Preview
1 Julien Swanson (SBN 193957)
Eric Bass (SBN 349694)
2
Austin Swanson Law Firm PC
3 584 Castro St. #2126
San Francisco, CA 94114
4 415.282.4511 (P) | 415.282.4536 (F)
swanson@austinswansonlaw.com
5
bass@austinswansonlaw.com
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
COUNTY OF SONOMA
8
9
10 DANIELLE BURLISON, AN INDIVIDUAL, Case No.:
ELI JUNIPER, AN INDIVIDUAL, SARA
11 GRAY, AN INDIVIDUAL
12
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY
13 TRIAL
vs.
14
JOHN PETERINK, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND 1. Violation of Civil Code § 1946.2
15
DOES 1-100; 2. Intentional Misrepresentation
3. Unfair Business Practices In
16 Violation Of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Defendant.
17 § 17200
4. Breach of the Warranties of
18 Habitability
5. Conversion
19 6. Harassment – Breach of Covenant of
20 Quiet Enjoyment
21
22
PARTIES
23
1. Danielle Burlison (“Burlison”) is a Plaintiff in this case, was at all times relevant
24
25 herein, a resident of the City of Santa Rosa in the County of Sonoma, California and was over
26 the age of 18.
27 2. Eli Juniper (“Juniper”) is a Plaintiff in this case, was at all times relevant herein, a
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 1
1 resident of the City of Santa Rosa in the County of Sonoma, California and was over the age of
2
18.
3
3. Sara Gray (“Gray”) is a Plaintiff in this case, was at all times relevant herein, a
4
resident of the City of Santa Rosa in the County of Sonoma, California and was over the age of
5
6 18.
7 4. John Peterink (“Peterink”) is a Defendant in this case, was at all times relevant
8
herein, an owner of the real property which is located in the City of Santa Rosa, the County of
9
Sonoma, and commonly known and referred to as 514-516 Goodman Avenue, Santa Rosa,
10
California 95407 (hereinafter “Premises”).
11
12 5. Does 1 through 50 are, and at all times herein mentioned, were doing business in
13 the County of Sonoma, in the State of California.
14
(a) Defendants Doe 1 through Doe 50, inclusive (“Doe Defendants”) are fictitious
15
names of defendants sued herein under the provisions of Section 474 of the Code
16
of Civil Procedure. Either their true names and capacities or the underlying theory
17
18
of liability IS/are unknown to Plaintiffs. When said true names and capacities, or
19 the theories of liability are ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint by
20 inserting their true names and capacities, or such theories, herein.
21
(b) Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the
22
fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences
23
herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs ' damages as herein alleged were proximately
24
caused by such defendants.
25
26 (c) At all times herein mentioned the Doe Defendants were the agents, servants,
27 employees, employers, principals, owners, co-owners, lessors, sublessors,
28 predecessors, or successors of their codefendants, and in doing the things alleged
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 2
1 below were acting in the scope of their authority as such agents, servants,
2
employees, employers, principals, owners, co-owners, lessors, sublessors,
3
predecessors, or successors, and with the permissions and consent of their
4
codefendants.
5
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6
7 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because he was at all relevant
8 times the owner of the Premises, residential real property located in the County of Sonoma in the
9
State of California.
10
7. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendant transacted business in this
11
County through rental of his real estate during all relevant times, and the conduct complained of
12
13 related to said real estate, which is located in this County.
14 8. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the Premises are currently listed for
15
sale and under contract. Nonetheless, Peterink was the legal owner at all relevant times herein
16
and though at least the present date.
17
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
18
19 9. Burlison was a tenant as that term is defined under California law, at 514
20 Goodman Ave pursuant to a written lease agreement, from December 5, 2003 through the date
21
of the wrongful eviction alleged herein.
22
10. At the time of the eviction Burlison’s rent was set at $1493 per month, which was
23
below fair market value.
24
25 11. Burlison did not intend to terminate her tenancy or to move out of the Premises or
26 Santa Rosa at any time.
27
12. Juniper was a tenant was a tenant as that term is defined under California law, at
28
514 Goodman Ave, in the “granny House” pursuant to a written lease agreement, from
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 3
1 August 1, 2018 through the date of the wrongful eviction alleged herein.
2
13. Juniper did not intend to terminate their tenancy or to move out of the Premises or
3
Santa Rosa at any time.
4
14. At the time of the eviction Juniper’s rent was set at $950 per month, which was
5
6 below fair market value.
7 15. Gray was a tenant was a tenant as that term is defined under California law, at 514
8
Goodman Ave, in the “Main House” pursuant to a written lease agreement, from
9
January 1, 2015 through the date of the wrongful eviction alleged herein.
10
16. Gray did not intend to terminate their tenancy or to move out of the Premises or
11
12 Santa Rosa at any time.
13 17. At the time of the eviction Gray’s rent was set at $1200 per month, which was
14
below fair market value.
15
18. Peterink was the owner of the Premises and was the landlord as that term is
16
defined under California law, to all Plaintiffs throughout their above-defined tenancies.
17
18 Wrongful Evictions
19 19. On May 5, 2022, Peterink caused the following notice of termination of tenancy
20
to be serve on Burlison:
21
This 90 DAY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY is given pursuant
22
to § 1946 of the California Civil code, for the purpose- of terminating
23 your tenancy of the above-named premises. If you fail to comply, suit
will-be instituted against you for such possession, and for attorney's
24
fees and all damages and costs allowed by law.
