLIGENCE
14 v. (2) WRONGFUL EVICTION IN
VIOLATION OF THE SAN
15 FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE
1020 BUSH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, (3) TENANT HARASSMENT IN
16 DAVIS-PAUL MANAGEMENT GROUP, VIOLATION OF SECTION 37.10B OF
INC., and THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT
17 DOES 1 through 10, ORDINANCE
(4) BREACH OF CONTRACT
18 (5) NUISANCE
Defendants. (6) CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
19 (7) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
(8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
20 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(9) TRESPASS
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT - 1
1 Plaintiffs SHARON FESTINGER and JAMES KINDLER allege:
2 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
3 1. From September 1995 to May 10, 2023, Plaintiff JAMES KINDLER was a
4 residential tenant at 168 Palm Avenue, Unit 2A, San Francisco, California (“Subject Unit”),
5 pursuant to a written lease. Around June 2018, Plaintiff SHARON FESTINGER moved into the
6 Subject Unit. The Subject Unit is a one-bedroom apartment in a rent-controlled, seven-unit
7 building located at 168 Palm Avenue, San Francisco, California (“the Subject Property”). The
8 Subject Property was built in 1919. It is in the Laurel Heights neighborhood, close to shopping,
9 restaurants, Muni lines, and the Presidio.
10 2. At the time Plaintiffs vacated, the monthly rental rate for the Subject Unit was
11 $1,223 per month. Plaintiffs’ rent included water and garbage services.
12 3. Beginning on April 15, 2019, and at all relevant times thereafter, Defendant 1020
13 BUSH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC and DOES 1 through 5 owned the Subject Property.
14 Defendant 1020 BUSH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC and DOES 1 through 5 may thereinafter
15 be referred to collectively as “Landlord Defendants.”
16 4. Beginning in April 2019, and at all relevant times thereafter, Defendant DAVIS-
17 PAUL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. (“DAVIS-PAUL”) and DOES 6 through 10 managed
18 the Subject Property. Defendants DAVIS-PAUL and DOES 6 through 10 may thereinafter be
19 referred to collectively as “Management Defendants.”
20 5. Defendant 1020 BUSH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant DAVIS-PAUL
21 and DOES 1 through 10 may thereinafter be referred to collectively as “Defendants.”
22 6. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names, involvement, or capacities of Defendants
23 DOES 1 through 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each DOE Defendant is in some
24 way responsible for Plaintiffs’ damages. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint when they learn
25 the true names of the DOE Defendants.
26 7. At all times relevant therein, each Defendant was the agent, servant, employee, or
27 alter ego of the remaining Defendants, or acted with their consent, ratification, and authorization,
28 and in doing the acts thereinafter alleged, each Defendant acted in such capacity with respect to
COMPLAINT - 2
1 the remaining Defendants.
2 8. This Court is the proper jurisdiction for this Complaint because the property at
3 issue is located in its jurisdictional area, Plaintiffs were subject to a residential rental agreement
4 in its jurisdictional area, Defendants conduct business in its jurisdictional area, and Plaintiffs
5 were damaged in its jurisdictional area. This Court is the proper jurisdiction for this Complaint
6 because the amount in controversy is within its jurisdiction.
7 9. At all relevant times, the Subject Unit was covered under the San Francisco Rent
8 Ordinance (“Rent Ordinance”). S.F., CAL., ADMIN. CODE § 37.2(r). Pursuant to section 37.9(a)
9 of the Rent Ordinance, no landlord shall endeavor to recover possession or recover possession of
10 a rental unit unless the landlord is able to prove the existence of one of the sixteen just-cause
11 reasons for eviction.
12 HABITABILITY DEFECTS
13 10. Throughout the tenancy, the Subject Property and Subject Unit exhibited
14 habitability defects. Plaintiffs consistently informed Defendants of the uninhabitable conditions
15 and Defendants knew or should have known of the uninhabitable conditions. Despite the
16 uninhabitable conditions at the Subject Unit, Defendants and their agents continued to demand
17 and accept rent from Plaintiffs.
18 Excessive Moisture
19 11. During a rainstorm in October 2022, Plaintiffs noticed excessive moisture in their
20 bedroom closet. The walls in the bedroom closet were discolored and moist. In October 2022,
21 Plaintiffs notified Defendant DAVIS-PAUL via email and attached pictures of the wet walls. A
22 couple of weeks later, Defendant DAVIS-PAUL sent workers who sealed off the closet, removed
23 damaged plaster, replastered, and painted. Defendant DAVIS-PAUL’s contractor told Plaintiffs
24 he also smelled a foul odor and observed signs of excessive moisture around the windowsills.
25 Defendant DAVIS-PAUL did not test moisture levels inside the Subject Unit. After the repair,
26 Plaintiffs smelled a foul odor and felt dampness in their bedroom closet. Plaintiffs also smelled a
27 foul odor and felt dampness in a second closet in the living room and in the carpet. In November
28 2022, Plaintiffs followed up with Defendant DAVIS-PAUL about the excessive moisture and
COMPLAINT - 3
1 foul odor via email, but Defendants never did anything else and instead told Plaintiffs it was
2 normal. The dampness and foul odor remained until Plaintiffs vacated.
3 Lack of Hot Water
4 12. Starting in 2021, only cold water came out of the bathroom sink. Plaintiffs
5 reported the issue to Defendant DAVIS-PAUL via email who sent someone to test and look at
6 the issue but never made any repairs. Plaintiffs complained again multiple times for almost six
7 months, but Defendant DAVIS-PAUL stopped responding and did nothing. The problem
8 continued until Plaintiffs vacated.
9 Insufficient Heat
10 13. Throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancy, the heater did not sufficiently heat up the Subject
11 Unit, causing Plaintiffs to feel cold. In November 2020, Plaintiffs complained to Defendant
12 DAVIS-PAUL about the insufficient heat and asked them to upgrade the heater and install a
13 heater in the kitchen. Defendant DAVIS-PAUL replaced the heater in the bedroom and living
14 room but did not install a heater in the kitchen. While this helped a little, it still did not heat the
15 apartment enough. Heat would only rise to only sixty-five degrees and only after leaving all the
16 heaters turned on at full blast for hours. In early 2022, Plaintiffs followed up about the
17 insufficient heat and asked Defendants to upgrade the living room heater and add a heater in the
18 kitchen. Plaintiffs also asked Defendants to install insulation, but Defendants refused.
