Preview
ElectronicallyFiled Superior Courtof CA Countyof Contra Costa 5/8/2024 5:16 PM By:T. Jacobsen-Rios, Deputy
1 STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD, ESQ. (SBN 103512)
NATHAN VERBISCAR-BROWN (SBN 286377)
2 STEVEN ADAIR MAC DONALD & PARTNERS, P. C.
3 870 Market Street, Suite 500 Per local Rule, This case is assigned to
San Francisco, CA 94102 Judge Douglas, Danielle K, for all purposes.
4 Tel: (415) 956-6488
Fax: (415) 956-8698
5 Email: nvbrown@samlaw.net
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARIA SOSA, RENE PAUL IRAHETA, and IRVING
7 ALEXIS MELENDEZ
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA – UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
C24-01238
STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C.
MARIA SOSA, an individual, RENE Case No.
11 PAUL IRAHETA, an individual, and
IRVING ALEXIS MELENDEZ, an COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
12 individual, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488
13 Plaintiffs, 1. Violation of B& P §17200 (Unfair
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 Business Practices)
vs. 2. Breach of the Covenant of Quiet
15 Enjoyment (Contract)
YADIRA BASSETT, an individual, and 3. Breach of the Implied Warranty of
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Habitability (Tort)
16 4. Nuisance
Defendants. 5. Negligence
17 6. Breach of the City of Richmond Tenant
Anti-Harassment Ordinance §§11.103
18 et seq
7. Violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1942.5
19 (Retaliation)
8. Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.4
20
21
22 Plaintiffs MARIA SOSA, RENE PAUL IRAHETA, and IRVING ALEXIS MELENDEZ
23 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) hereby complain against defendants, and for
24 causes of action allege:
25 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
26 1. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs were and are individuals, over the age of
27 18, and residents of the City of Richmond, County of Contra Costa, California.
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 2. The acts and/or failures to act complained of herein occurred in the County of Contra
2 Costa, State of California.
3 3. The real property and improvements as to which this action relates is located in the
4 County of Contra Costa, State of California, and is commonly known as 424 19th Street, Richmond,
5 California (hereinafter referred to as “Property”).
6 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Property is legally
7 permitted as a single-family home. Plaintiffs further allege that in addition to the main house, the
8 Property contains an illegal, unpermitted and unlawful rental unit (hereinafter referred to as
9 “Premises”) in the rear of the Property, in which Plaintiffs have resided at all relevant times.
10 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times,
870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C.
11 Defendant YADIRA BASSETT (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) was and is an individual
12 over 18 years old and the owner of the Property.
TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488
13 6. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and/or capacities of the defendants sued herein
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious name.
15 Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this complaint to include the true names and capacities of these
16 so named DOE defendants when their true names and capacities are ascertained.
17 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned
18 herein, each of the defendants, including the defendants sued as Does 1 through 100 herein, were
19 acting within the scope of their relationship with each other as the employer, employee, master,
20 servant, and/or agent of the other, and that all acts alleged herein were done within the scope of
21 said relationship.
22 STATEMENT OF FACTS
23 8. On or about July 5, 1996, Plaintiffs entered into a written residential lease with the
24 then-owner of the Property, Adrian Bermudez, Jr. (hereinafter “Former Owner), to rent the
25 Premises for an initial monthly rate of $700.00 per month.
26
27
28
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 9. On or about July 5, 1996, Plaintiffs MARIA and RENE, along with their then-
2 minor son, IRVING, entered into possession of the Premises under such lease and have remained
3 in possession ever since.
4 10. In or around October 2021, Defendant became the owner of the Property.
5 11. On or around March 1, 2022, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a new written
6 month to month lease for the Property (hereinafter “Agreement”) at a monthly rate of $1,250.00.
7 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times
8 during which Defendant owned and/or managed the Property, Defendant was the landlord of
9 Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs were the tenants of Defendant as the terms “landlord” and “tenant” are
10 defined under California common law, under The Richmond Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction
870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C.
11 and Homeowner Protection Ordinance (Richmond, Cal., Mun. Code § 11.100.010, et seq.)
12 (hereinafter “Just Cause Ordinance”) and the Richmond Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance
TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488
13 (Richmond, Cal., Mun. Code § 11.103.010, et seq.) (hereinafter “Harassment Ordinance”), under
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 et seq., and under California Civil Code sections
15 789.3 and 1980.
16 13. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs’ tenancy at the Property was
17 subject to the Just Cause Ordinance and the Harassment Ordinance, and California Civil Code
18 §§1941.1, et seq.