25
THIS NOTICE EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT, AUGUST 31, 2022 AND YOU MUST
26
HAVE VACATED BY THAT DATE AND TIME. THIS PROPERTY TO BE
27 REMOVED FROM THE RENTAL MARKET. PER TENANT RELIEF STATUTES
$1493 RENT FOR THE PERIOD 1 AUG 2022 THROUGH 31 AUG 2022, IS
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 4
1 HEREIN WAIVED. THE RENT OWED FOR 1 JUL 2022 THROUGH 31, 2022
2 HAS PREVIOULSY BEEN PAID.
3 20. On May 5, 2022, Peterink caused the following notice of termination of tenancy
4
to be serve on Juniper:
5
This 60 DAY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY is given pursuant
6
to § 1946 of the California Civil code, for the purpose- of terminating
7 your tenancy of the above-named premises. If you fail to comply, suit
will-be instituted against you for such possession, and for attorney's
8
fees and all damages and costs allowed by law
9
10
THIS NOTICE EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT JULY 5, 2022 AND YOU MUST HAVE
VACATED BY THAT DATE AND TIME. PER TENANT RELIEF STATUTES THE
11 $950 RENT OWED FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 5, 2022 THROUGH JULY 5,
12 2022 IS HEREBY WAIVED. THIS PROPERTY TO BE REMOVED FROM THE
RENTAL MARKET.
13
14 21. On May 5, 2022, Peterink caused the following notice of termination of tenancy
15 to be serve on Gray
16
This 60 DAY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY is given pursuant
17 to § 1946 of the California Civil code, for the purpose- of terminating
your tenancy of the above-named premises. If you fail to comply, suit
18
will-be instituted against you for such possession, and for attorney's
19 fees and all damages and costs allowed by law.
20
THIS NOTICE EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT JULY 5, 2022 AND YOU MUST HAVE
21 VACATED BY THAT DATE AND TIME. PER TENANT RELIEF STATUTES THE
22 $1200 RENT OWED FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 5, 2022 THROUGH JULY 5,
2022 IS HEREBY WAIVED. THIS PROPERTY TO BE REMOVED FROM THE
23 RENTAL MARKET.
24
22. The above-described tenancies are all covered by the California Tenant Protection
25
Act at Civil Code § 1946.2.
26
27 23. Under § 1946.2, Peterink was legally prohibited from raising any of the Plaintiff’s
28 rents to fair market value or above a minimum and prescribed threshold.
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 5
1 24. Under § 1946.2, Peterink was also legally prohibited from engaging in no-fault
2
evictions as to any Plaintiff without good cause.
3
25. Good cause under the statute includes if the land owner removes the property
4
from the rental market.
5
6 26. Burlison, Juniper, and Gray relied on the statute, and the notices they received
7 from Peterink – specifically Peterink’s false claims that he was removing the property from the
8
rental market -when they moved out of the Premises, effectively terminating the tenancies,
9
without forcing an eviction proceeding or challenging the notices.
10
27. It is alleged on information and belief that Peterink intentionally misrepresented
11
12 his intention to take the Premises off the rental market, in order to bypass the law, to bypass
13 rent control and eviction protections, and to recover the Premises for his benefit.
14
28. After the termination of the Plaintiffs’ tenancies as described above, investigation
15
revealed subsequent tenants at the Premises while Peterink remained the owner, to include
16
tenant Jenna Lee Boaz.
17
18 29. Mr. Peterink’s misrepresentations and illegal evictions caused each Plaintiff to
19 lose their housing, and to face moving costs, rent increases and other damages.
20
30. Plaintiff Sarah Gray’s rent increased from seventeen-hundred a month ($1700) to
21
twenty-five hundred per month ($2500) as a result of the fraudulent no-fault just cause
22
eviction. She was unable to remain in Sonoma County where her children go to school,
23
24 causing incredible hardship for her family. Her moving costs were $600 and she pays $250 per
25 month for a storage facility as she was unable to move into a comparable space where her
26
belonings can be stored.
27
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 6
1 31. Plaintiff Danielle Burlison’s rent increased from fourteen-hundred and ninety-
2
three dollars ($1493) to over twenty-five hundred ($2500) as a result of the fraudulent no-fault
3
just cause eviction.
4
32. Plaintiff Eli Juniper’s rent increased from nine-hundred and fifty dollars ($950)
5
6 per month to seventeen-hundred per month ($1700) as a result of the fraudulent no-fault just
7 cause eviction. Juniper suffered $3600 in moving expenses and now has a longer commute as
8
the new residence is in a less desirable location.
9
Habitability and Harassment
10
33. During her tenancy, Burlison frequently requested Peterink make necessary
11
12 repairs, to which he refused and responded with abusive and neglectful behavior.
13 34. Requested and necessary repairs that were not done by Peterink included
14
Addressing mold, rodent infestation, rotten wood on the exterior of the building causing leaks
15
and mold inside and outside of the home, boards falling off of the exterior, out of date electrical
16
panel with a rodent’s nest, overgrown trees, ongoing plumbing issues, no ventilation on the gas
17
18 stove, windows that did not open in the bathroom and living room.