19 Defendant DAVIS-PAUL responded that they already doubled the number of watts for the living
20 room heater and bedroom heater and could not add more. After Plaintiffs continued to complain
21 about the insufficient heat, Defendant DAVIS-PAUL installed a heater in the kitchen and
22 replaced the living room heater, but the Subject Unit still did not heat to sixty-eight degrees.
23 Plaintiffs continued to feel cold in the apartment and would sometimes turn on the oven for
24 additional heat.
25 Nuisance Neighbors
26 14. Since May 2019, Plaintiffs suffered severe noise disturbances from their upstairs
27 neighbor at the Subject Property. The nuisance neighbor set up a recording studio in his
28 apartment and would play loud, amplified music and instruments on almost a daily basis.
COMPLAINT - 4
1 15. Around May 2019, Plaintiffs reported the noise disturbances to Defendant
2 DAVIS-PAUL, who assured Plaintiffs that the nuisance neighbor only played at normal decibel
3 levels.
4 16. Shortly after Plaintiffs complained, the nuisance neighbor began intentionally
5 causing noise disturbances almost daily. The noises appeared to be directed at Plaintiffs,
6 including stomping loudly and causing loud thuds. At one point, the neighbor stomped so loudly
7 it made Plaintiffs’ light fixture jiggle.
8 17. Plaintiffs complained to Defendant DAVIS-PAUL at least six times via email and
9 Defendant DAVIS-PAUL would either not respond or just inform Plaintiffs that the nuisance
10 neighbor denied causing loud noise. Defendant DAVIS-PAUL never took any steps to address
11 the issue, and the noise disturbances continued on a near daily basis until Plaintiffs vacated.
12 CONSTRUCTIVE AND WRONGFUL EVICTION
13 18. On March 30, 2023, Plaintiffs gave Defendants notice that they would vacate the
14 Subject Unit by April 30, 2023. Plaintiffs vacated because of the uninhabitable conditions,
15 Defendants’ failure to abate the nuisances, and Defendants’ interferences with Plaintiffs’ right to
16 quiet enjoyment of their rental unit.
17 19. In doing the acts described herein, including failing to inspect and maintain the
18 Subject Unit in a clean, safe, and habitable condition free from defective conditions and failing
19 and/or refusing to address Plaintiffs’ complaints about the nuisance neighbor, among other acts,
20 Defendants endeavored to recover possession and did recover possession of the Subject Unit
21 from Plaintiffs in violation of San Francisco Rent Ordinance section 37.9. Defendants did not
22 have a just cause for eviction. Defendants did not serve Plaintiffs with a valid, written eviction
23 notice. Defendants never paid Plaintiffs the mandatory minimum relocation payment under the
24 San Francisco Rent Ordinance. Defendants acted in knowing violation of or in reckless
25 disregard of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance protections. Defendants did nothing to address
26 the nuisances in order to force Plaintiffs out, and these omissions and failures to act did force
27 Plaintiffs out.
28 ///
COMPLAINT - 5
1 SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS & ECONOMIC DAMAGES
2 20. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from severe emotional
3 distress, including extreme stress, loss of enjoyment of life, annoyance, mental anguish,
4 sleeplessness, anxiety, depression, worry, fear, discomfort, embarrassment, and humiliation.
5 Because of the almost daily noise disturbances, Plaintiffs were unable to sleep and were
6 constantly stressed.
7 21. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered a leasehold worth
8 substantially less than rent paid, property loss, property damage, moving expenses, out-of-pocket
9 expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of their rental unit, permanent loss of the value of their unit
10 protected by the Rent Ordinance, statutory damages, statutory penalties, litigation costs, and
11 attorney fees.
12 22. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’
13 actions were willful, malicious, and oppressive. Defendants refused to make timely repairs,
14 despite having the financial condition to do so. Defendants knew Plaintiffs were paying the
15 lowest rent in the building and did nothing to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard
16 conditions to force Plaintiffs out without just cause.
17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE
18 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
19 23. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
20 24. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs as owners and/or managers of
21 residential rental property.
22 25. Defendants breached that duty by failing to maintain the rental unit in a safe and
23 habitable condition, failing to abate ongoing neighbor nuisances, interfering with Plaintiffs’ right
24 to quiet enjoyment of their rental unit, depriving Plaintiffs of their property rights to use and
25 enjoy the Subject Unit, and wrongfully endeavoring to recover and actually recovering
26 possession of the Subject Unit without just cause.
27 26. Defendants’ acts and omissions were in violation of the following state and local
28 laws:
COMPLAINT - 6
1 a. Civil Code section 1941.1, defining the minimum requirements for a
2 habitable building;
3 b. Health and Safety Code section 17920.3, defining minimum requirements
4 for a habitable building;
5 c. Civil Code section 1927, prohibiting a landlord from terminating or
6 interrupting a tenant’s quiet enjoyment;
7 d. Section 37.9 et seq. of the Rent Ordinance, enumerating the just causes for
8 eviction;
9 e. Business and Professions Code section 17200, prohibiting unfair business
10 practices; and
11 f. Local housing and building maintenance codes.
12 27. These local and state laws are designed to protect Plaintiffs from the very harm
13 complained about therein. All these laws were in effect at all relevant times.
14 28. Defendants’ violations of the above-mentioned laws were substantial factors in
15 causing harm to Plaintiffs.
16 29. As a result of Defendants’ breach of their duties and obligations under the above-
17 mentioned laws, Plaintiffs suffered from severe emotional distress, including extreme stress, loss
18 of enjoyment of life, annoyance, mental anguish, sleeplessness, anxiety, depression, worry, fear,
19 discomfort, embarrassment, and humiliation. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs was
20 sufficiently severe that an ordinary person would have been unable to deal with it.
21 30. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their duties, Plaintiffs also
22 suffered from a leasehold worth substantially less than rent paid, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of
23 use and enjoyment of their rental unit, loss of a rental unit, property loss, property damage, and
24 moving expenses.
25 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION IN VIOLATION
26 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE
27 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
28 31. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
COMPLAINT - 7
1 32. Under section 37.9 of the Rent Ordinance, a landlord, property manager, or
2 landlord agent shall not endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit unless the landlord,
3 property manager, or landlord agent has a legitimate just cause for eviction. The Rent Ordinance
4 enumerates only fifteen just causes. Section 37.9(f) of the Rent Ordinance provides that
5 whenever a landlord endeavors to recover possession of a dwelling unit in violation of section
6 37.9(a) of the Rent Ordinance, the tenant may sue for not less than three times actual damages,
7 attorneys’ fees, and whatever other relief the Court deems appropriate.
