Preview
1 Andrew Wolff, Esq. (SBN 195092)
2
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
1615 Broadway, 4th Floor
3 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 834-3300
4
Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
5 Required for electronic service:
info@awolfflaw.com
6 andrew@awolfflaw.com
7
Attorney for Plaintiffs
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
11
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12
13
CATHERINE GOODEILL; WILLIAM Case No.:
14 CHAPMAN; JOSHUA PETERSON,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
15 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
16
Plaintiffs,
17
18 vs.
19
20
RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC; and DOES 1-30,
21 inclusive,
22
23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
Plaintiffs CATHERINE GOODEILL, WILLIAM CHAPMAN and JOSHUA
28
PETERSON (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 1
1 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
2
1. At all times herein relevant, plaintiffs CATHERINE GOODEILL, WILLIAM
3
CHAPMAN, and JOSHUA PETERSON were competent adults. All plaintiffs resided in the city
4
of Hayward, County of Alameda, and State of California.
5 2. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, defendants RENE J.
6 MARCOTTE, LLC; and DOES 1-30 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”),
7 owned, controlled, and/or managed the unit that Plaintiffs resided in during all relevant time
8 periods in this complaint.
9
3. Defendants and DOES 1-30 are individuals, business entities, non-profit
corporations, other organizations and entities, and/or alter egos of other defendants, doing
10
business in the County of Alameda and/or contracted to do work in the County of Alameda.
11
4. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe, and thereon allege, that at all times
12
relevant herein, named defendants and defendants sued as DOES 1-30 were the agents,
13
employees, and representatives of their fellow co-defendants, and in doing the things alleged in
14
this complaint, were acting within the course and scope of that agency and employment, and,
15 therefore, are vicariously liable for the acts of each other. Each act was ratified by each other
16 defendant. Each defendant is liable, in whole or in part, for Plaintiffs’ damages and injuries.
17 5. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of defendants sued, as DOES 1-30, but will
18 seek leave to amend this complaint when Plaintiffs discover the identity of any of the
19
Defendants now sued under the fictitious names DOES 1-30.
6. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants were negligently
20
and legally responsible for the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, and for Plaintiffs’ damages
21
and injuries.
22
7. This Court is the proper court because Defendants do business in its
23
jurisdictional area. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s jurisdictional
24
area. The events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s
25 jurisdictional area. The breach of contract causes are founded upon a contract entered into
26 within this Court’s jurisdictional area. The contractual obligations were to be performed within
27 this Court’s jurisdictional area.
28 8. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, that at all relevant times,
Defendants were Plaintiffs' landlords, and Plaintiffs were the tenants of Defendants as those
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 2
1 terms “landlord” and “tenant” are defined under California common law, under California Code
2 of Civil Procedure sections 1161 et seq., and under California Civil Code section 1980.
3 9. On or about April 21, 2018, plaintiff CATHERINE GOODEILL and plaintiff
4 WILLIAM CHAPMAN, as tenants, and defendant, as owner and/or landlord and/or lessor,
5 entered into a written rental agreement to rent the premises located at 27766 Manon Avenue,
#101, Hayward, California 94544, to these plaintiffs. Such address is hereinafter referred to as
6
“Subject Premises.” The material terms of this residential rental agreement required these
7
plaintiffs to pay monthly rent of $2,698.50 and a security deposit of $2,450.00. After a diligent
8
search, these plaintiffs have been unable to locate a copy of this written agreement.
9
10. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were the owners and/or property
10
managers or the agents, employees, and/or representatives of the owners and/or property
11 managers of the Subject Premises.
12 11. Since becoming owners and/or property managers or the agents and/or
13 employees of the owners and/or property managers of the Subject Premises, Defendants have
14 allowed the Subject Premises to contain several substantial habitability defects, which rendered
15 it unfit for human occupancy under California common law and statutes. The defects were due
to Defendants’ failure to maintain the Subject Premises. These substantial habitability defects
16
existed in Plaintiffs' unit, and together and separately, constituted violations of applicable
17
housing laws, including but not limited to California Civil Code sections 1941.1, California
18
Health and Safety Code sections 17920 et seq., and local housing and building codes.
19
12. At all times relevant herein, substantial defective conditions within and related to
20
the Subject Premises include, but are not limited to, the following: mold/mildew, defective
21 plumbing, no weather stripping/gaps around doors, and general dilapidation and lack of
22 maintenance. These defects were severe and longstanding. These defects resulted in injuries and
23 damages to Plaintiffs.
24 13. Defendants were on notice of the aforementioned defects. For example, Plaintiffs
25 sent several repair requests to Defendants to have the aforementioned defects remedied.
Plaintiffs complained both, verbally and in writing. Further, the defective conditions were
26
severe and longstanding such that Defendants would have noticed them had they conducted a
27
reasonable inspection of the Subject Premises.
28
14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, Defendants violated
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 3
1 California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3 because they allowed the Subject Premises
2 to contain general dilapidation and improper maintenance, constitute a nuisance, and to be
3 substandard in every way identified herein and as defined by applicable statutes, including
4 Section 17920.3.
5 15. Despite Defendants having adequate opportunity and notice to repair said
defects prior to Plaintiffs filing this complaint. Defendants failed and refused to repair the
6
defects existing in the Subject Premises.
7
16. Defendants have also engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation toward
8
Plaintiffs, which included, but was not limited to, the following: refusing to repair substantial
9
habitability defects.
10
17. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants engaged in the
11 aforementioned neglect, retaliation, harassment and intimidation, to make Plaintiffs’ lives at the
12 Subject Premises as uncomfortable as possible such that they would eventually move-out.
13 18. Moreover, on or about December 2023, Plaintiffs relinquished possession of the
14 Subject Premises due to the Defendants’ conduct including harassment, and/or retaliation,
15 and/or deficient conditions.
19. Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort
16
and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent,
17
and out-of-pocket expenses, due to both Defendants’ acts and omissions and the defective
18
conditions existing at the Subject Premises.
19
20. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages below.
20
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21 TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ.
22 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
23
21. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
24
preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
25 22. Plaintiffs made requests for repairs and reported uninhabitable conditions in their
26 units to Defendants. However, these requests were ignored, refused, denied, or inadequately
27 addressed. This resulted in Defendants failing to provide and maintain the Subject Premises in a
28 habitable condition.