19 35. Peterink was aggressive, he would yell, he would shake tools and shovels near her
20
face, and chastise her and threaten to evict her regularly for not fixing and repairing the
21
Premises on her own, telling her she “needed a man around to fix things.”
22
36. He routinely harassed her, to include defaming her to her neighbors and the other
23
24 tenants to include telling them that she was on Section 8, that she did not pay her rent, that she
25 changed her number without telling him, all of which was not true.
26
37. He would stare into her windows, drag heavy objects around the shared driveway
27
for hours making outrageous noise, he used a chainsaw outside of her windows without any
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 7
1 notice of being present to repair anything, and he would stare into her windows, all of which
2
made her extremely uncomfortable and worried for her safety.
3
38. This also caused Burlison to be intimidated to follow up with her requests for
4
necessary repairs.
5
6 39. As a result, Burlison was forced to pay out of pocket for repairs that were the
7 responsibility of Peterink and benefitted him and the Premises.
8
40. Despite her fear of him, Burlison still requested reimbursement from Peterink and
9
provided him with receipts for proof of various repairs, including notes from electricians and
10
plumbers for issues that Mr. Peterink continually failed to address, but Peterink ignored and
11
12 refused to refund these costs.
13 41. For instance, Burlison incurred the repair cost for a dilapidated fence that Mr.
14
Peterink refused to fix, as was his obligation as owner of the property, resulting in a six-
15
thousand ($6000) dollar expense incurred by Burlison and a windfall to Peterink. that was
16
never reimbursed.
17
18 42. Mr. Peterink similarly failed to address requests for repair the rotten awnings,
19 ceiling leaks, untrimmed trees, mold on the Premises, plumbing issues, and dangerous, faulty
20
wiring.
21
43. On December 22, 2022, a judgment against Peterlink from the small claims court
22
of Sonoma County issued in the amount of $4,364, in favor of Burlison, which Peterlink has
23
24 refused to pay.
25 44. Plaintiffs now bring this action against Defendant Peterink, seeking economic
26
damages, as well as any damages enhancements, according to law and to be proven at trial.
27
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 8
1 CLAIM ONE
Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.2
2
3 45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all prior allegations above as though fully set
4 forth herein.
5
46. Defendant has violated Civil Code Section 1946.2, by falsely claiming there was good
6
cause to evict Plaintiffs, causing Plaintiffs to move out of their homes, involuntarily and
7
without just cause.
8
9 47. Defendant based his no-fault just cause eviction on a basis that was intentionally
10 or recklessly false.
11
48. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer economic, emotional, and
12
physical distress due to the loss of their homes the increased rental amount each month
13
following the eviction, moving costs, loss of the ability to love in the area, and other financial
14
15 and time strains placed on them by being forced to move without just cause.
16 49. Defendant’s failure to comply with Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.2 entitles Plaintiffs
17
to actual damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
18
50. Defendant’s fraudulent premise upon which the no-fault just cause eviction is
19
based on makes Plaintiffs’ eligible for an award of punitive damages and a three times actual
20
21 damage multiplier.
22 51. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well
23
as any other damages they may be entitled to.
24
CLAIM TWO
25 Intentional Misrepresentation
26
52. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all prior allegations above as though fully set
27
forth herein.
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 9
1 53. Defendant intentionally misrepresented to Plaintiffs that he was taking the
2
Premises off the rental market, and evicted them on that false premise.
3
54. Defendant’s representations of the removal of the property from the rental market
4
were false.
5
6 55. Defendant knew his representation was false when he made the representation in
7 order to bypass the law and to force Plaintiffs out of the Premises in order to recover it for his
8
gain.
9
56. Defendant intended that the Plaintiffs rely on his misrepresentation.
10
57. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations.
11
12 58. Plaintiffs were harmed both financially and emotionally as a result of Defendant’s
13 misrepresentations.
14
59. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendant’s representation was a substantial factor in
15
causing their harm.
16
60. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well
17
18 as any other damages they may be entitled to, to include punitive damages.
19 CLAIM THREE
Unfair Business Practices
20
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
21
61. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference the allegations contained in above
22
paragraphs as if stated in full.
23
24 62. California’s Unfair Competition Law is found in Business & Professions Code
25 sections 17200 et. seq. The Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits two types of conduct,
26
the first of which is “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.”
27
63. At all times herein mentioned, the California Business and Professions Code was
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 10
1 in full force and effect and was binding on Defendant, a California landlord that was renting
2
real estate to California residents, including Plaintiffs.
3
64. The statute requires Defendant to refrain from any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent
4
business act.
5
6 65. Unfair competition can include “anything that can be properly called a business
7 practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” See Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior
8
Court, 2 Cal.4th 377 (Cal. 1992.) Renting a residential premises is considered a business
9
practice under the statute.
10
66. By failing to comply with State and local law and common law obligations
11
12 relating to lessors of residential premises, as alleged herein, all of which resulted in the
13 fraudulent eviction of Plaintiffs, as heretofore alleged, Defendant acted in contradiction to the
14
law and is and was engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices under California
15
Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
16
67. California Health and Safety Code § 17920 et seq sets forward minimum
17
18 conditions for habitable premises. California Health and Safety Code § 17920.3 (n) states that
19 all buildings or portions thereof occupied for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining purposes that
20
were not designed or intended to be used for those occupancies are deemed substandard and, as
21
a matter of law, uninhabitable.