8 33. Defendants endeavored to recover and did recover possession of the Subject Unit
9 from Plaintiffs in violation of Rent Ordinance section 37.9 by failing to abate severe neighbor
10 nuisances and repair serious habitability defects in order to force Plaintiffs to vacate without just
11 cause.
12 34. Plaintiffs moved out of the Subject Unit pursuant to Defendants’ failures to make
13 repairs and abate four years of ongoing neighbor nuisances.
14 35. Defendants did not have a just cause for endeavoring to recover possession of the
15 Subject Unit from Plaintiffs.
16 36. Defendants acted in knowing violation of, or in reckless disregard of, the Rent
17 Ordinance.
18 37. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from loss of use,
19 loss of a unit protected by the Rent Ordinance, severe emotional distress, moving expenses, out-
20 of-pocket expenses, statutory damages, statutory penalties, treble damages, attorney fees, and
21 litigation costs.
22 38. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive, and Defendants acted with
23 knowing or reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Rent Ordinance. As a result,
24 Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof and to the trebling of
25 damages awarded for Plaintiffs’ emotional distress.
26 ///
27 ///
28
COMPLAINT - 8
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TENANT HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF
2 SECTION 37.10B OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE
3 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
4 39. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
5 40. Under section 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance, no landlord or landlord agent shall
6 harass a tenant in any of fourteen enumerated ways.
7 41. Defendants violated section 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance by, among other
8 things, doing the following:
9 a. Interrupting, terminating, or failing to provide housing services required
10 by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws;
11 b. Failing to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by
12 State, County or local housing health or safety laws;
13 c. Failing to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance
14 once undertaken;
15 d. Interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to quiet use and enjoyment of the Subject
16 Property as that right is defined by California law; and
17 e. Other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially
18 interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any person
19 lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that cause, are
20 likely to cause, or are intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to
21 occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender
22 or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy.
23 42. Defendants did these acts in bad faith and in knowing violation or reckless
24 disregard of the Rent Ordinance and with the intent to cause Plaintiffs to vacate the Subject Unit.
25 43. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from severe
26 emotional distress, including but not limited to, anguish, nervousness, anxiety, stress, worry,
27 shock, humiliation, sleeplessness, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, and shame.
28 44. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from loss of a
COMPLAINT - 9
1 rental unit protected by the Rent Ordinance, emotional distress, mental injury, moving expenses,
2 out-of-pocket expenses, statutory penalties, statutory damages, treble damages, attorney fees,
3 litigation costs, property loss, and property damage.
4 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
5 AGAINST LANDLORD DEFENDANTS
6 45. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
7 46. Implied in Plaintiffs’ residential lease agreement is an implied warranty of
8 habitability, wherein Landlord Defendants promised to inspect and maintain the Subject Unit in a
9 clean, safe, and habitable condition.
10 47. Implied in Plaintiffs’ residential lease for the Subject Unit is an implied covenant
11 of quiet enjoyment, wherein Landlord Defendants promised to provide peace and quiet
12 enjoyment.
13 48. Landlord Defendants substantially breached the implied warranty of habitability
14 and implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing to inspect and maintain the Subject Unit in a
15 clean, safe, and habitable condition, failing to make repairs, and failing to abate severe neighbor
16 nuisances for four years.
17 49. Plaintiffs met all their obligations under the lease.
18 50. Plaintiffs notified Landlord Defendants of all the habitability issues. In addition,
19 Defendants knew, or could have known with reasonable diligence, about all the repair issues at
20 the Subject Property. Landlord Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the
21 habitability defects and nuisance issues at the Subject Property, or Defendants could have
22 learned, with reasonable diligence, about the habitability and nuisance issues at the Subject
23 Property. Landlord Defendants ignored all repair issues, failed to repair or timely repair the
24 issues, or negligently repaired the issues. Landlord Defendants forced Plaintiffs to live in
25 degraded conditions despite having the financial ability to repair the excessive moisture, lack of
26 hot water, and insufficient heat.
27 51. Landlord Defendants were aware Plaintiffs were in compliance with their lease,
28 yet failed to make repairs and abate nuisances nonetheless.
COMPLAINT - 10
1 52. Landlord Defendants were aware Plaintiffs’ tenancy was protected by just cause
2 yet failed to make repairs and address severe neighbor nuisances to force Plaintiffs out.
3 53. As a proximate result of Landlord Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered from
4 a leasehold worth substantially less than rent paid, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and
5 enjoyment of their rental unit, loss of a rental unit, attorney fees, moving expenses, and property
6 loss.
7 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NUISANCE
8 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
9 54. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
10 55. Plaintiffs leased the Subject Unit from Defendants who owned and/or managed
11 the Subject Unit.
12 56. Defendants, by acting and failing to act, created conditions, or permitted
13 conditions to exist that were harmful to health, indecent and offensive to the senses, an
14 obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life
15 and property.
16 57. Defendants, by acting and by failing to act, including by failing to repair
17 excessive moisture, lack of hot water, insufficient heat, interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to quiet
18 enjoyment of their rental unit by doing nothing to address ongoing neighbor nuisances, and
19 giving Plaintiffs no other choice but to vacate their rental unit without just cause, created
20 conditions or permitted conditions to exist that substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ use or
21 enjoyment of the Subject Unit.
22 58. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendants’ acts and failures to act.
23 59. An ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed and disturbed by Defendants’
24 conduct.
25 60. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs were harmed. Plaintiffs suffered
26 from a leasehold worth substantially less than rent paid, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and
27 enjoyment of their rental unit, property loss, property damage, loss of a rental unit, annoyance
28 and discomfort, and emotional distress.
COMPLAINT - 11
1 61. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.
2 62. There was no public benefit to the Defendants’ conduct.
3 63. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’
4 conduct was willful, malicious, and oppressive.
5 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
6 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
7 64. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
8 65. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care as landlords and/or managers of a
9 residential property.
10 66. Defendants breached that duty by refusing to make repairs to excessive moisture,
11 lack of hot water, insufficient heat, and by forcing Plaintiffs to move out of their unit by failing
12 to make repairs and abate ongoing nuisances.