23. Defendants had an obligation pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1941 et
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 4
1 seq., and common law, to provide and maintain the Subject Premises rented to Plaintiffs in a
2 habitable condition. Under these obligations, Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiffs to use
3 due care to provide and maintain a habitable premises. Defendants breached their legal duty to
4 Plaintiffs by making inadequate repairs, by failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying
5 in making necessary repairs to the Subject Premises after they both knew and should have
known of the poor conditions existing at the Subject Premises.
6
24. The defective conditions were substantial. Defendants’ breaches of their legal
7
duty caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort
8
and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property,
9
overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages in amounts to be proven at
10
trial. Defendants’ breaches were both, actual and legal causes of Plaintiffs’ complained of
11 injuries and damages. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages.
12 25. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
CONTRACTUAL BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
14
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ.
15 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
16 26. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
17 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
18 27. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into rental agreements to lease the Subject
19
Premises. Every lease for residential property contains an implied warranty of habitability.
28. During Plaintiffs' tenancy and prior to filing of this complaint, Plaintiffs
20
performed their obligations or were excused from performing their obligations under the rental
21
agreements.
22
29. Here, Defendants breached said agreements by making inadequate repairs, by
23
failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary repairs to the Subject
24
Premises after they knew and should have known of the poor conditions of the Subject Premises.
25 30. Defendants further breached the rental agreements on multiple occasions by
26 collecting rent from Plaintiffs to which Defendants were not entitled because of the substantial
27 habitability defects.
28 31. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including
overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 5
1 be ascertained at trial. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages.
2 32. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
4
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3300 ET SEQ.
5 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
6 33. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
7 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
8 34. Defendants were obligated to perform under the terms of their rental agreements
with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs performed, or were excused from performing, their obligations under
9
the rental agreements. A covenant to provide a habitable premises and a covenant of good faith
10
and fair dealing are contained in every residential rental agreement in the State of California.
11
35. Regarding the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendants made an
12
implied promise not to do anything that would unfairly interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to
13
receives benefits under their residential rental agreement. Defendants also made an implied
14 promise not to mislead or take unfair advantage of Plaintiffs.
15 36. Furthermore, Defendants warranted that the Subject Premises was in a habitable
16 condition at the time of entering into each agreement.
17 37. Defendants breached the terms of each agreement on multiple occasions during
18 the period preceding the filing of this complaint by failing to make requested repairs, failing to
19
provide a habitable premises to each Plaintiff, and collecting rent without repairing habitability
defects at the Subject Premises after being given notice and reasonable opportunity to do so.
20
Defendants also failed to reasonably inspect the Subject Premises for defects, including health
21
and safety hazards. Defendants also failed to warn and protect Plaintiffs from harm due to the
22
aforementioned defective conditions, and health and safety hazards.
23
38. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages including over-
24
payment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be
25 ascertained at trial. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages.
26 39. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
27 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
28 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1927
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 6
1
2
40. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
3
41. Every residential rental agreement includes the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
4
This covenant prohibits lessors and landlords from taking actions and inactions that diminish
5
Plaintiffs' beneficial enjoyment of the Subject Premises. The covenant also places on lessors and
6
landlords, an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs' quiet enjoyment of
7
the Subject Premises from interference by other persons on or about the Subject Premises.
8 42. Defendants, by and through the acts and omissions alleged herein, breached the
9 covenant of quiet enjoyment. Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the
10 Subject Premises by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions to exist after both,
11 knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these conditions.
12
43. Defendants also breached Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment by engaging in a pattern of
harassment, intimidation and retaliation toward Plaintiffs, as alleged throughout this complaint.
13
44. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages including
14
overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to
15
be ascertained at trial. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages.
16
45. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
17
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 PRIVATE NUISANCE
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3501 ET SEQ.
19 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
20
46. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
21 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
22 47. Defendants owned, controlled and/or managed the Subject Premises.
23 48. Defendants created a nuisance on the Subject Premises by interfering with
24 Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment, by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions, and others,
25
to exist after being knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these
defective conditions.
26
49. These conditions were harmful to Plaintiffs' health, offensive to their senses, and
27
an obstruction to their free use of the Subject Premises, which substantially interfered with the
28
comfortable enjoyment of Plaintiffs' life and property.
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 7
1 50. Plaintiffs made several complaints to Defendants regarding the uninhabitable
2 conditions of the Subject Premises. Plaintiffs complained of these and other disturbances to
3 their possession and quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Defendants failed and refused to
4 repair the defective conditions of the Subject Premises. Defendants’ failure to make repairs was
5 intentional and unreasonable because Defendants knew of the defects, and failed and refused to
make repairs. In the alternative, Defendants’ conduct was negligent and/or reckless.
6
51. Any reasonable person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by
7
Defendants’ conduct.
8
52. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. As a direct and proximate
9
result of the aforementioned defective conditions, Plaintiffs were harmed. Plaintiffs suffered
10
injuries and damages, including the following: emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance,
11 loss of use, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property,
12 overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at
13 trial. Plaintiffs are also seeking statutorily authorized interest on their damages.
14 53. The harm to Plaintiffs outweigh any potential benefit, if any, of Defendants’
15 conduct.
54. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
16
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
PREMISES LIABILITY
18 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1714
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
19
55. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
20
preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
21
56. Defendants owned, controlled, and/or managed the Subject Premises. Plaintiffs
22
suffered injuries and damages because of the way Defendants owned, controlled, and/or
23
managed the Subject Premises.
24
57. As tenants, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care that included maintaining
25 the Subject Premises and performing repairs in a reasonable and safe manner.
26 58. The Subject Premises contained substantial habitability defects, which included,
27 but were not limited to, the following: Mold/mildew, defective plumbing, no weather
28 stripping/gaps around doors, and general dilapidation and lack of maintenance.
59. Defendants knew and should have known about the aforementioned substantial
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 8
1 habitability defects, and that exposure to these defective conditions posed a risk of injuries and
2 damages to Plaintiffs. For example, Plaintiffs complained to Defendants about the
3 aforementioned defective conditions. Moreover, a reasonable inspection would have revealed
4 the aforementioned defective conditions.
5 60. After Defendants knew and should have known of the aforementioned defects,
Defendants failed and refused to repair the defective conditions. Defendants also had the ability
6
and opportunity to warn Plaintiffs about the defective conditions, including the risk of injuries
7
and damages, but did not do so.