22
68. California Health and Safety Code § 17922 established the Uniform Building
23
24 Code as a minimum standard for habitability. California Civil Code Section 1941 et seq sets
25 forth minimum standard for habitability.
26
69. California Civil Code § 1941.1 states that a dwelling is untenantable if it fails to
27
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 11
1 meet certain health and safety requirements such as being free of vermin, having adequate
2
heating facilities, and meeting the proper electrical, plumbing, and other building codes in effect
3
at the time of installation.
4
70. By failing and refusing to comply with legal obligations under California Civil
5
6 Code § 1950.5, Defendant engaged in unfair business practices.
7 71. Defendant’s conduct, as alleged, further violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200,
8
et seq., and Defendant committed unlawful business acts, including by the following, separate
9
bases for liability:
10
a) Basing an eviction on a fraudulent no-fault just cause in violation of Cal. Bus. &
11
12 Prof. Code § 17200, et seq;
13 b) Failing to make necessary repairs as is the duty of a landlord, in violation of Cal.
14
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
15
72. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the acts of Defendant
16
as described herein, constitute an unlawful business practice and unfair competition in violation
17
18 of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
19 CLAIM FOUR
Breach of the Warranties of Habitability
20
21
73. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior allegations above as though fully set
22
forth herein.
23
24 74. Defendant has violated statutes, including, among others, Civil Code Section
25 1941, et seq, and Health & Safety Code Section 179203 related to the implied warranty of
26
habitability.
27
75. Plaintiffs repeatedly notified Defendant, both orally and in writing, of the
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 12
1 unsanitary, unsafe, unhealthy and/or defective conditions. Defendant failed and/or refused to
2
repair these dangerous and defective conditions within a reasonable time, or at all.
3
76. Accordingly, Defendant had actual and/or constructive notice of each of the
4
defective conditions described above at all relevant times herein.
5
6 77. Defendant was given ample time to rectify or address the numerous unsafe and/or
7 unsanitary conditions described by Plaintiffs, yet failed to take the steps necessary to repair
8
said conditions at all times relevant herein.
9
78. Plaintiffs paid Defendant rent during the time they occupied the Premises.
10
79. Plaintiffs did nothing to cause, create or contribute to the existence of the
11
12 defective conditions stated above.
13 80. Further, Plaintiffs’ financial damages were a direct and proximate result of
14
Defendant’s breach of the statutory warranty of habitability and the failure to repair the defective
15
and dangerous conditions or have them repaired within a reasonable time or at all.
16
81. As a direct and proximate result of the above conduct and resultant conditions at
17
18 Premises, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer financial damages, including moving costs,
19 higher rent, mental and emotional pain as a result of being removed from their homes,
20
embarrassment, humiliation, discomfort, and extreme emotional distress all to their general
21
damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
22
CLAIM FIVE
23
Conversion
24
82. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior allegations above as though fully set
25
forth herein.
26
27 83. Plaintiffs had a right to possess Premises as agreed to upon their lease.
28 84. Defendant, through fraudulent and deceptive means, substantially interfered with
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 13
1 Plaintiffs’ ability to access and physical control by knowingly or intentionally taking possession
2
of the property.
3
85. Defendant prevented Plaintiffs from having access to Premises through fraudulent
4
eviction in which Plaintiffs did not consent to.
5
6 86. Plaintiff Burlison incurred repair costs which Peterlink is required by law to
7 reimburse. Peterlink has a valid judgment against him and in favor of Burlison that he refuses
8
to pay, reflecting his refusal to follow the law.
9
87. All Plaintiffs were financially harmed by the loss of their right to possess the
10
premises and Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm, as
11
12 Defendant forced Plaintiffs out under false pretenses through the guise of legal eviction.
13 CLAIM SIX
Harassment and Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
14
15 88. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior allegations above as though fully set
16 forth herein.
17
89. Implied in every residential lease is a covenant of quiet enjoyment, guaranteeing
18
that tenants will be able to peacefully enjoy their homes. Cal. Civ. Code § 1927.
19
90. Plaintiffs were under constant threat of eviction, received unlawful eviction
20
21 notices, were verbally and physically harassed and threatened by Defendant, and did not
22 benefit from timely and proper repairs. See Guntert v. City of Stockton, 55 Cal. App. 3d 131
23
(1976).
24
91. As a direct result of the breaches by Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an
25
amount to be proven at trial.
26
27
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 14
1 RELIEF SOUGHT
2
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFFS PRAY FOR RELIEF AS FOLLOWS:
3
1. For general damages, to include three times actual damages as per Cal. Civ. Code §
4
1946.2(h)(1)(C);
5
6 2. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;
7 3. For costs incurred in this litigation;
8
4. For punitive damages as applicable;
9
5. For all other relief that the court deems just and proper.
10
DATED: May 1, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
11
12
AUSTIN SWANSON LAW FIRM PC
13
14
15
By:
16 Attorney for Plaintiffs
17
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
18
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this action.
19
20
DATED: May 1, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
21
22
AUSTIN SWANSON LAW FIRM PC
23
24
25 By:
Julien Swanson, Esq.