13 67. Defendants’ acts and omissions, including but not limited to failing to address the
14 above-mentioned complaints were disturbances and/or interferences with Plaintiffs’ possession
15 and rendered the premises unfit for the purposes for which it was leased or had the effect of
16 depriving Plaintiffs of the beneficial enjoyment or use of the premises.
17 68. As a result of Defendants’ actions and omissions, Plaintiffs were forced to vacate
18 and were thereby constructively evicted.
19 69. Plaintiffs vacated the premises within a reasonable period after the Defendants’
20 acts and omissions rendered the premises unfit for the purposes for which it was leased. As a
21 proximate result of the constructive eviction, Plaintiffs suffered from money damages, loss of a
22 rental unit protected by the Rent Ordinance, emotional distress, loss of use and enjoyment of
23 their unit, property loss, property damage, attorney fees, out-of-pocket expenses, and moving
24 costs.
25 70. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’
26 actions were willful, malicious, and oppressive. Defendants knew they were required to make
27 repairs and provide quiet enjoyment and refused to do so, and knew they were violating the
28 provisions of the Rent Ordinance by endeavoring to evict Plaintiffs.
COMPLAINT - 12
1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
2 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
3 71. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
4 72. At all relevant times, Defendants owned and/or managed the Subject Property as a
5 residential rental property. Defendants were and still are in the business of landlording and
6 property management.
7 73. Defendants engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices by violating: Civil
8 Code section 1941.1, Health and Safety Code section 17920.3, Civil Code section 1927, section
9 37.9 et seq. of the Rent Ordinance, and section 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance.
10 74. By continuing to collect rent despite the above-mentioned nuisances, Defendants
11 violated Civil Code section 1927 and were unjustly enriched.
12 75. By continuing to collect rent despite the above-mentioned habitability defects,
13 Defendants violated Civil Code 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code section 17920.3 and were
14 unjustly enriched.
15 76. By interrupting Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment while continuing to collect rent,
16 Defendants violated Section 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance and were unjustly enriched.
17 77. By forcing Plaintiffs to vacate the Subject Unit without just cause, Defendants
18 violated section 37.9 of the Rent Ordinance and were unjustly enriched in recovering a rent-
19 controlled unit. By recovering possession of a unit that could be re-rented at market rate and
20 bypassing the restrictions of the Rent Ordinance, Defendants were unjustly enriched.
21 78. Defendants’ violations of the law resulted in Plaintiffs’ loss of their rental unit.
22 By recovering a rental unit without a legitimate just cause for eviction, Defendants violated the
23 Rent Ordinance and were unjustly enriched.
24 79. As a result of the unfair business practices by Defendants, Defendants illegally
25 profited at the expense of Plaintiffs through collection of rent and the ability to re-rent Plaintiffs’
26 unit at market rate.
27 ///
28 ///
COMPLAINT - 13
1 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL
2 INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
3 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
4 80. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
5 81. Defendants’ conduct in interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to quiet enjoyment of
6 their rental unit, failing to inspect and maintain the Subject Unit in a clean and habitable
7 condition, failing to address four years of nearly daily neighbor nuisances, and wrongfully
8 evicting Plaintiffs without just cause, was outrageous and malicious conduct.
9 82. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiffs emotional distress or acted with reckless
10 disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional distress.
11 83. Defendants knew about the repair issues and nuisances and were notified by
12 Plaintiffs of the same. Defendants acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs
13 would suffer emotional distress, knowing that Plaintiffs lived with repair issues and nuisances
14 which posed health and safety hazards.
15 84. Defendants acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would
16 suffer emotional distress when they influenced or attempted to influence them to vacate the
17 Subject Unit by not making repairs and not addressing ongoing neighbor nuisances.
18 85. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ severe
19 emotional distress.
20 86. As a proximate result of Defendants’ acts and failures to act, Plaintiffs suffered
21 severe emotional distress including, but not limited to anguish, nervousness, anxiety, stress,
22 worry, shock, humiliation, sleeplessness, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, and shame.
23 87. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’
24 conduct was willful, malicious, and oppressive.
25 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TRESPASS
26 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
27 88. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
28 89. Plaintiffs leased the Subject Unit from Defendants who owned and/or managed
COMPLAINT - 14
1 the Subject Unit.
2 90. Defendants intentionally, recklessly, or negligently entered Plaintiffs’ property by
3 allowing excessive moisture to enter the Subject Unit.
4 91. Defendants negligently and recklessly interfered with Plaintiffs’ possession by
5 forcing them out of the Subject Unit in violation of the Rent Ordinance. Plaintiffs did not give
6 permission for Defendants’ entry after Plaintiffs vacated their unit. Because the termination of
7 Plaintiffs’ tenancy was not valid and recovery of the rental unit was without just cause,
8 Defendants had no valid permission to enter Plaintiffs’ unit and are continuing to trespass.
9 92. As a result of Defendants’ trespasses, Plaintiffs were harmed and suffered from
10 loss of use enjoyment of their rental unit, loss of a rental unit, emotional distress, property loss,
11 property damage, moving expenses, out-of-pocket expenses, and annoyance and discomfort.
12 93. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.