8
61. Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ negligence. At a
9
minimum, Defendants were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.
10
62. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages included the following: emotional distress,
11 discomfort and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal
12 property, overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiffs are seeking statutorily
13 authorized interest on their damages.
14 63. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
15 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
16 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
17
64. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
18 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
19 65. Defendants owed a duty of care to maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable
20 condition, and not violate Plaintiffs' rights. When Defendants knew and should have known of
21 the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises, Defendants had a duty to take action
22
such as repairing the defective conditions.
66. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by failing to maintain the Subject
23
Premises, and by failing to repair the aforementioned defective conditions.
24
67. Defendants also breached their duties by retaliating against Plaintiffs for
25
exercising their rights as described above.
26
68. Defendants violated California Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 because
27
Defendants intentionally and/or negligently failed and refused to remedy the defective,
28 dilapidated, and appalling conditions at the Subject Premises.
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 9
1 69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs suffered
2 injuries and damages.
3 70. Plaintiffs are also in the class of persons that California Civil Code sections
4 1941.1 and 1942.5 were intended to protect. The harm that Plaintiffs suffered is the kind that
5 California Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 was designed to prevent. Defendants violated
these statutes by failing and refusing to repair defective conditions existing at the Subject
6
Premises. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a breach of said statutes. Therefore, Defendants’
7
statutory breaches constitute negligence per se.
8
71. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of Defendants,
9
Plaintiffs suffered harm, including emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, body injury,
10
pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent, out-of-
11 pocket expenses, and other injuries and damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiffs also
12 seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages.
13 72. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
14 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF CITY OF HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND
15 TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE SECTION 12-1.13
[JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION]
16
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
17
73. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
18
preceding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein.
19
74. As tenants of residential property located in Hayward, California, and subject to
20
the City of Hayward Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance section 12-
21 1.13 (the “Just Cause Ordinance”), Plaintiffs are entitled to bring an action against all
22 defendants who have violated this ordinance to Plaintiffs’ detriment. In particular, the ordinance
23 provides grounds on which a tenancy may be terminated.
24 75. When a landlord wrongfully endeavors to recover possession of a property in
25 violation of provisions governing limitations on evictions, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages,
including damages for emotional distress.
26
76. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by unlawfully influencing or
27
attempting to influence Plaintiffs to vacate the Subject Premises, outside of the legal eviction
28
process.
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 10
1 77. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by wrongfully endeavoring to
2 recover possession of the Subject Premises.
3 78. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants’ violations. Plaintiffs’ harm included
4 emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, and other actual damages, in amounts to be proven
5 at trial.
79. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
6
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7
VIOLATIONS OF CITY OF HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND
8 TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE SECTION 12-1.12
[RETALIATION]
9 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
10
80. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
11 preceding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein.
12 81. As tenants of residential property located in Hayward, California, and subject to
13 the City of Hayward’s Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (the
14 “Retaliation Ordinance”), Plaintiffs are entitled to bring an action against all defendants who
15 have violated this ordinance to Plaintiffs’ detriment. In particular, the ordinance prohibits
retaliation, harassment, and intimidation.
16
82. Defendants violated the Retaliation Ordinance when they engaged in a pattern of
17
harassment, intimidation, and retaliation toward Plaintiffs. Defendants failed to perform repairs
18
and maintenance for the Subject Premises, failed to exercise due diligence in completing repairs
19
when repairs were attempted, attempted to influence Plaintiffs to vacate the Subject Premises
20
through their misconduct, substantially and directly interfered with Plaintiffs’ right to quiet and
21 enjoyment.
22 83. Defendants violated the Retaliation Ordinance by retaliating against Plaintiffs for
23 exercising their rights as tenants.
24 84. Defendants acted in knowing violation or reckless disregard of the Retaliation
25 Ordinance.
85. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants’ violations. Plaintiffs’ harm included
26
emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, and other actual damages, in amounts to be proven
27
at trial.
28
86. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 11
1 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
RETALIATION-COMMON LAW
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
3
87. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
4
preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
5
88. Plaintiffs consistently exercised their rights to inform Defendants about the
6
above-mentioned habitability defects, which also constituted a nuisance and breach of Plaintiffs'
7
quiet enjoyment. In response to Plaintiffs making complaints about habitability defects,
8 Defendants harassed, intimidated, retaliated, and, ultimately, evicted Plaintiffs.
9 89. Plaintiffs were within their rights to make the aforementioned requests and
10 complaints and are, and were, protected under the laws of California from being retaliated
11 against for making said requests and complaints.
12
90. Within 180 days of Plaintiffs exercising their rights, Defendants filed unlawful
detainer actions against Plaintiffs.
13
91. Defendants’ dominant motive in engaging in the aforementioned misconduct was
14
to retaliate against Plaintiffs for engaging in protected activity and lawfully exercising their
15
rights as tenants.
16
92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ retaliatory conduct, Plaintiffs
17
suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, rent
18 differential, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial.
19 93. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
20 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
21 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
22
94. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
23
preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
24 95. Due to the landlord-tenant relationship, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to
25 exercise reasonable care in the ownership, management, and control of the Subject Premises.
26 Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty not to unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffs' quiet use and
27 enjoyment. Defendants also had a duty to maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable condition.
28 96. Contrary to Defendants’ duties, Defendants failed to make repairs, and,
ultimately, failed to properly manage and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable condition.
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 12
1 97. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct, Defendants deprived
2 Plaintiffs of their rights to peaceable and quiet possession of their abode. Defendants
3 constructively evicted Plaintiffs from the Subject Premises. That is, through Defendants’
4 misconduct, they terminated Plaintiffs’ tenancy without good cause, and in violation of the
5 rental agreement.
98. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ constructive eviction, Plaintiffs
6
suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, rent
7
differential, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial.
8
99. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
9
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
11 SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ.
12
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
13 100. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
14 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
15
101. By reason of Defendants' failure to comply with state and local laws for the
management of real property, Defendants' conduct constitutes an unfair business practice under
16
California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and 17500 et seq.
17
102. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, it is the regular practice of
18
Defendants to intentionally disregard the rights of tenants and violate applicable laws relating to
19
tenancies in their buildings in ways that include, but are not limited to, failing to provide quiet
20
enjoyment, retaliating against tenants, and allowing the defects identified herein to continue to
21 exist despite having adequate opportunity to remediate said defects.