26 Attorney for Plaintffs
27
28
BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK
PAGE 15
Preview
1 Julien Swanson (SBN 193957) Eric Bass (SBN 349694) 2 Austin Swanson Law Firm PC 3 584 Castro St. #2126 San Francisco, CA 94114 4 415.282.4511 (P) | 415.282.4536 (F) swanson@austinswansonlaw.com 5 bass@austinswansonlaw.com 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 COUNTY OF SONOMA 8 9 10 DANIELLE BURLISON, AN INDIVIDUAL, Case No.: ELI JUNIPER, AN INDIVIDUAL, SARA 11 GRAY, AN INDIVIDUAL 12 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR JURY 13 TRIAL vs. 14 JOHN PETERINK, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND 1. Violation of Civil Code § 1946.2 15 DOES 1-100; 2. Intentional Misrepresentation 3. Unfair Business Practices In 16 Violation Of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Defendant. 17 § 17200 4. Breach of the Warranties of 18 Habitability 5. Conversion 19 6. Harassment – Breach of Covenant of 20 Quiet Enjoyment 21 22 PARTIES 23 1. Danielle Burlison (“Burlison”) is a Plaintiff in this case, was at all times relevant 24 25 herein, a resident of the City of Santa Rosa in the County of Sonoma, California and was over 26 the age of 18. 27 2. Eli Juniper (“Juniper”) is a Plaintiff in this case, was at all times relevant herein, a 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 1 1 resident of the City of Santa Rosa in the County of Sonoma, California and was over the age of 2 18. 3 3. Sara Gray (“Gray”) is a Plaintiff in this case, was at all times relevant herein, a 4 resident of the City of Santa Rosa in the County of Sonoma, California and was over the age of 5 6 18. 7 4. John Peterink (“Peterink”) is a Defendant in this case, was at all times relevant 8 herein, an owner of the real property which is located in the City of Santa Rosa, the County of 9 Sonoma, and commonly known and referred to as 514-516 Goodman Avenue, Santa Rosa, 10 California 95407 (hereinafter “Premises”). 11 12 5. Does 1 through 50 are, and at all times herein mentioned, were doing business in 13 the County of Sonoma, in the State of California. 14 (a) Defendants Doe 1 through Doe 50, inclusive (“Doe Defendants”) are fictitious 15 names of defendants sued herein under the provisions of Section 474 of the Code 16 of Civil Procedure. Either their true names and capacities or the underlying theory 17 18 of liability IS/are unknown to Plaintiffs. When said true names and capacities, or 19 the theories of liability are ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint by 20 inserting their true names and capacities, or such theories, herein. 21 (b) Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the 22 fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences 23 herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs ' damages as herein alleged were proximately 24 caused by such defendants. 25 26 (c) At all times herein mentioned the Doe Defendants were the agents, servants, 27 employees, employers, principals, owners, co-owners, lessors, sublessors, 28 predecessors, or successors of their codefendants, and in doing the things alleged BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 2 1 below were acting in the scope of their authority as such agents, servants, 2 employees, employers, principals, owners, co-owners, lessors, sublessors, 3 predecessors, or successors, and with the permissions and consent of their 4 codefendants. 5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6 7 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because he was at all relevant 8 times the owner of the Premises, residential real property located in the County of Sonoma in the 9 State of California. 10 7. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendant transacted business in this 11 County through rental of his real estate during all relevant times, and the conduct complained of 12 13 related to said real estate, which is located in this County. 14 8. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the Premises are currently listed for 15 sale and under contract. Nonetheless, Peterink was the legal owner at all relevant times herein 16 and though at least the present date. 17 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 18 19 9. Burlison was a tenant as that term is defined under California law, at 514 20 Goodman Ave pursuant to a written lease agreement, from December 5, 2003 through the date 21 of the wrongful eviction alleged herein. 22 10. At the time of the eviction Burlison’s rent was set at $1493 per month, which was 23 below fair market value. 24 25 11. Burlison did not intend to terminate her tenancy or to move out of the Premises or 26 Santa Rosa at any time. 27 12. Juniper was a tenant was a tenant as that term is defined under California law, at 28 514 Goodman Ave, in the “granny House” pursuant to a written lease agreement, from BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 3 1 August 1, 2018 through the date of the wrongful eviction alleged herein. 2 13. Juniper did not intend to terminate their tenancy or to move out of the Premises or 3 Santa Rosa at any time. 4 14. At the time of the eviction Juniper’s rent was set at $950 per month, which was 5 6 below fair market value. 7 15. Gray was a tenant was a tenant as that term is defined under California law, at 514 8 Goodman Ave, in the “Main House” pursuant to a written lease agreement, from 9 January 1, 2015 through the date of the wrongful eviction alleged herein. 10 16. Gray did not intend to terminate their tenancy or to move out of the Premises or 11 12 Santa Rosa at any time. 13 17. At the time of the eviction Gray’s rent was set at $1200 per month, which was 14 below fair market value. 15 18. Peterink was the owner of the Premises and was the landlord as that term is 16 defined under California law, to all Plaintiffs throughout their above-defined tenancies. 