13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
14 1. For general damages;
15 2. For special damages according to proof;
16 3. For contractual damages under applicable causes of action;
17 4. For economic damages;
18 5. For damages for emotional distress under applicable causes of action;
19 6. For damages for annoyance and discomfort under applicable causes of action;
20 7. For attorney fees, expert witness fees, and costs pursuant to statute;
21 8. 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 Plaintiffs of those profits and losses; and any prejudgment interest thereon;
24 9. For statutory damages, including treble damages, under applicable causes of
25 action, including the Rent Ordinance;
26 10. For statutory penalties under applicable causes of action;
27 11. For prejudgment interest on the amount of any damages awarded;
28 12. For punitive damages under applicable causes of action;
COMPLAINT - 15
1 13. For tax neutralization damages; and
2 14. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
3
4 DATED: May 3, 2024 TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP
5
6 ____________________________
Julia O. Wobbe
7
Attorney for Plaintiffs
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT - 16
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY 1 TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP FILED JOSEPH S. TOBENER, SBN 203419 Superior Court of California, 2 JULIA O. WOBBE, SBN 284516 County of San Francisco 21 Masonic Avenue, Suite A 05/03/2024 3 San Francisco, California 94118 Clerk of the Court Telephone: (415) 504-2165 BY: MARK UDAN 4 Facsimile: (415) 418-3492 Deputy Clerk 5 6 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CGC-24-614397 10 11 SHARON FESTINGER and Case No.: JAMES KINDLER, 12 (Unlimited Civil Case) 13 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR (1) NEGLIGENCE 14 v. (2) WRONGFUL EVICTION IN VIOLATION OF THE SAN 15 FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE 1020 BUSH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, (3) TENANT HARASSMENT IN 16 DAVIS-PAUL MANAGEMENT GROUP, VIOLATION OF SECTION 37.10B OF INC., and THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT 17 DOES 1 through 10, ORDINANCE (4) BREACH OF CONTRACT 18 (5) NUISANCE Defendants. (6) CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION 19 (7) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 20 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (9) TRESPASS 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT - 1 1 Plaintiffs SHARON FESTINGER and JAMES KINDLER allege: 2 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 3 1. From September 1995 to May 10, 2023, Plaintiff JAMES KINDLER was a 4 residential tenant at 168 Palm Avenue, Unit 2A, San Francisco, California (“Subject Unit”), 5 pursuant to a written lease. Around June 2018, Plaintiff SHARON FESTINGER moved into the 6 Subject Unit. The Subject Unit is a one-bedroom apartment in a rent-controlled, seven-unit 7 building located at 168 Palm Avenue, San Francisco, California (“the Subject Property”). The 8 Subject Property was built in 1919. It is in the Laurel Heights neighborhood, close to shopping, 9 restaurants, Muni lines, and the Presidio. 10 2. At the time Plaintiffs vacated, the monthly rental rate for the Subject Unit was 11 $1,223 per month. Plaintiffs’ rent included water and garbage services. 12 3. Beginning on April 15, 2019, and at all relevant times thereafter, Defendant 1020 13 BUSH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC and DOES 1 through 5 owned the Subject Property. 14 Defendant 1020 BUSH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC and DOES 1 through 5 may thereinafter 15 be referred to collectively as “Landlord Defendants.” 16 4. Beginning in April 2019, and at all relevant times thereafter, Defendant DAVIS- 17 PAUL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. (“DAVIS-PAUL”) and DOES 6 through 10 managed 18 the Subject Property. Defendants DAVIS-PAUL and DOES 6 through 10 may thereinafter be 19 referred to collectively as “Management Defendants.” 20 5. Defendant 1020 BUSH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant DAVIS-PAUL 21 and DOES 1 through 10 may thereinafter be referred to collectively as “Defendants.” 22 6. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names, involvement, or capacities of Defendants 23 DOES 1 through 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each DOE Defendant is in some 24 way responsible for Plaintiffs’ damages. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint when they learn 25 the true names of the DOE Defendants. 26 7. At all times relevant therein, each Defendant was the agent, servant, employee, or 27 alter ego of the remaining Defendants, or acted with their consent, ratification, and authorization, 28 and in doing the acts thereinafter alleged, each Defendant acted in such capacity with respect to COMPLAINT - 2 1 the remaining Defendants. 2 8. This Court is the proper jurisdiction for this Complaint because the property at 3 issue is located in its jurisdictional area, Plaintiffs were subject to a residential rental agreement 4 in its jurisdictional area, Defendants conduct business in its jurisdictional area, and Plaintiffs 5 were damaged in its jurisdictional area. This Court is the proper jurisdiction for this Complaint 6 because the amount in controversy is within its jurisdiction. 7 9. At all relevant times, the Subject Unit was covered under the San Francisco Rent 8 Ordinance (“Rent Ordinance”). S.F., CAL., ADMIN. CODE § 37.2(r). Pursuant to section 37.9(a) 9 of the Rent Ordinance, no landlord shall endeavor to recover possession or recover possession of 10 a rental unit unless the landlord is able to prove the existence of one of the sixteen just-cause 11 reasons for eviction. 12 HABITABILITY DEFECTS 13 10. Throughout the tenancy, the Subject Property and Subject Unit exhibited 14 habitability defects. Plaintiffs consistently informed Defendants of the uninhabitable conditions 15 and Defendants knew or should have known of the uninhabitable conditions. Despite the 16 uninhabitable conditions at the Subject Unit, Defendants and their agents continued to demand 17 and accept rent from Plaintiffs. 18 Excessive Moisture 19 11. During a rainstorm in October 2022, Plaintiffs noticed excessive moisture in their 20 bedroom closet. The walls in the bedroom closet were discolored and moist. In October 2022, 21 Plaintiffs notified Defendant DAVIS-PAUL via email and attached pictures of the wet walls. A 22 couple of weeks later, Defendant DAVIS-PAUL sent workers who sealed off the closet, removed 23 damaged plaster, replastered, and painted. Defendant DAVIS-PAUL’s contractor told Plaintiffs 24 he also smelled a foul odor and observed signs of excessive moisture around the windowsills. 25 Defendant DAVIS-PAUL did not test moisture levels inside the Subject Unit. After the repair, 26 Plaintiffs smelled a foul odor and felt dampness in their bedroom closet. Plaintiffs also smelled a 27 foul odor and felt dampness in a second closet in the living room and in the carpet. In November 28 2022, Plaintiffs followed up with Defendant DAVIS-PAUL about the excessive moisture and COMPLAINT - 3 1 foul odor via email, but Defendants never did anything else and instead told Plaintiffs it was 2 normal. The dampness and foul odor remained until Plaintiffs vacated. 3 Lack of Hot Water 4 12. Starting in 2021, only cold water came out of the bathroom sink. Plaintiffs 5 reported the issue to Defendant DAVIS-PAUL via email who sent someone to test and look at 6 the issue but never made any repairs. Plaintiffs complained again multiple times for almost six 7 months, but Defendant DAVIS-PAUL stopped responding and did nothing. The problem 8 continued until Plaintiffs vacated. 