19 14. After moving into the Premises, Plaintiffs discovered that the Property had several
20 serious defects, which were violative of Defendant’s obligations under applicable law (including,
21 but not limited to, the warranty of habitability and covenant of quiet enjoyment implied into the
22 Agreement). Those defects, which manifested themselves at different times after the inception of
23 Plaintiffs’ tenancy, included but are not limited to:
24 1. Lack of consistent heating;
25 2. Mold in the bathroom, closets, and master bedroom;
26 3. Deteriorated waterproofing;
27 4. Cockroach and rodent infestations;
28
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 5. Broken doors and windows;
2 6. Non-operable electrical outlets;
3 7. Lack of ventilation in the bathroom;
4 8. Cracks in the ceiling;
5 9. Leaks throughout the Property;
6 10. Malfunctioning light switches; and
7 11. Lack of smoke detectors.
8 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times
9 Defendant was aware of these said defects, about which Plaintiffs subsequently and repeatedly
10 complained to Defendant.
870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C.
11 13. In retaliation for Plaintiffs’ requests for repairs, on September 29, 2023, Defendant
12 caused Plaintiffs to be served with an unlawful rent increase notice that doubled her rent from
TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488
13 $1,250.00 to $2,500.00.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 14. On or around October 18, 2023, because Defendant had continued to fail and
15 refuse to timely and adequately address the unlawful and substandard conditions at the Property,
16 Plaintiffs were forced to complain to the City of Richmond’s Community Development
17 Department, Code Enforcement Division (hereinafter referred to as “DBI”) about said conditions.
18 15. On or around October 18, 2023, an inspector from DBI inspected the Property and
19 issued a Notice of Violation and Demand to Abate (hereinafter referred to as “NOV”), in which
20 Defendant was ordered to promptly repair the defects and code violations listed in the NOV,
21 including the lack of smoke detectors, lack of carbon monoxide detectors, infestations, and
22 deteriorated waterproofing.
23 16. Defendant failed and refused—and continues to fail and refuse—to correct the vast
24 majority of the substandard and unlawful housing conditions referenced in this Complaint
25 (including those listed in the NOV).
26 17. Subsequent to the commencement of Plaintiffs’ tenancy of the Property, and
27 continuing to date, Defendant has substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment rights
28
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 with respect to the Property, including by failing and refusing to promptly and adequately correct
2 the defects described above, causing and/or permitting nuisance conditions and activities,
3 harassing and intimidating Plaintiffs, and entering the Property without proper notice and/or for
4 purposes not authorized under Civil Code Section 1954, as part of an intentional, deliberate and
5 conscious scheme to harass Plaintiffs into leaving their long-time rent controlled home.
6 18. For example, in or around September 2023, Defendant arrived at the Property and
7 began to berate Plaintiff SOSA on the driveway, in full view of the whole neighborhood, for
8 allegedly owing Defendant money. When Plaintiff SOSA explained that the COVID rental debt
9 should have been paid off, Defendant refused to listen.
10 19. On or around January 18, 2024, Plaintiffs, through their counsel, caused to be
870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C.
11 served on Defendant via first class mail and e-mail a letter regarding the above-mentioned
12 habitability defects and quiet enjoyment violations. The letter included an offer to settle
TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488
13 Plaintiffs’ claims without litigation. In response, Defendant yelled at Plaintiff SOSA, demanded
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 that SOSA “cancel the letter,” and stated that she would not pay any money.
15 20. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned conduct, Plaintiffs were
16 compelled to pay an excessive and unlawful amount of rent for the Property, in that the rent was
17 unlawfully increased, the Property was not habitable for human occupation, Plaintiffs’ quiet
18 enjoyment rights were violated, and because Defendant was providing a level of housing service
19 (with respect to the Property) which was below that to which Plaintiffs are legally entitled.
20 21. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned conduct, Plaintiffs have
21 suffered (and continues to suffer) monetary damages, severe physical and emotional pain and
22 distress, including but not limited to stress, anxiety, shock, insomnia, nervousness, depression,
23 fatigue, discomfort, and annoyance.
24 22. As a result of Defendant’s violations above, Plaintiffs were required to hire their legal
25 counsel herein (all of whom are licensed California attorneys) to enforce Plaintiffs’ legal rights.
26 Plaintiffs have incurred (and continue to incur) attorneys’ fees and legal costs and is entitled to
27 compensation from defendants for those fees and costs pursuant to applicable law.