17 18 Wrongful Evictions 19 19. On May 5, 2022, Peterink caused the following notice of termination of tenancy 20 to be serve on Burlison: 21 This 90 DAY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY is given pursuant 22 to § 1946 of the California Civil code, for the purpose- of terminating 23 your tenancy of the above-named premises. If you fail to comply, suit will-be instituted against you for such possession, and for attorney's 24 fees and all damages and costs allowed by law. 25 THIS NOTICE EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT, AUGUST 31, 2022 AND YOU MUST 26 HAVE VACATED BY THAT DATE AND TIME. THIS PROPERTY TO BE 27 REMOVED FROM THE RENTAL MARKET. PER TENANT RELIEF STATUTES $1493 RENT FOR THE PERIOD 1 AUG 2022 THROUGH 31 AUG 2022, IS 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 4 1 HEREIN WAIVED. THE RENT OWED FOR 1 JUL 2022 THROUGH 31, 2022 2 HAS PREVIOULSY BEEN PAID. 3 20. On May 5, 2022, Peterink caused the following notice of termination of tenancy 4 to be serve on Juniper: 5 This 60 DAY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY is given pursuant 6 to § 1946 of the California Civil code, for the purpose- of terminating 7 your tenancy of the above-named premises. If you fail to comply, suit will-be instituted against you for such possession, and for attorney's 8 fees and all damages and costs allowed by law 9 10 THIS NOTICE EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT JULY 5, 2022 AND YOU MUST HAVE VACATED BY THAT DATE AND TIME. PER TENANT RELIEF STATUTES THE 11 $950 RENT OWED FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 5, 2022 THROUGH JULY 5, 12 2022 IS HEREBY WAIVED. THIS PROPERTY TO BE REMOVED FROM THE RENTAL MARKET. 13 14 21. On May 5, 2022, Peterink caused the following notice of termination of tenancy 15 to be serve on Gray 16 This 60 DAY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY is given pursuant 17 to § 1946 of the California Civil code, for the purpose- of terminating your tenancy of the above-named premises. If you fail to comply, suit 18 will-be instituted against you for such possession, and for attorney's 19 fees and all damages and costs allowed by law. 20 THIS NOTICE EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT JULY 5, 2022 AND YOU MUST HAVE 21 VACATED BY THAT DATE AND TIME. PER TENANT RELIEF STATUTES THE 22 $1200 RENT OWED FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 5, 2022 THROUGH JULY 5, 2022 IS HEREBY WAIVED. THIS PROPERTY TO BE REMOVED FROM THE 23 RENTAL MARKET. 24 22. The above-described tenancies are all covered by the California Tenant Protection 25 Act at Civil Code § 1946.2. 26 27 23. Under § 1946.2, Peterink was legally prohibited from raising any of the Plaintiff’s 28 rents to fair market value or above a minimum and prescribed threshold. BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 5 1 24. Under § 1946.2, Peterink was also legally prohibited from engaging in no-fault 2 evictions as to any Plaintiff without good cause. 3 25. Good cause under the statute includes if the land owner removes the property 4 from the rental market. 5 6 26. Burlison, Juniper, and Gray relied on the statute, and the notices they received 7 from Peterink – specifically Peterink’s false claims that he was removing the property from the 8 rental market -when they moved out of the Premises, effectively terminating the tenancies, 9 without forcing an eviction proceeding or challenging the notices. 10 27. It is alleged on information and belief that Peterink intentionally misrepresented 11 12 his intention to take the Premises off the rental market, in order to bypass the law, to bypass 13 rent control and eviction protections, and to recover the Premises for his benefit. 14 28. After the termination of the Plaintiffs’ tenancies as described above, investigation 15 revealed subsequent tenants at the Premises while Peterink remained the owner, to include 16 tenant Jenna Lee Boaz. 17 18 29. Mr. Peterink’s misrepresentations and illegal evictions caused each Plaintiff to 19 lose their housing, and to face moving costs, rent increases and other damages. 20 30. Plaintiff Sarah Gray’s rent increased from seventeen-hundred a month ($1700) to 21 twenty-five hundred per month ($2500) as a result of the fraudulent no-fault just cause 22 eviction. She was unable to remain in Sonoma County where her children go to school, 23 24 causing incredible hardship for her family. Her moving costs were $600 and she pays $250 per 25 month for a storage facility as she was unable to move into a comparable space where her 26 belonings can be stored. 27 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 6 1 31. Plaintiff Danielle Burlison’s rent increased from fourteen-hundred and ninety- 2 three dollars ($1493) to over twenty-five hundred ($2500) as a result of the fraudulent no-fault 3 just cause eviction. 4 32. Plaintiff Eli Juniper’s rent increased from nine-hundred and fifty dollars ($950) 5 6 per month to seventeen-hundred per month ($1700) as a result of the fraudulent no-fault just 7 cause eviction. Juniper suffered $3600 in moving expenses and now has a longer commute as 8 the new residence is in a less desirable location. 9 Habitability and Harassment 10 33. During her tenancy, Burlison frequently requested Peterink make necessary 11 12 repairs, to which he refused and responded with abusive and neglectful behavior. 13 34. Requested and necessary repairs that were not done by Peterink included 14 Addressing mold, rodent infestation, rotten wood on the exterior of the building causing leaks 15 and mold inside and outside of the home, boards falling off of the exterior, out of date electrical 16 panel with a rodent’s nest, overgrown trees, ongoing plumbing issues, no ventilation on the gas 17 18 stove, windows that did not open in the bathroom and living room. 19 35. Peterink was aggressive, he would yell, he would shake tools and shovels near her 20 face, and chastise her and threaten to evict her regularly for not fixing and repairing the 21 Premises on her own, telling her she “needed a man around to fix things.” 22 36. He routinely harassed her, to include defaming her to her neighbors and the other 23 24 tenants to include telling them that she was on Section 8, that she did not pay her rent, that she 25 changed her number without telling him, all of which was not true. 26 37. He would stare into her windows, drag heavy objects around the shared driveway 27 for hours making outrageous noise, he used a chainsaw outside of her windows without any 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 7 1 notice of being present to repair anything, and he would stare into her windows, all of which 2 made her extremely uncomfortable and worried for her safety. 