22 103. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were conducting business under the laws
23 of the State of California, the County of Alameda, and City of Hayward. In conducting said
24 business, Defendants were obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California, the
25 County of Alameda, and the City of Hayward.
104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have
26
accrued unjust enrichment.
27
105. Wherefore Plaintiffs pray for an order for restitution requiring Defendants to
28
restore to Plaintiffs, all money obtained from Plaintiffs, including but not limited to, all monthly
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 13
1 rent payments.
2 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATION
3
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1942.5
4 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
5 106. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
6 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
7 107. Plaintiffs made requests for repairs and complained about habitability defects
8 existing at the Subject Premises to Defendants. In particular, Plaintiffs consistently exercised
their rights to inform Defendants about the above-mentioned nuisance and breach of Plaintiffs’
9
quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Plaintiffs were within their rights to make the
10
aforementioned requests for repairs and complaints and are, and were, protected from being
11
retaliated against for making these requests and complaints.
12
108. Plaintiffs were not in default as to their rent payments. Further, Plaintiffs are
13
informed, believe, and allege, no rent was owed because the substantial habitability defects
14 negated rent for each month.
15 109. Defendants violated Section 1942.5 because they decreased services such as
16 repairs, recovered possession, caused Plaintiffs to quit involuntarily, and increased Plaintiffs’
17 rent. Defendants continually denied repairs and maintenance to Plaintiffs' units and surrounding
18 common areas for the stated reason of retaliating against Plaintiffs for engaging in the protected
19
activity.
110. Defendants engaged in the aforementioned conduct within 180 days of Plaintiffs
20
complaining to Defendants about habitability defects.
21
111. On or about February 3, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a 60-day notice
22
of termination of tenancy. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants
23
served the notice of termination of tenancy to retaliate against Plaintiffs. Defendants served the
24
notice shortly after Plaintiffs lawfully exercised their rights, which included but were not
25 limited to, the following: making complaints about the tenantability of the Subject Premises;
26 lawfully withholding rent to motivate Defendants to make repairs.
27 112. On or about April 5, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a three-day notice
28 to pay or quit. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants served the notice
to pay or quit to retaliate against Plaintiffs. Defendants served the notice shortly after Plaintiffs
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 14
1 lawfully exercised their rights, which included but were not limited to, the following: making
2 complaints about the tenantability of the Subject Premises; lawfully withholding rent to
3 motivate Defendants to make repairs. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, the rental
4 value for the Subject Premises was substantially reduced in light of the defective conditions.
5 113. On or about May 16, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a three-day notice
to pay or quit. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants served the notice
6
to pay or quit to retaliate against Plaintiffs. Defendants served the notice shortly after Plaintiffs
7
lawfully exercised their rights, which included but were not limited to, the following: making
8
complaints about the tenantability of the Subject Premises; lawfully withholding rent to
9
motivate Defendants to make repairs. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, the rental
10
value for the Subject Premises was substantially reduced in light of the defective conditions.
11 114. On or about July 5, 2023, Defendants filed an unlawful detainer lawsuit seeking
12 to evict Plaintiffs from the Subject Premises. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege,
13 Defendants filed the unlawful detainer lawsuit to retaliate against Plaintiffs. Defendants filed the
14 unlawful detainer lawsuit shortly after Plaintiffs lawfully exercised their rights, which included
15 but were not limited to, the following: making complaints about the tenantability of the Subject
16
Premises; lawfully withholding rent to motivate Defendants to make repairs.
115. The aforementioned retaliatory conduct constitutes harassment and intimidation.
17
Further, Defendants engaged in the aforementioned retaliatory conduct for the stated reason of
18
retaliating against Plaintiffs for exercising their rights, which included, but were not limited to,
19
the following: making complaints about tenantability; organizing as tenants to resist
20
Defendants’ efforts to deprive Plaintiffs of beneficial use and enjoyment; and demanding respect
21
and accountability from Defendants.
22 116. Plaintiffs suffered actual damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Defendants
23 are also liable for punitive damages.
24 117. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below.
25 CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
(All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
26
118. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this claim for exemplary damages, the
27
allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
28
119. Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiffs' rights and retaliated against Plaintiffs
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 15
1 for enforcing their rights as tenants.
2 120. Defendants' actions were willful and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs'
3 rights. Such willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' rights justifies an award of punitive
4 damages because Defendants’ conduct was oppressive and malicious as defined by California
5 Civil Code section 3294. The willful failure and refusal to repair longstanding defects existing
in Plaintiffs' units also merits an award of substantial punitive damages against all Defendants.
6
Defendants knew or should have known that their intentional failure to maintain and repair the
7
Subject Premises posed a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ actions arose to
8
despicable conduct carried out with willful and conscious disregard of the consumer and tenant
9
rights and safety of others including Plaintiffs.
10
121. Defendant RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC is an entity. As an entity, it too is liable
11 for punitive damages. Defendant, through its managing agent, was on notice of the longstanding
12 defective condition, and still failed and refused make timely repairs. Defendant RENE J.
13 MARCOTTE, LLC, through its managing agent, engaged in a practice of retaliating, harassing
14 and intimidating Plaintiff. Defendant’s misconduct was authorized and ratified by the managing
15 agent, who was also an employee of the Defendant RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC The managing
agent had discretion to make and deny repairs to the Subject Premises. The managing agent had
16
authority to bind Defendant RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC in contracts. The managing agent had
17
authority, on behalf of Defendant RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC, to cease and desist from
18
engaging in retaliation, harassment, and intimidation. Finally, the misconduct that is at issue in
19
this case is wholly related to the entity’s business of owning and managing residential properties
20
like the Subject Premises.
21 PRAYER
22
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows as to all Defendants, and
23
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend according to proof:
24
A. For general damages according to proof for each cause of action including but
25 not limited to emotional distress and pain and suffering in the amount of $100,000.00 per
26 Plaintiff totaling $300,000.00; damages for annoyance and frustration due to nuisance and
27 interference with use and enjoyment of the subject property in the amount of $100,000.00 per
28 Plaintiff totaling $300,000.00.
B. For special damages including property damage and loss according to proof for
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 16
1 each cause of action for rent reimbursement during the time the property was not up to Housing
2 and/or Building and/or Health and Safety code; return of security deposit in the amount of
3 $2,450.00; property damage in the amount of $50,000; rent differential damages in the amount
4 of $60,000.00 for the 10 years Plaintiffs would have reasonably stayed in the unit. Plaintiffs also
5 seeks recoup of $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs related to self-help repairs and/or moving costs.