9 Insufficient Heat 10 13. Throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancy, the heater did not sufficiently heat up the Subject 11 Unit, causing Plaintiffs to feel cold. In November 2020, Plaintiffs complained to Defendant 12 DAVIS-PAUL about the insufficient heat and asked them to upgrade the heater and install a 13 heater in the kitchen. Defendant DAVIS-PAUL replaced the heater in the bedroom and living 14 room but did not install a heater in the kitchen. While this helped a little, it still did not heat the 15 apartment enough. Heat would only rise to only sixty-five degrees and only after leaving all the 16 heaters turned on at full blast for hours. In early 2022, Plaintiffs followed up about the 17 insufficient heat and asked Defendants to upgrade the living room heater and add a heater in the 18 kitchen. Plaintiffs also asked Defendants to install insulation, but Defendants refused. 19 Defendant DAVIS-PAUL responded that they already doubled the number of watts for the living 20 room heater and bedroom heater and could not add more. After Plaintiffs continued to complain 21 about the insufficient heat, Defendant DAVIS-PAUL installed a heater in the kitchen and 22 replaced the living room heater, but the Subject Unit still did not heat to sixty-eight degrees. 23 Plaintiffs continued to feel cold in the apartment and would sometimes turn on the oven for 24 additional heat. 25 Nuisance Neighbors 26 14. Since May 2019, Plaintiffs suffered severe noise disturbances from their upstairs 27 neighbor at the Subject Property. The nuisance neighbor set up a recording studio in his 28 apartment and would play loud, amplified music and instruments on almost a daily basis. COMPLAINT - 4 1 15. Around May 2019, Plaintiffs reported the noise disturbances to Defendant 2 DAVIS-PAUL, who assured Plaintiffs that the nuisance neighbor only played at normal decibel 3 levels. 4 16. Shortly after Plaintiffs complained, the nuisance neighbor began intentionally 5 causing noise disturbances almost daily. The noises appeared to be directed at Plaintiffs, 6 including stomping loudly and causing loud thuds. At one point, the neighbor stomped so loudly 7 it made Plaintiffs’ light fixture jiggle. 8 17. Plaintiffs complained to Defendant DAVIS-PAUL at least six times via email and 9 Defendant DAVIS-PAUL would either not respond or just inform Plaintiffs that the nuisance 10 neighbor denied causing loud noise. Defendant DAVIS-PAUL never took any steps to address 11 the issue, and the noise disturbances continued on a near daily basis until Plaintiffs vacated. 12 CONSTRUCTIVE AND WRONGFUL EVICTION 13 18. On March 30, 2023, Plaintiffs gave Defendants notice that they would vacate the 14 Subject Unit by April 30, 2023. Plaintiffs vacated because of the uninhabitable conditions, 15 Defendants’ failure to abate the nuisances, and Defendants’ interferences with Plaintiffs’ right to 16 quiet enjoyment of their rental unit. 17 19. In doing the acts described herein, including failing to inspect and maintain the 18 Subject Unit in a clean, safe, and habitable condition free from defective conditions and failing 19 and/or refusing to address Plaintiffs’ complaints about the nuisance neighbor, among other acts, 20 Defendants endeavored to recover possession and did recover possession of the Subject Unit 21 from Plaintiffs in violation of San Francisco Rent Ordinance section 37.9. Defendants did not 22 have a just cause for eviction. Defendants did not serve Plaintiffs with a valid, written eviction 23 notice. Defendants never paid Plaintiffs the mandatory minimum relocation payment under the 24 San Francisco Rent Ordinance. Defendants acted in knowing violation of or in reckless 25 disregard of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance protections. Defendants did nothing to address 26 the nuisances in order to force Plaintiffs out, and these omissions and failures to act did force 27 Plaintiffs out. 28 /// COMPLAINT - 5 1 SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS & ECONOMIC DAMAGES 2 20. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from severe emotional 3 distress, including extreme stress, loss of enjoyment of life, annoyance, mental anguish, 4 sleeplessness, anxiety, depression, worry, fear, discomfort, embarrassment, and humiliation. 5 Because of the almost daily noise disturbances, Plaintiffs were unable to sleep and were 6 constantly stressed. 7 21. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered a leasehold worth 8 substantially less than rent paid, property loss, property damage, moving expenses, out-of-pocket 9 expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of their rental unit, permanent loss of the value of their unit 10 protected by the Rent Ordinance, statutory damages, statutory penalties, litigation costs, and 11 attorney fees. 12 22. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’ 13 actions were willful, malicious, and oppressive. Defendants refused to make timely repairs, 14 despite having the financial condition to do so. Defendants knew Plaintiffs were paying the 15 lowest rent in the building and did nothing to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard 16 conditions to force Plaintiffs out without just cause. 17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE 18 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 19 23. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 20 24. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs as owners and/or managers of 21 residential rental property. 22 25. Defendants breached that duty by failing to maintain the rental unit in a safe and 23 habitable condition, failing to abate ongoing neighbor nuisances, interfering with Plaintiffs’ right 24 to quiet enjoyment of their rental unit, depriving Plaintiffs of their property rights to use and 25 enjoy the Subject Unit, and wrongfully endeavoring to recover and actually recovering 26 possession of the Subject Unit without just cause. 27 26. Defendants’ acts and omissions were in violation of the following state and local 28 laws: COMPLAINT - 6 1 a. Civil Code section 1941.1, defining the minimum requirements for a 2 habitable building; 3 b. Health and Safety Code section 17920.3, defining minimum requirements 4 for a habitable building; 5 c. Civil Code section 1927, prohibiting a landlord from terminating or 6 interrupting a tenant’s quiet enjoyment; 7 d. Section 37.9 et seq. of the Rent Ordinance, enumerating the just causes for 8 eviction; 9 e. Business and Professions Code section 17200, prohibiting unfair business 10 practices; and 11 f. Local housing and building maintenance codes. 12 27. These local and state laws are designed to protect Plaintiffs from the very harm 13 complained about therein. All these laws were in effect at all relevant times. 14 28. Defendants’ violations of the above-mentioned laws were substantial factors in 15 causing harm to Plaintiffs. 16 29. As a result of Defendants’ breach of their duties and obligations under the above- 17 mentioned laws, Plaintiffs suffered from severe emotional distress, including extreme stress, loss 18 of enjoyment of life, annoyance, mental anguish, sleeplessness, anxiety, depression, worry, fear, 19 discomfort, embarrassment, and humiliation. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs was 20 sufficiently severe that an ordinary person would have been unable to deal with it. 21 30. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their duties, Plaintiffs also 22 suffered from a leasehold worth substantially less than rent paid, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of 23 use and enjoyment of their rental unit, loss of a rental unit, property loss, property damage, and 24 moving expenses. 25 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION IN VIOLATION 26 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE 27 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 28 31. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. COMPLAINT - 7 1 32. Under section 37.9 of the Rent Ordinance, a landlord, property manager, or 2 landlord agent shall not endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit unless the landlord, 3 property manager, or landlord agent has a legitimate just cause for eviction. The Rent Ordinance 4 enumerates only fifteen just causes. Section 37.9(f) of the Rent Ordinance provides that 5 whenever a landlord endeavors to recover possession of a dwelling unit in violation of section 6 37.9(a) of the Rent Ordinance, the tenant may sue for not less than three times actual damages, 7 attorneys’ fees, and whatever other relief the Court deems appropriate. 