3 38. This also caused Burlison to be intimidated to follow up with her requests for 4 necessary repairs. 5 6 39. As a result, Burlison was forced to pay out of pocket for repairs that were the 7 responsibility of Peterink and benefitted him and the Premises. 8 40. Despite her fear of him, Burlison still requested reimbursement from Peterink and 9 provided him with receipts for proof of various repairs, including notes from electricians and 10 plumbers for issues that Mr. Peterink continually failed to address, but Peterink ignored and 11 12 refused to refund these costs. 13 41. For instance, Burlison incurred the repair cost for a dilapidated fence that Mr. 14 Peterink refused to fix, as was his obligation as owner of the property, resulting in a six- 15 thousand ($6000) dollar expense incurred by Burlison and a windfall to Peterink. that was 16 never reimbursed. 17 18 42. Mr. Peterink similarly failed to address requests for repair the rotten awnings, 19 ceiling leaks, untrimmed trees, mold on the Premises, plumbing issues, and dangerous, faulty 20 wiring. 21 43. On December 22, 2022, a judgment against Peterlink from the small claims court 22 of Sonoma County issued in the amount of $4,364, in favor of Burlison, which Peterlink has 23 24 refused to pay. 25 44. Plaintiffs now bring this action against Defendant Peterink, seeking economic 26 damages, as well as any damages enhancements, according to law and to be proven at trial. 27 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 8 1 CLAIM ONE Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.2 2 3 45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all prior allegations above as though fully set 4 forth herein. 5 46. Defendant has violated Civil Code Section 1946.2, by falsely claiming there was good 6 cause to evict Plaintiffs, causing Plaintiffs to move out of their homes, involuntarily and 7 without just cause. 8 9 47. Defendant based his no-fault just cause eviction on a basis that was intentionally 10 or recklessly false. 11 48. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer economic, emotional, and 12 physical distress due to the loss of their homes the increased rental amount each month 13 following the eviction, moving costs, loss of the ability to love in the area, and other financial 14 15 and time strains placed on them by being forced to move without just cause. 16 49. Defendant’s failure to comply with Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.2 entitles Plaintiffs 17 to actual damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 18 50. Defendant’s fraudulent premise upon which the no-fault just cause eviction is 19 based on makes Plaintiffs’ eligible for an award of punitive damages and a three times actual 20 21 damage multiplier. 22 51. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well 23 as any other damages they may be entitled to. 24 CLAIM TWO 25 Intentional Misrepresentation 26 52. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all prior allegations above as though fully set 27 forth herein. 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 9 1 53. Defendant intentionally misrepresented to Plaintiffs that he was taking the 2 Premises off the rental market, and evicted them on that false premise. 3 54. Defendant’s representations of the removal of the property from the rental market 4 were false. 5 6 55. Defendant knew his representation was false when he made the representation in 7 order to bypass the law and to force Plaintiffs out of the Premises in order to recover it for his 8 gain. 9 56. Defendant intended that the Plaintiffs rely on his misrepresentation. 10 57. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations. 11 12 58. Plaintiffs were harmed both financially and emotionally as a result of Defendant’s 13 misrepresentations. 14 59. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendant’s representation was a substantial factor in 15 causing their harm. 16 60. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well 17 18 as any other damages they may be entitled to, to include punitive damages. 19 CLAIM THREE Unfair Business Practices 20 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 21 61. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference the allegations contained in above 22 paragraphs as if stated in full. 23 24 62. California’s Unfair Competition Law is found in Business & Professions Code 25 sections 17200 et. seq. The Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits two types of conduct, 26 the first of which is “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” 27 63. At all times herein mentioned, the California Business and Professions Code was 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 10 1 in full force and effect and was binding on Defendant, a California landlord that was renting 2 real estate to California residents, including Plaintiffs. 3 64. The statute requires Defendant to refrain from any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent 4 business act. 5 6 65. Unfair competition can include “anything that can be properly called a business 7 practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” See Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior 8 Court, 2 Cal.4th 377 (Cal. 1992.) Renting a residential premises is considered a business 9 practice under the statute. 10 66. By failing to comply with State and local law and common law obligations 11 12 relating to lessors of residential premises, as alleged herein, all of which resulted in the 13 fraudulent eviction of Plaintiffs, as heretofore alleged, Defendant acted in contradiction to the 14 law and is and was engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices under California 15 Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. 16 67. California Health and Safety Code § 17920 et seq sets forward minimum 17 18 conditions for habitable premises. California Health and Safety Code § 17920.3 (n) states that 19 all buildings or portions thereof occupied for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining purposes that 20 were not designed or intended to be used for those occupancies are deemed substandard and, as 21 a matter of law, uninhabitable. 