C. For punitive and exemplary damages according to statute and according to proof,
6
to be determined at trial and/or as stated in the served Notice of Seeking Punitive Damages
7
pursuant to CCP 425.15;
8
D. For treble damages in the amount of $1,972,350.00 pursuant to City of Hayward
9
Municipal Code Ordinance section 12-1.12(j)(1) [City of Hayward Retaliation Ordinance]; for a
10
civil penalty of the greater of $500 or treble actual damages pursuant to City of Hayward
11 Municipal Code Ordinance section 12-1.18(a);
12 E. Treble damages per Civil Code Section 1946.2.
13 F. For statutory damages, and penalties where available, of $2,000.00 for each
14 violation of Civil Code section 1942.5.
15 G. For incidental expenses, past, present and future,
H. For attorney fees pursuant to civil code section 1946.2;
16
I. For interest on the amount of damages incurred at the prevailing legal rate;
17
J. For attorney's fees according to the attached lease per Civil Code Section 1717,
18
and the following statutes, in the amount of $100,000.00, pursuant to Civil Code sections
19
1946.2,1942.5(i) and City of Hayward Municipal Code Ordinance sections 12-1.12(l) and 12-
20
1.18(a); and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;
21 K. For pre-judgment interest;
22 L. For costs of suit incurred herein;
23 M. For an order requiring Defendants to disgorge any improper profits and restore
24 Plaintiffs’ monetary losses resulting from Defendants' unfair business practices; for restitution to
25 Plaintiffs of those profits and losses; and any pre-judgment interest thereon; .
N. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent
26
injunction, all enjoining Defendants to repair and remedy defective conditions existing at the
27
Subject Premises; return possession of the Subject Premises to Plaintiffs; and to cease and desist
28
from retaliating against Plaintiffs for exercising their rights as tenants.
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 17
1 O. For such other and further relief which this Court deems just and proper.
2
3
Dated: May 7, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
4
5
____________________________________
6 Andrew Wolff, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 18
Preview
1 Andrew Wolff, Esq. (SBN 195092) 2 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1615 Broadway, 4th Floor 3 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 4 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 5 Required for electronic service: info@awolfflaw.com 6 andrew@awolfflaw.com 7 Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 11 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 12 13 CATHERINE GOODEILL; WILLIAM Case No.: 14 CHAPMAN; JOSHUA PETERSON, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 15 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 16 Plaintiffs, 17 18 vs. 19 20 RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC; and DOES 1-30, 21 inclusive, 22 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 Plaintiffs CATHERINE GOODEILL, WILLIAM CHAPMAN and JOSHUA 28 PETERSON (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 1 1 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 2 1. At all times herein relevant, plaintiffs CATHERINE GOODEILL, WILLIAM 3 CHAPMAN, and JOSHUA PETERSON were competent adults. All plaintiffs resided in the city 4 of Hayward, County of Alameda, and State of California. 5 2. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, defendants RENE J. 6 MARCOTTE, LLC; and DOES 1-30 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), 7 owned, controlled, and/or managed the unit that Plaintiffs resided in during all relevant time 8 periods in this complaint. 9 3. Defendants and DOES 1-30 are individuals, business entities, non-profit corporations, other organizations and entities, and/or alter egos of other defendants, doing 10 business in the County of Alameda and/or contracted to do work in the County of Alameda. 11 4. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe, and thereon allege, that at all times 12 relevant herein, named defendants and defendants sued as DOES 1-30 were the agents, 13 employees, and representatives of their fellow co-defendants, and in doing the things alleged in 14 this complaint, were acting within the course and scope of that agency and employment, and, 15 therefore, are vicariously liable for the acts of each other. Each act was ratified by each other 16 defendant. Each defendant is liable, in whole or in part, for Plaintiffs’ damages and injuries. 17 5. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of defendants sued, as DOES 1-30, but will 18 seek leave to amend this complaint when Plaintiffs discover the identity of any of the 19 Defendants now sued under the fictitious names DOES 1-30. 6. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants were negligently 20 and legally responsible for the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, and for Plaintiffs’ damages 21 and injuries. 22 7. This Court is the proper court because Defendants do business in its 23 jurisdictional area. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s jurisdictional 24 area. The events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s 25 jurisdictional area. The breach of contract causes are founded upon a contract entered into 26 within this Court’s jurisdictional area. The contractual obligations were to be performed within 27 this Court’s jurisdictional area. 28 8. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, that at all relevant times, Defendants were Plaintiffs' landlords, and Plaintiffs were the tenants of Defendants as those Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 2 1 terms “landlord” and “tenant” are defined under California common law, under California Code 2 of Civil Procedure sections 1161 et seq., and under California Civil Code section 1980. 3 9. On or about April 21, 2018, plaintiff CATHERINE GOODEILL and plaintiff 4 WILLIAM CHAPMAN, as tenants, and defendant, as owner and/or landlord and/or lessor, 5 entered into a written rental agreement to rent the premises located at 27766 Manon Avenue, #101, Hayward, California 94544, to these plaintiffs. Such address is hereinafter referred to as 6 “Subject Premises.” The material terms of this residential rental agreement required these 7 plaintiffs to pay monthly rent of $2,698.50 and a security deposit of $2,450.00. After a diligent 8 search, these plaintiffs have been unable to locate a copy of this written agreement. 9 10. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were the owners and/or property 10 managers or the agents, employees, and/or representatives of the owners and/or property 11 managers of the Subject Premises. 12 11. Since becoming owners and/or property managers or the agents and/or 13 employees of the owners and/or property managers of the Subject Premises, Defendants have 14 allowed the Subject Premises to contain several substantial habitability defects, which rendered 15 it unfit for human occupancy under California common law and statutes. The defects were due to Defendants’ failure to maintain the Subject Premises. These substantial habitability defects 16 existed in Plaintiffs' unit, and together and separately, constituted violations of applicable 17 housing laws, including but not limited to California Civil Code sections 1941.1, California 18 Health and Safety Code sections 17920 et seq., and local housing and building codes. 19 12. At all times relevant herein, substantial defective conditions within and related to 20 the Subject Premises include, but are not limited to, the following: mold/mildew, defective 21 plumbing, no weather stripping/gaps around doors, and general dilapidation and lack of 22 maintenance. These defects were severe and longstanding. These defects resulted in injuries and 23 damages to Plaintiffs. 24 13. Defendants were on notice of the aforementioned defects. For example, Plaintiffs 25 sent several repair requests to Defendants to have the aforementioned defects remedied. Plaintiffs complained both, verbally and in writing. Further, the defective conditions were 26 severe and longstanding such that Defendants would have noticed them had they conducted a 27 reasonable inspection of the Subject Premises. 28 14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, Defendants violated Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 3 1 California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3 because they allowed the Subject Premises 2 to contain general dilapidation and improper maintenance, constitute a nuisance, and to be 3 substandard in every way identified herein and as defined by applicable statutes, including 4 Section 17920.3. 5 15. Despite Defendants having adequate opportunity and notice to repair said defects prior to Plaintiffs filing this complaint. Defendants failed and refused to repair the 6 defects existing in the Subject Premises. 7 16. Defendants have also engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation toward 8 Plaintiffs, which included, but was not limited to, the following: refusing to repair substantial 9 habitability defects. 10 17. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants engaged in the 11 aforementioned neglect, retaliation, harassment and intimidation, to make Plaintiffs’ lives at the 12 Subject Premises as uncomfortable as possible such that they would eventually move-out. 13 18. Moreover, on or about December 2023, Plaintiffs relinquished possession of the 14 Subject Premises due to the Defendants’ conduct including harassment, and/or retaliation, 15 and/or deficient conditions. 19. Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort 16 and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent, 17 and out-of-pocket expenses, due to both Defendants’ acts and omissions and the defective 18 conditions existing at the Subject Premises. 19 20. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages below. 20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 21 TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ. 22 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 23 21. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 24 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 25 22. Plaintiffs made requests for repairs and reported uninhabitable conditions in their 26 units to Defendants. However, these requests were ignored, refused, denied, or inadequately 27 addressed. This resulted in Defendants failing to provide and maintain the Subject Premises in a 28 habitable condition. 23. Defendants had an obligation pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1941 et Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 4 1 seq., and common law, to provide and maintain the Subject Premises rented to Plaintiffs in a 2 habitable condition. Under these obligations, Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiffs to use 3 due care to provide and maintain a habitable premises. Defendants breached their legal duty to 4 Plaintiffs by making inadequate repairs, by failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying 5 in making necessary repairs to the Subject Premises after they both knew and should have known of the poor conditions existing at the Subject Premises. 6 24. The defective conditions were substantial. Defendants’ breaches of their legal 7 duty caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort 8 and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, 9 overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages in amounts to be proven at 10 trial. Defendants’ breaches were both, actual and legal causes of Plaintiffs’ complained of 11 injuries and damages. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages. 12 25. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION CONTRACTUAL BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 14 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ. 15 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 16 26. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 17 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 18 27. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into rental agreements to lease the Subject 19 Premises. Every lease for residential property contains an implied warranty of habitability. 28. During Plaintiffs' tenancy and prior to filing of this complaint, Plaintiffs 20 performed their obligations or were excused from performing their obligations under the rental 21 agreements. 22 29. Here, Defendants breached said agreements by making inadequate repairs, by 23 failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary repairs to the Subject 24 Premises after they knew and should have known of the poor conditions of the Subject Premises. 25 30. Defendants further breached the rental agreements on multiple occasions by 26 collecting rent from Plaintiffs to which Defendants were not entitled because of the substantial 27 habitability defects. 28 31. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 5 1 be ascertained at trial. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages. 2 32. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT 4 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3300 ET SEQ. 5 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 6 33. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 7 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 8 34. Defendants were obligated to perform under the terms of their rental agreements with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs performed, or were excused from performing, their obligations under 9 the rental agreements. A covenant to provide a habitable premises and a covenant of good faith 10 and fair dealing are contained in every residential rental agreement in the State of California. 11 35. Regarding the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendants made an 12 implied promise not to do anything that would unfairly interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to 13 receives benefits under their residential rental agreement. Defendants also made an implied 14 promise not to mislead or take unfair advantage of Plaintiffs. 15 36. Furthermore, Defendants warranted that the Subject Premises was in a habitable 16 condition at the time of entering into each agreement. 17 37. Defendants breached the terms of each agreement on multiple occasions during 18 the period preceding the filing of this complaint by failing to make requested repairs, failing to 19 provide a habitable premises to each Plaintiff, and collecting rent without repairing habitability defects at the Subject Premises after being given notice and reasonable opportunity to do so. 20 Defendants also failed to reasonably inspect the Subject Premises for defects, including health 21 and safety hazards. Defendants also failed to warn and protect Plaintiffs from harm due to the 22 aforementioned defective conditions, and health and safety hazards. 23 38. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages including over- 24 payment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be 25 ascertained at trial. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages. 26 39. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 27 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT 28 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1927 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 6 1 2 40. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 3 41. Every residential rental agreement includes the covenant of quiet enjoyment. 4 This covenant prohibits lessors and landlords from taking actions and inactions that diminish 5 Plaintiffs' beneficial enjoyment of the Subject Premises. The covenant also places on lessors and 6 landlords, an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs' quiet enjoyment of 7 the Subject Premises from interference by other persons on or about the Subject Premises. 8 42. Defendants, by and through the acts and omissions alleged herein, breached the 9 covenant of quiet enjoyment. Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the 10 Subject Premises by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions to exist after both, 11 knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these conditions. 12 43. Defendants also breached Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment by engaging in a pattern of harassment, intimidation and retaliation toward Plaintiffs, as alleged throughout this complaint. 13 44. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs suffered damages including 14 overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to 15 be ascertained at trial. Plaintiffs also seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages. 16 45. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 PRIVATE NUISANCE VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3501 ET SEQ. 19 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 20 46. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 21 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 22 47. Defendants owned, controlled and/or managed the Subject Premises. 23 48. Defendants created a nuisance on the Subject Premises by interfering with 24 Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment, by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions, and others, 25 to exist after being knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these defective conditions. 26 49. These conditions were harmful to Plaintiffs' health, offensive to their senses, and 27 an obstruction to their free use of the Subject Premises, which substantially interfered with the 28 comfortable enjoyment of Plaintiffs' life and property. Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 7 1 50. Plaintiffs made several complaints to Defendants regarding the uninhabitable 2 conditions of the Subject Premises. Plaintiffs complained of these and other disturbances to 3 their possession and quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Defendants failed and refused to 4 repair the defective conditions of the Subject Premises. Defendants’ failure to make repairs was 5 intentional and unreasonable because Defendants knew of the defects, and failed and refused to make repairs. In the alternative, Defendants’ conduct was negligent and/or reckless. 