28
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of B&P §17200 Unfair Business Practices)
2
23. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the allegations of paragraphs one (1)
3
through twenty-five (25) of this Complaint as if the same were set out at length herein.
4
24. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action under Business and Profession Code §§17200
5
et seq. and 17500 as private persons who suffered injuries in fact and monetary losses by the acts
6
described in this complaint.
7
25. At all relevant times herein, Defendant and each of them were conducting business
8
under the laws of the State of California, the County of Contra Costa, and the City of Richmond.
9
In conducting said business, Defendant was obligated to comply with the laws of the same.
10
870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
26. By engaging in the deceptive, unfair, and/or unlawful acts and conduct described
STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C.
11
above, Defendant engaged in unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions
12
Code §§17200 et seq. and 17500.
TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488
13
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
27. As a direct and proximate result of said practices, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries
14
in fact, and has lost money (including, without limitation, the rent Plaintiffs were charged by, and
15
paid to, Defendant in excess of the rent control provisions of the Ordinance and other applicable
16
law), in an amount according to proof, but in excess of $100,000.00.
17
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
18
(Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment (Contract)
19 28. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the allegations of paragraphs one (1)
20 through twenty-five (25) of this Complaint as if the same were set out at length herein.
21 29. Defendant entered into and was bound by the terms of the Agreement.
22 30. The Agreement contains an implied covenant under which Defendant promised to
23 allow Plaintiffs possession and quiet enjoyment of the Property during the period of Plaintiffs’
24 tenancy, and not to, through act or omission, disturb Plaintiffs’ possession and beneficial enjoyment
25 of the Property for the purposes contemplated by the Agreement.
26 31. By committing the acts heretofore alleged (including by failing and refusing to
27 honor Defendant’s obligations under the implied warranty of habitability by falling below the
28
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 minimum requirements for habitable residential units under Civil Code section 1941.1 and Health
2 and Safety Code section 17920.3), Defendant breached the Agreement, and is liable to Plaintiffs in
3 an amount according to proof, but at least $500,000.00.
4 32. The acts of Defendant, as heretofore alleged, were extreme and outrageous and done
5 with conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and in deliberate and callous disregard of her
6 rights of habitability and quiet enjoyment. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege
7 that Defendant knew that Plaintiffs were susceptible to added discomfort as a result of the conduct
8 described, and knew that the conduct adversely affected Plaintiffs, had the wherewithal to remedy
9 the defective housing conditions and quiet enjoyment violations but consciously refused to do so.
10 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages under Civil Code Section 3294 as against
870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C.
11 Defendant in an amount according to proof.
12 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability (Tort)
TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488
13
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the allegations of paragraphs one (1)
14
through twenty-five (25) of this Complaint as if the same were set out at length herein.
15
34. By virtue of their landlord-tenant relationship with Plaintiffs, Defendant knew that
16
she was in a position to easily damage Plaintiffs’ interests. Moreover, Defendant was obligated at
17
all times to provide Plaintiffs with a habitable dwelling.
18
35. Defendant and each of them failed to provide a habitable dwelling in ways
19
including but not limited to failing to promptly and adequately address the numerous defects
20
described in this Complaint.
21
36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
22
and continues to suffer severe mental, emotional, and physical distress, pain and suffering and has
23
been compelled to pay excessive rent, all to Plaintiffs’ general damages in an amount according
24
to proof, but in excess of $500,000.00.
25
37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the acts of Defendant,
26
as heretofore alleged, were extreme and outrageous and done with conscious disregard for the
27
rights of Plaintiffs, and in deliberate and callous disregard of the habitability complaints made by
28
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant knew that
2 Plaintiffs were susceptible to added discomfort as a result of the conduct described, knew that the
3 conduct adversely affected Plaintiffs, had the wherewithal to remedy the defective housing
4 conditions, but consciously refused to do so. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages
5 under Civil Code section 3294 as against Defendant in an amount according to proof.
6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Nuisance)
7
38. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the allegations of paragraphs one (1)
8
through twenty-five (25) of this Complaint as if the same were set out at length herein.
9
39. Defendant’s misconduct, as described in this Complaint, constitutes a nuisance
10
870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C.
within the meaning of Civil Code section 3479. It was (and is) injurious to the health and well-
11
being of Plaintiffs, offensive to Plaintiffs’ senses, substantially interferes with the free use and
12
enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ rental unit, and wrongfully and unreasonably interferes with Plaintiffs’
TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488
13
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
enjoyment of life.