8 33. Defendants endeavored to recover and did recover possession of the Subject Unit 9 from Plaintiffs in violation of Rent Ordinance section 37.9 by failing to abate severe neighbor 10 nuisances and repair serious habitability defects in order to force Plaintiffs to vacate without just 11 cause. 12 34. Plaintiffs moved out of the Subject Unit pursuant to Defendants’ failures to make 13 repairs and abate four years of ongoing neighbor nuisances. 14 35. Defendants did not have a just cause for endeavoring to recover possession of the 15 Subject Unit from Plaintiffs. 16 36. Defendants acted in knowing violation of, or in reckless disregard of, the Rent 17 Ordinance. 18 37. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from loss of use, 19 loss of a unit protected by the Rent Ordinance, severe emotional distress, moving expenses, out- 20 of-pocket expenses, statutory damages, statutory penalties, treble damages, attorney fees, and 21 litigation costs. 22 38. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive, and Defendants acted with 23 knowing or reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Rent Ordinance. As a result, 24 Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof and to the trebling of 25 damages awarded for Plaintiffs’ emotional distress. 26 /// 27 /// 28 COMPLAINT - 8 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TENANT HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF 2 SECTION 37.10B OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE 3 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 4 39. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 5 40. Under section 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance, no landlord or landlord agent shall 6 harass a tenant in any of fourteen enumerated ways. 7 41. Defendants violated section 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance by, among other 8 things, doing the following: 9 a. Interrupting, terminating, or failing to provide housing services required 10 by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws; 11 b. Failing to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by 12 State, County or local housing health or safety laws; 13 c. Failing to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance 14 once undertaken; 15 d. Interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to quiet use and enjoyment of the Subject 16 Property as that right is defined by California law; and 17 e. Other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially 18 interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any person 19 lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that cause, are 20 likely to cause, or are intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to 21 occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender 22 or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy. 23 42. Defendants did these acts in bad faith and in knowing violation or reckless 24 disregard of the Rent Ordinance and with the intent to cause Plaintiffs to vacate the Subject Unit. 25 43. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from severe 26 emotional distress, including but not limited to, anguish, nervousness, anxiety, stress, worry, 27 shock, humiliation, sleeplessness, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, and shame. 28 44. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from loss of a COMPLAINT - 9 1 rental unit protected by the Rent Ordinance, emotional distress, mental injury, moving expenses, 2 out-of-pocket expenses, statutory penalties, statutory damages, treble damages, attorney fees, 3 litigation costs, property loss, and property damage. 4 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT 5 AGAINST LANDLORD DEFENDANTS 6 45. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 7 46. Implied in Plaintiffs’ residential lease agreement is an implied warranty of 8 habitability, wherein Landlord Defendants promised to inspect and maintain the Subject Unit in a 9 clean, safe, and habitable condition. 10 47. Implied in Plaintiffs’ residential lease for the Subject Unit is an implied covenant 11 of quiet enjoyment, wherein Landlord Defendants promised to provide peace and quiet 12 enjoyment. 13 48. Landlord Defendants substantially breached the implied warranty of habitability 14 and implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing to inspect and maintain the Subject Unit in a 15 clean, safe, and habitable condition, failing to make repairs, and failing to abate severe neighbor 16 nuisances for four years. 17 49. Plaintiffs met all their obligations under the lease. 18 50. Plaintiffs notified Landlord Defendants of all the habitability issues. In addition, 19 Defendants knew, or could have known with reasonable diligence, about all the repair issues at 20 the Subject Property. Landlord Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the 21 habitability defects and nuisance issues at the Subject Property, or Defendants could have 22 learned, with reasonable diligence, about the habitability and nuisance issues at the Subject 23 Property. Landlord Defendants ignored all repair issues, failed to repair or timely repair the 24 issues, or negligently repaired the issues. Landlord Defendants forced Plaintiffs to live in 25 degraded conditions despite having the financial ability to repair the excessive moisture, lack of 26 hot water, and insufficient heat. 27 51. Landlord Defendants were aware Plaintiffs were in compliance with their lease, 28 yet failed to make repairs and abate nuisances nonetheless. COMPLAINT - 10 1 52. Landlord Defendants were aware Plaintiffs’ tenancy was protected by just cause 2 yet failed to make repairs and address severe neighbor nuisances to force Plaintiffs out. 3 53. As a proximate result of Landlord Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered from 4 a leasehold worth substantially less than rent paid, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and 5 enjoyment of their rental unit, loss of a rental unit, attorney fees, moving expenses, and property 6 loss. 7 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NUISANCE 8 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 9 54. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 10 55. Plaintiffs leased the Subject Unit from Defendants who owned and/or managed 11 the Subject Unit. 12 56. Defendants, by acting and failing to act, created conditions, or permitted 13 conditions to exist that were harmful to health, indecent and offensive to the senses, an 14 obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life 15 and property. 16 57. Defendants, by acting and by failing to act, including by failing to repair 17 excessive moisture, lack of hot water, insufficient heat, interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to quiet 18 enjoyment of their rental unit by doing nothing to address ongoing neighbor nuisances, and 19 giving Plaintiffs no other choice but to vacate their rental unit without just cause, created 20 conditions or permitted conditions to exist that substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ use or 21 enjoyment of the Subject Unit. 22 58. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendants’ acts and failures to act. 23 59. An ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed and disturbed by Defendants’ 24 conduct. 25 60. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs were harmed. Plaintiffs suffered 26 from a leasehold worth substantially less than rent paid, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and 27 enjoyment of their rental unit, property loss, property damage, loss of a rental unit, annoyance 28 and discomfort, and emotional distress. COMPLAINT - 11 1 61. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 2 62. There was no public benefit to the Defendants’ conduct. 3 63. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’ 4 conduct was willful, malicious, and oppressive. 5 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION 6 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 7 64. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 8 65. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care as landlords and/or managers of a 9 residential property. 10 66. Defendants breached that duty by refusing to make repairs to excessive moisture, 11 lack of hot water, insufficient heat, and by forcing Plaintiffs to move out of their unit by failing 12 to make repairs and abate ongoing nuisances. 13 67. Defendants’ acts and omissions, including but not limited to failing to address the 14 above-mentioned complaints were disturbances and/or interferences with Plaintiffs’ possession 15 and rendered the premises unfit for the purposes for which it was leased or had the effect of 16 depriving Plaintiffs of the beneficial enjoyment or use of the premises. 17 68. As a result of Defendants’ actions and omissions, Plaintiffs were forced to vacate 18 and were thereby constructively evicted. 19 69. Plaintiffs vacated the premises within a reasonable period after the Defendants’ 20 acts and omissions rendered the premises unfit for the purposes for which it was leased. As a 21 proximate result of the constructive eviction, Plaintiffs suffered from money damages, loss of a 22 rental unit protected by the Rent Ordinance, emotional distress, loss of use and enjoyment of 23 their unit, property loss, property damage, attorney fees, out-of-pocket expenses, and moving 24 costs. 25 70. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’ 26 actions were willful, malicious, and oppressive. Defendants knew they were required to make 27 repairs and provide quiet enjoyment and refused to do so, and knew they were violating the 28 provisions of the Rent Ordinance by endeavoring to evict Plaintiffs. COMPLAINT - 12 1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 2 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 3 71. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 4 72. At all relevant times, Defendants owned and/or managed the Subject Property as a 5 residential rental property. Defendants were and still are in the business of landlording and 6 property management. 7 73. Defendants engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices by violating: Civil 8 Code section 1941.1, Health and Safety Code section 17920.3, Civil Code section 1927, section 9 37.9 et seq. of the Rent Ordinance, and section 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance. 10 74. By continuing to collect rent despite the above-mentioned nuisances, Defendants 11 violated Civil Code section 1927 and were unjustly enriched. 12 75. By continuing to collect rent despite the above-mentioned habitability defects, 13 Defendants violated Civil Code 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code section 17920.3 and were 14 unjustly enriched. 15 76. By interrupting Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment while continuing to collect rent, 16 Defendants violated Section 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance and were unjustly enriched. 17 77. By forcing Plaintiffs to vacate the Subject Unit without just cause, Defendants 18 violated section 37.9 of the Rent Ordinance and were unjustly enriched in recovering a rent- 19 controlled unit. By recovering possession of a unit that could be re-rented at market rate and 20 bypassing the restrictions of the Rent Ordinance, Defendants were unjustly enriched. 21 78. Defendants’ violations of the law resulted in Plaintiffs’ loss of their rental unit. 22 By recovering a rental unit without a legitimate just cause for eviction, Defendants violated the 23 Rent Ordinance and were unjustly enriched. 24 79. As a result of the unfair business practices by Defendants, Defendants illegally 25 profited at the expense of Plaintiffs through collection of rent and the ability to re-rent Plaintiffs’ 26 unit at market rate. 27 /// 28 /// COMPLAINT - 13 1 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL 2 INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 3 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 4 80. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 5 81. Defendants’ conduct in interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to quiet enjoyment of 6 their rental unit, failing to inspect and maintain the Subject Unit in a clean and habitable 7 condition, failing to address four years of nearly daily neighbor nuisances, and wrongfully 8 evicting Plaintiffs without just cause, was outrageous and malicious conduct. 9 82. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiffs emotional distress or acted with reckless 10 disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional distress. 11 83. Defendants knew about the repair issues and nuisances and were notified by 12 Plaintiffs of the same. Defendants acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs 13 would suffer emotional distress, knowing that Plaintiffs lived with repair issues and nuisances 14 which posed health and safety hazards. 15 84. Defendants acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would 16 suffer emotional distress when they influenced or attempted to influence them to vacate the 17 Subject Unit by not making repairs and not addressing ongoing neighbor nuisances. 18 85. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ severe 19 emotional distress. 20 86. As a proximate result of Defendants’ acts and failures to act, Plaintiffs suffered 21 severe emotional distress including, but not limited to anguish, nervousness, anxiety, stress, 22 worry, shock, humiliation, sleeplessness, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, and shame. 23 87. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’ 24 conduct was willful, malicious, and oppressive. 25 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TRESPASS 26 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 27 88. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 28 89. Plaintiffs leased the Subject Unit from Defendants who owned and/or managed COMPLAINT - 14 1 the Subject Unit. 2 90. Defendants intentionally, recklessly, or negligently entered Plaintiffs’ property by 3 allowing excessive moisture to enter the Subject Unit. 4 91. Defendants negligently and recklessly interfered with Plaintiffs’ possession by 5 forcing them out of the Subject Unit in violation of the Rent Ordinance. Plaintiffs did not give 6 permission for Defendants’ entry after Plaintiffs vacated their unit. Because the termination of 7 Plaintiffs’ tenancy was not valid and recovery of the rental unit was without just cause, 8 Defendants had no valid permission to enter Plaintiffs’ unit and are continuing to trespass. 9 92. As a result of Defendants’ trespasses, Plaintiffs were harmed and suffered from 10 loss of use enjoyment of their rental unit, loss of a rental unit, emotional distress, property loss, 11 property damage, moving expenses, out-of-pocket expenses, and annoyance and discomfort. 12 93. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows: 14 1. For general damages; 15 2. For special damages according to proof; 16 3. For contractual damages under applicable causes of action; 17 4. For economic damages; 18 5. For damages for emotional distress under applicable causes of action; 19 6. For damages for annoyance and discomfort under applicable causes of action; 20 7. For attorney fees, expert witness fees, and costs pursuant to statute; 21 8. 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 Plaintiffs of those profits and losses; and any prejudgment interest thereon; 24 9. For statutory damages, including treble damages, under applicable causes of 25 action, including the Rent Ordinance; 26 10. For statutory penalties under applicable causes of action; 27 11. For prejudgment interest on the amount of any damages awarded; 28 12. For punitive damages under applicable causes of action; COMPLAINT - 15 1 13. For tax neutralization damages; and 2 14. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. 3 4 DATED: May 3, 2024 TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP 5 6 ____________________________ Julia O. Wobbe 7 Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT - 16