22 68. California Health and Safety Code § 17922 established the Uniform Building 23 24 Code as a minimum standard for habitability. California Civil Code Section 1941 et seq sets 25 forth minimum standard for habitability. 26 69. California Civil Code § 1941.1 states that a dwelling is untenantable if it fails to 27 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 11 1 meet certain health and safety requirements such as being free of vermin, having adequate 2 heating facilities, and meeting the proper electrical, plumbing, and other building codes in effect 3 at the time of installation. 4 70. By failing and refusing to comply with legal obligations under California Civil 5 6 Code § 1950.5, Defendant engaged in unfair business practices. 7 71. Defendant’s conduct, as alleged, further violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, 8 et seq., and Defendant committed unlawful business acts, including by the following, separate 9 bases for liability: 10 a) Basing an eviction on a fraudulent no-fault just cause in violation of Cal. Bus. & 11 12 Prof. Code § 17200, et seq; 13 b) Failing to make necessary repairs as is the duty of a landlord, in violation of Cal. 14 Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. 15 72. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the acts of Defendant 16 as described herein, constitute an unlawful business practice and unfair competition in violation 17 18 of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. 19 CLAIM FOUR Breach of the Warranties of Habitability 20 21 73. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior allegations above as though fully set 22 forth herein. 23 24 74. Defendant has violated statutes, including, among others, Civil Code Section 25 1941, et seq, and Health & Safety Code Section 179203 related to the implied warranty of 26 habitability. 27 75. Plaintiffs repeatedly notified Defendant, both orally and in writing, of the 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 12 1 unsanitary, unsafe, unhealthy and/or defective conditions. Defendant failed and/or refused to 2 repair these dangerous and defective conditions within a reasonable time, or at all. 3 76. Accordingly, Defendant had actual and/or constructive notice of each of the 4 defective conditions described above at all relevant times herein. 5 6 77. Defendant was given ample time to rectify or address the numerous unsafe and/or 7 unsanitary conditions described by Plaintiffs, yet failed to take the steps necessary to repair 8 said conditions at all times relevant herein. 9 78. Plaintiffs paid Defendant rent during the time they occupied the Premises. 10 79. Plaintiffs did nothing to cause, create or contribute to the existence of the 11 12 defective conditions stated above. 13 80. Further, Plaintiffs’ financial damages were a direct and proximate result of 14 Defendant’s breach of the statutory warranty of habitability and the failure to repair the defective 15 and dangerous conditions or have them repaired within a reasonable time or at all. 16 81. As a direct and proximate result of the above conduct and resultant conditions at 17 18 Premises, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer financial damages, including moving costs, 19 higher rent, mental and emotional pain as a result of being removed from their homes, 20 embarrassment, humiliation, discomfort, and extreme emotional distress all to their general 21 damage in an amount to be proven at trial. 22 CLAIM FIVE 23 Conversion 24 82. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior allegations above as though fully set 25 forth herein. 26 27 83. Plaintiffs had a right to possess Premises as agreed to upon their lease. 28 84. Defendant, through fraudulent and deceptive means, substantially interfered with BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 13 1 Plaintiffs’ ability to access and physical control by knowingly or intentionally taking possession 2 of the property. 3 85. Defendant prevented Plaintiffs from having access to Premises through fraudulent 4 eviction in which Plaintiffs did not consent to. 5 6 86. Plaintiff Burlison incurred repair costs which Peterlink is required by law to 7 reimburse. Peterlink has a valid judgment against him and in favor of Burlison that he refuses 8 to pay, reflecting his refusal to follow the law. 9 87. All Plaintiffs were financially harmed by the loss of their right to possess the 10 premises and Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm, as 11 12 Defendant forced Plaintiffs out under false pretenses through the guise of legal eviction. 13 CLAIM SIX Harassment and Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment 14 15 88. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior allegations above as though fully set 16 forth herein. 17 89. Implied in every residential lease is a covenant of quiet enjoyment, guaranteeing 18 that tenants will be able to peacefully enjoy their homes. Cal. Civ. Code § 1927. 19 90. Plaintiffs were under constant threat of eviction, received unlawful eviction 20 21 notices, were verbally and physically harassed and threatened by Defendant, and did not 22 benefit from timely and proper repairs. See Guntert v. City of Stockton, 55 Cal. App. 3d 131 23 (1976). 24 91. As a direct result of the breaches by Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an 25 amount to be proven at trial. 26 27 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 14 1 RELIEF SOUGHT 2 WHEREFORE PLAINTIFFS PRAY FOR RELIEF AS FOLLOWS: 3 1. For general damages, to include three times actual damages as per Cal. Civ. Code § 4 1946.2(h)(1)(C); 5 6 2. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; 7 3. For costs incurred in this litigation; 8 4. For punitive damages as applicable; 9 5. For all other relief that the court deems just and proper. 10 DATED: May 1, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 11 12 AUSTIN SWANSON LAW FIRM PC 13 14 15 By: 16 Attorney for Plaintiffs 17 JURY TRIAL DEMAND 18 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this action. 19 20 DATED: May 1, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 21 22 AUSTIN SWANSON LAW FIRM PC 23 24 25 By: Julien Swanson, Esq. 26 Attorney for Plaintffs 27 28 BURLISON, ET AL V. PETERINK PAGE 15