14
40. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant’s wrongful
15
mis
Preview
ElectronicallyFiled Superior Courtof CA Countyof Contra Costa 5/8/2024 5:16 PM By:T. Jacobsen-Rios, Deputy 1 STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD, ESQ. (SBN 103512) NATHAN VERBISCAR-BROWN (SBN 286377) 2 STEVEN ADAIR MAC DONALD & PARTNERS, P. C. 3 870 Market Street, Suite 500 Per local Rule, This case is assigned to San Francisco, CA 94102 Judge Douglas, Danielle K, for all purposes. 4 Tel: (415) 956-6488 Fax: (415) 956-8698 5 Email: nvbrown@samlaw.net 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARIA SOSA, RENE PAUL IRAHETA, and IRVING 7 ALEXIS MELENDEZ 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA – UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 C24-01238 STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C. MARIA SOSA, an individual, RENE Case No. 11 PAUL IRAHETA, an individual, and IRVING ALEXIS MELENDEZ, an COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 12 individual, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488 13 Plaintiffs, 1. Violation of B& P §17200 (Unfair ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 Business Practices) vs. 2. Breach of the Covenant of Quiet 15 Enjoyment (Contract) YADIRA BASSETT, an individual, and 3. Breach of the Implied Warranty of DOES 1-100, inclusive, Habitability (Tort) 16 4. Nuisance Defendants. 5. Negligence 17 6. Breach of the City of Richmond Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance §§11.103 18 et seq 7. Violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1942.5 19 (Retaliation) 8. Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.4 20 21 22 Plaintiffs MARIA SOSA, RENE PAUL IRAHETA, and IRVING ALEXIS MELENDEZ 23 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) hereby complain against defendants, and for 24 causes of action allege: 25 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 26 1. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs were and are individuals, over the age of 27 18, and residents of the City of Richmond, County of Contra Costa, California. 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 2. The acts and/or failures to act complained of herein occurred in the County of Contra 2 Costa, State of California. 3 3. The real property and improvements as to which this action relates is located in the 4 County of Contra Costa, State of California, and is commonly known as 424 19th Street, Richmond, 5 California (hereinafter referred to as “Property”). 6 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Property is legally 7 permitted as a single-family home. Plaintiffs further allege that in addition to the main house, the 8 Property contains an illegal, unpermitted and unlawful rental unit (hereinafter referred to as 9 “Premises”) in the rear of the Property, in which Plaintiffs have resided at all relevant times. 10 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times, 870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C. 11 Defendant YADIRA BASSETT (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) was and is an individual 12 over 18 years old and the owner of the Property. TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488 13 6. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and/or capacities of the defendants sued herein ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious name. 15 Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this complaint to include the true names and capacities of these 16 so named DOE defendants when their true names and capacities are ascertained. 17 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned 18 herein, each of the defendants, including the defendants sued as Does 1 through 100 herein, were 19 acting within the scope of their relationship with each other as the employer, employee, master, 20 servant, and/or agent of the other, and that all acts alleged herein were done within the scope of 21 said relationship. 22 STATEMENT OF FACTS 23 8. On or about July 5, 1996, Plaintiffs entered into a written residential lease with the 24 then-owner of the Property, Adrian Bermudez, Jr. (hereinafter “Former Owner), to rent the 25 Premises for an initial monthly rate of $700.00 per month. 26 27 28 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 9. On or about July 5, 1996, Plaintiffs MARIA and RENE, along with their then- 2 minor son, IRVING, entered into possession of the Premises under such lease and have remained 3 in possession ever since. 4 10. In or around October 2021, Defendant became the owner of the Property. 5 11. On or around March 1, 2022, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a new written 6 month to month lease for the Property (hereinafter “Agreement”) at a monthly rate of $1,250.00. 7 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times 8 during which Defendant owned and/or managed the Property, Defendant was the landlord of 9 Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs were the tenants of Defendant as the terms “landlord” and “tenant” are 10 defined under California common law, under The Richmond Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction 870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C. 11 and Homeowner Protection Ordinance (Richmond, Cal., Mun. Code § 11.100.010, et seq.) 12 (hereinafter “Just Cause Ordinance”) and the Richmond Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488 13 (Richmond, Cal., Mun. Code § 11.103.010, et seq.) (hereinafter “Harassment Ordinance”), under ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 et seq., and under California Civil Code sections 15 789.3 and 1980. 16 13. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs’ tenancy at the Property was 17 subject to the Just Cause Ordinance and the Harassment Ordinance, and California Civil Code 18 §§1941.1, et seq. 19 14. After moving into the Premises, Plaintiffs discovered that the Property had several 20 serious defects, which were violative of Defendant’s obligations under applicable law (including, 21 but not limited to, the warranty of habitability and covenant of quiet enjoyment implied into the 22 Agreement). Those defects, which manifested themselves at different times after the inception of 23 Plaintiffs’ tenancy, included but are not limited to: 24 1. Lack of consistent heating; 25 2. Mold in the bathroom, closets, and master bedroom; 26 3. Deteriorated waterproofing; 27 4. Cockroach and rodent infestations; 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 5. Broken doors and windows; 2 6. Non-operable electrical outlets; 3 7. Lack of ventilation in the bathroom; 4 8. Cracks in the ceiling; 5 9. Leaks throughout the Property; 6 10. Malfunctioning light switches; and 7 11. Lack of smoke detectors. 8 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times 9 Defendant was aware of these said defects, about which Plaintiffs subsequently and repeatedly 10 complained to Defendant. 870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C. 11 13. In retaliation for Plaintiffs’ requests for repairs, on September 29, 2023, Defendant 12 caused Plaintiffs to be served with an unlawful rent increase notice that doubled her rent from TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488 13 $1,250.00 to $2,500.00. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 14. On or around October 18, 2023, because Defendant had continued to fail and 15 refuse to timely and adequately address the unlawful and substandard conditions at the Property, 16 Plaintiffs were forced to complain to the City of Richmond’s Community Development 17 Department, Code Enforcement Division (hereinafter referred to as “DBI”) about said conditions. 18 15. On or around October 18, 2023, an inspector from DBI inspected the Property and 19 issued a Notice of Violation and Demand to Abate (hereinafter referred to as “NOV”), in which 20 Defendant was ordered to promptly repair the defects and code violations listed in the NOV, 21 including the lack of smoke detectors, lack of carbon monoxide detectors, infestations, and 22 deteriorated waterproofing. 23 16. Defendant failed and refused—and continues to fail and refuse—to correct the vast 24 majority of the substandard and unlawful housing conditions referenced in this Complaint 25 (including those listed in the NOV). 26 17. Subsequent to the commencement of Plaintiffs’ tenancy of the Property, and 27 continuing to date, Defendant has substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment rights 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 with respect to the Property, including by failing and refusing to promptly and adequately correct 2 the defects described above, causing and/or permitting nuisance conditions and activities, 3 harassing and intimidating Plaintiffs, and entering the Property without proper notice and/or for 4 purposes not authorized under Civil Code Section 1954, as part of an intentional, deliberate and 5 conscious scheme to harass Plaintiffs into leaving their long-time rent controlled home. 6 18. For example, in or around September 2023, Defendant arrived at the Property and 7 began to berate Plaintiff SOSA on the driveway, in full view of the whole neighborhood, for 8 allegedly owing Defendant money. When Plaintiff SOSA explained that the COVID rental debt 9 should have been paid off, Defendant refused to listen. 10 19. On or around January 18, 2024, Plaintiffs, through their counsel, caused to be 870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C. 11 served on Defendant via first class mail and e-mail a letter regarding the above-mentioned 12 habitability defects and quiet enjoyment violations. The letter included an offer to settle TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488 13 Plaintiffs’ claims without litigation. In response, Defendant yelled at Plaintiff SOSA, demanded ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 that SOSA “cancel the letter,” and stated that she would not pay any money. 15 20. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned conduct, Plaintiffs were 16 compelled to pay an excessive and unlawful amount of rent for the Property, in that the rent was 17 unlawfully increased, the Property was not habitable for human occupation, Plaintiffs’ quiet 18 enjoyment rights were violated, and because Defendant was providing a level of housing service 19 (with respect to the Property) which was below that to which Plaintiffs are legally entitled. 20 21. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned conduct, Plaintiffs have 21 suffered (and continues to suffer) monetary damages, severe physical and emotional pain and 22 distress, including but not limited to stress, anxiety, shock, insomnia, nervousness, depression, 23 fatigue, discomfort, and annoyance. 24 22. As a result of Defendant’s violations above, Plaintiffs were required to hire their legal 25 counsel herein (all of whom are licensed California attorneys) to enforce Plaintiffs’ legal rights. 26 Plaintiffs have incurred (and continue to incur) attorneys’ fees and legal costs and is entitled to 27 compensation from defendants for those fees and costs pursuant to applicable law. 28 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of B&P §17200 Unfair Business Practices) 2 23. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the allegations of paragraphs one (1) 3 through twenty-five (25) of this Complaint as if the same were set out at length herein. 4 24. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action under Business and Profession Code §§17200 5 et seq. and 17500 as private persons who suffered injuries in fact and monetary losses by the acts 6 described in this complaint. 7 25. At all relevant times herein, Defendant and each of them were conducting business 8 under the laws of the State of California, the County of Contra Costa, and the City of Richmond. 9 In conducting said business, Defendant was obligated to comply with the laws of the same. 10 870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 26. By engaging in the deceptive, unfair, and/or unlawful acts and conduct described STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C. 11 above, Defendant engaged in unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions 12 Code §§17200 et seq. and 17500. TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488 13 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 27. As a direct and proximate result of said practices, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries 14 in fact, and has lost money (including, without limitation, the rent Plaintiffs were charged by, and 15 paid to, Defendant in excess of the rent control provisions of the Ordinance and other applicable 16 law), in an amount according to proof, but in excess of $100,000.00. 17 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 18 (Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment (Contract) 19 28. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the allegations of paragraphs one (1) 20 through twenty-five (25) of this Complaint as if the same were set out at length herein. 21 29. Defendant entered into and was bound by the terms of the Agreement. 22 30. The Agreement contains an implied covenant under which Defendant promised to 23 allow Plaintiffs possession and quiet enjoyment of the Property during the period of Plaintiffs’ 24 tenancy, and not to, through act or omission, disturb Plaintiffs’ possession and beneficial enjoyment 25 of the Property for the purposes contemplated by the Agreement. 26 31. By committing the acts heretofore alleged (including by failing and refusing to 27 honor Defendant’s obligations under the implied warranty of habitability by falling below the 28 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 minimum requirements for habitable residential units under Civil Code section 1941.1 and Health 2 and Safety Code section 17920.3), Defendant breached the Agreement, and is liable to Plaintiffs in 3 an amount according to proof, but at least $500,000.00. 4 32. The acts of Defendant, as heretofore alleged, were extreme and outrageous and done 5 with conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and in deliberate and callous disregard of her 6 rights of habitability and quiet enjoyment. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 7 that Defendant knew that Plaintiffs were susceptible to added discomfort as a result of the conduct 8 described, and knew that the conduct adversely affected Plaintiffs, had the wherewithal to remedy 9 the defective housing conditions and quiet enjoyment violations but consciously refused to do so. 10 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages under Civil Code Section 3294 as against 870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C. 11 Defendant in an amount according to proof. 12 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability (Tort) TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488 13 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the allegations of paragraphs one (1) 14 through twenty-five (25) of this Complaint as if the same were set out at length herein. 15 34. By virtue of their landlord-tenant relationship with Plaintiffs, Defendant knew that 16 she was in a position to easily damage Plaintiffs’ interests. Moreover, Defendant was obligated at 17 all times to provide Plaintiffs with a habitable dwelling. 18 35. Defendant and each of them failed to provide a habitable dwelling in ways 19 including but not limited to failing to promptly and adequately address the numerous defects 20 described in this Complaint. 21 36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered 22 and continues to suffer severe mental, emotional, and physical distress, pain and suffering and has 23 been compelled to pay excessive rent, all to Plaintiffs’ general damages in an amount according 24 to proof, but in excess of $500,000.00. 25 37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the acts of Defendant, 26 as heretofore alleged, were extreme and outrageous and done with conscious disregard for the 27 rights of Plaintiffs, and in deliberate and callous disregard of the habitability complaints made by 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant knew that 2 Plaintiffs were susceptible to added discomfort as a result of the conduct described, knew that the 3 conduct adversely affected Plaintiffs, had the wherewithal to remedy the defective housing 4 conditions, but consciously refused to do so. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages 5 under Civil Code section 3294 as against Defendant in an amount according to proof. 6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Nuisance) 7 38. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the allegations of paragraphs one (1) 8 through twenty-five (25) of this Complaint as if the same were set out at length herein. 9 39. Defendant’s misconduct, as described in this Complaint, constitutes a nuisance 10 870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 STEVEN ADAIR MACDONALD & PARTNERS, P. C. within the meaning of Civil Code section 3479. It was (and is) injurious to the health and well- 11 being of Plaintiffs, offensive to Plaintiffs’ senses, substantially interferes with the free use and 12 enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ rental unit, and wrongfully and unreasonably interferes with Plaintiffs’ TELEPHONE: (415) 956-6488 13 ATTORNEYS AT LAW enjoyment of life. 14 40. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant’s wrongful 15 mis