6 51. Any reasonable person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by 7 Defendants’ conduct. 8 52. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. As a direct and proximate 9 result of the aforementioned defective conditions, Plaintiffs were harmed. Plaintiffs suffered 10 injuries and damages, including the following: emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, 11 loss of use, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, 12 overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at 13 trial. Plaintiffs are also seeking statutorily authorized interest on their damages. 14 53. The harm to Plaintiffs outweigh any potential benefit, if any, of Defendants’ 15 conduct. 54. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 16 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 17 PREMISES LIABILITY 18 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1714 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 19 55. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 20 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 21 56. Defendants owned, controlled, and/or managed the Subject Premises. Plaintiffs 22 suffered injuries and damages because of the way Defendants owned, controlled, and/or 23 managed the Subject Premises. 24 57. As tenants, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care that included maintaining 25 the Subject Premises and performing repairs in a reasonable and safe manner. 26 58. The Subject Premises contained substantial habitability defects, which included, 27 but were not limited to, the following: Mold/mildew, defective plumbing, no weather 28 stripping/gaps around doors, and general dilapidation and lack of maintenance. 59. Defendants knew and should have known about the aforementioned substantial Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 8 1 habitability defects, and that exposure to these defective conditions posed a risk of injuries and 2 damages to Plaintiffs. For example, Plaintiffs complained to Defendants about the 3 aforementioned defective conditions. Moreover, a reasonable inspection would have revealed 4 the aforementioned defective conditions. 5 60. After Defendants knew and should have known of the aforementioned defects, Defendants failed and refused to repair the defective conditions. Defendants also had the ability 6 and opportunity to warn Plaintiffs about the defective conditions, including the risk of injuries 7 and damages, but did not do so. 8 61. Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ negligence. At a 9 minimum, Defendants were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages. 10 62. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages included the following: emotional distress, 11 discomfort and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal 12 property, overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiffs are seeking statutorily 13 authorized interest on their damages. 14 63. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 15 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE 16 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 17 64. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 18 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 19 65. Defendants owed a duty of care to maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable 20 condition, and not violate Plaintiffs' rights. When Defendants knew and should have known of 21 the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises, Defendants had a duty to take action 22 such as repairing the defective conditions. 66. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by failing to maintain the Subject 23 Premises, and by failing to repair the aforementioned defective conditions. 24 67. Defendants also breached their duties by retaliating against Plaintiffs for 25 exercising their rights as described above. 26 68. Defendants violated California Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 because 27 Defendants intentionally and/or negligently failed and refused to remedy the defective, 28 dilapidated, and appalling conditions at the Subject Premises. Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 9 1 69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs suffered 2 injuries and damages. 3 70. Plaintiffs are also in the class of persons that California Civil Code sections 4 1941.1 and 1942.5 were intended to protect. The harm that Plaintiffs suffered is the kind that 5 California Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 was designed to prevent. Defendants violated these statutes by failing and refusing to repair defective conditions existing at the Subject 6 Premises. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a breach of said statutes. Therefore, Defendants’ 7 statutory breaches constitute negligence per se. 8 71. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of Defendants, 9 Plaintiffs suffered harm, including emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, body injury, 10 pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent, out-of- 11 pocket expenses, and other injuries and damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiffs also 12 seek statutorily authorized interest on their damages. 13 72. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 14 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF CITY OF HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND 15 TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE SECTION 12-1.13 [JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION] 16 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 17 73. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 18 preceding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein. 19 74. As tenants of residential property located in Hayward, California, and subject to 20 the City of Hayward Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance section 12- 21 1.13 (the “Just Cause Ordinance”), Plaintiffs are entitled to bring an action against all 22 defendants who have violated this ordinance to Plaintiffs’ detriment. In particular, the ordinance 23 provides grounds on which a tenancy may be terminated. 24 75. When a landlord wrongfully endeavors to recover possession of a property in 25 violation of provisions governing limitations on evictions, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, including damages for emotional distress. 26 76. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by unlawfully influencing or 27 attempting to influence Plaintiffs to vacate the Subject Premises, outside of the legal eviction 28 process. Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 10 1 77. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by wrongfully endeavoring to 2 recover possession of the Subject Premises. 3 78. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants’ violations. Plaintiffs’ harm included 4 emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, and other actual damages, in amounts to be proven 5 at trial. 79. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 6 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 VIOLATIONS OF CITY OF HAYWARD RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND 8 TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE SECTION 12-1.12 [RETALIATION] 9 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 10 80. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 11 preceding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein. 12 81. As tenants of residential property located in Hayward, California, and subject to 13 the City of Hayward’s Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (the 14 “Retaliation Ordinance”), Plaintiffs are entitled to bring an action against all defendants who 15 have violated this ordinance to Plaintiffs’ detriment. In particular, the ordinance prohibits retaliation, harassment, and intimidation. 16 82. Defendants violated the Retaliation Ordinance when they engaged in a pattern of 17 harassment, intimidation, and retaliation toward Plaintiffs. Defendants failed to perform repairs 18 and maintenance for the Subject Premises, failed to exercise due diligence in completing repairs 19 when repairs were attempted, attempted to influence Plaintiffs to vacate the Subject Premises 20 through their misconduct, substantially and directly interfered with Plaintiffs’ right to quiet and 21 enjoyment. 22 83. Defendants violated the Retaliation Ordinance by retaliating against Plaintiffs for 23 exercising their rights as tenants. 24 84. Defendants acted in knowing violation or reckless disregard of the Retaliation 25 Ordinance. 85. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants’ violations. Plaintiffs’ harm included 26 emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, and other actual damages, in amounts to be proven 27 at trial. 28 86. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 11 1 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 RETALIATION-COMMON LAW (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 3 87. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 4 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 5 88. Plaintiffs consistently exercised their rights to inform Defendants about the 6 above-mentioned habitability defects, which also constituted a nuisance and breach of Plaintiffs' 7 quiet enjoyment. In response to Plaintiffs making complaints about habitability defects, 8 Defendants harassed, intimidated, retaliated, and, ultimately, evicted Plaintiffs. 9 89. Plaintiffs were within their rights to make the aforementioned requests and 10 complaints and are, and were, protected under the laws of California from being retaliated 11 against for making said requests and complaints. 12 90. Within 180 days of Plaintiffs exercising their rights, Defendants filed unlawful detainer actions against Plaintiffs. 13 91. Defendants’ dominant motive in engaging in the aforementioned misconduct was 14 to retaliate against Plaintiffs for engaging in protected activity and lawfully exercising their 15 rights as tenants. 16 92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ retaliatory conduct, Plaintiffs 17 suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, rent 18 differential, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. 19 93. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 20 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION 21 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 22 94. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 23 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 24 95. Due to the landlord-tenant relationship, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to 25 exercise reasonable care in the ownership, management, and control of the Subject Premises. 26 Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty not to unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffs' quiet use and 27 enjoyment. Defendants also had a duty to maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable condition. 28 96. Contrary to Defendants’ duties, Defendants failed to make repairs, and, ultimately, failed to properly manage and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable condition. Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 12 1 97. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct, Defendants deprived 2 Plaintiffs of their rights to peaceable and quiet possession of their abode. Defendants 3 constructively evicted Plaintiffs from the Subject Premises. That is, through Defendants’ 4 misconduct, they terminated Plaintiffs’ tenancy without good cause, and in violation of the 5 rental agreement. 98. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ constructive eviction, Plaintiffs 6 suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, rent 7 differential, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. 8 99. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 9 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 10 UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 11 SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ. 12 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 13 100. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 14 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 15 101. By reason of Defendants' failure to comply with state and local laws for the management of real property, Defendants' conduct constitutes an unfair business practice under 16 California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and 17500 et seq. 17 102. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, it is the regular practice of 18 Defendants to intentionally disregard the rights of tenants and violate applicable laws relating to 19 tenancies in their buildings in ways that include, but are not limited to, failing to provide quiet 20 enjoyment, retaliating against tenants, and allowing the defects identified herein to continue to 21 exist despite having adequate opportunity to remediate said defects. 22 103. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were conducting business under the laws 23 of the State of California, the County of Alameda, and City of Hayward. In conducting said 24 business, Defendants were obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California, the 25 County of Alameda, and the City of Hayward. 104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have 26 accrued unjust enrichment. 27 105. Wherefore Plaintiffs pray for an order for restitution requiring Defendants to 28 restore to Plaintiffs, all money obtained from Plaintiffs, including but not limited to, all monthly Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 13 1 rent payments. 2 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION 3 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1942.5 4 (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 5 106. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the 6 preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 7 107. Plaintiffs made requests for repairs and complained about habitability defects 8 existing at the Subject Premises to Defendants. In particular, Plaintiffs consistently exercised their rights to inform Defendants about the above-mentioned nuisance and breach of Plaintiffs’ 9 quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Plaintiffs were within their rights to make the 10 aforementioned requests for repairs and complaints and are, and were, protected from being 11 retaliated against for making these requests and complaints. 12 108. Plaintiffs were not in default as to their rent payments. Further, Plaintiffs are 13 informed, believe, and allege, no rent was owed because the substantial habitability defects 14 negated rent for each month. 15 109. Defendants violated Section 1942.5 because they decreased services such as 16 repairs, recovered possession, caused Plaintiffs to quit involuntarily, and increased Plaintiffs’ 17 rent. Defendants continually denied repairs and maintenance to Plaintiffs' units and surrounding 18 common areas for the stated reason of retaliating against Plaintiffs for engaging in the protected 19 activity. 110. Defendants engaged in the aforementioned conduct within 180 days of Plaintiffs 20 complaining to Defendants about habitability defects. 21 111. On or about February 3, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a 60-day notice 22 of termination of tenancy. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants 23 served the notice of termination of tenancy to retaliate against Plaintiffs. Defendants served the 24 notice shortly after Plaintiffs lawfully exercised their rights, which included but were not 25 limited to, the following: making complaints about the tenantability of the Subject Premises; 26 lawfully withholding rent to motivate Defendants to make repairs. 27 112. On or about April 5, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a three-day notice 28 to pay or quit. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants served the notice to pay or quit to retaliate against Plaintiffs. Defendants served the notice shortly after Plaintiffs Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 14 1 lawfully exercised their rights, which included but were not limited to, the following: making 2 complaints about the tenantability of the Subject Premises; lawfully withholding rent to 3 motivate Defendants to make repairs. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, the rental 4 value for the Subject Premises was substantially reduced in light of the defective conditions. 5 113. On or about May 16, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a three-day notice to pay or quit. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, Defendants served the notice 6 to pay or quit to retaliate against Plaintiffs. Defendants served the notice shortly after Plaintiffs 7 lawfully exercised their rights, which included but were not limited to, the following: making 8 complaints about the tenantability of the Subject Premises; lawfully withholding rent to 9 motivate Defendants to make repairs. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, the rental 10 value for the Subject Premises was substantially reduced in light of the defective conditions. 11 114. On or about July 5, 2023, Defendants filed an unlawful detainer lawsuit seeking 12 to evict Plaintiffs from the Subject Premises. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, 13 Defendants filed the unlawful detainer lawsuit to retaliate against Plaintiffs. Defendants filed the 14 unlawful detainer lawsuit shortly after Plaintiffs lawfully exercised their rights, which included 15 but were not limited to, the following: making complaints about the tenantability of the Subject 16 Premises; lawfully withholding rent to motivate Defendants to make repairs. 115. The aforementioned retaliatory conduct constitutes harassment and intimidation. 17 Further, Defendants engaged in the aforementioned retaliatory conduct for the stated reason of 18 retaliating against Plaintiffs for exercising their rights, which included, but were not limited to, 19 the following: making complaints about tenantability; organizing as tenants to resist 20 Defendants’ efforts to deprive Plaintiffs of beneficial use and enjoyment; and demanding respect 21 and accountability from Defendants. 22 116. Plaintiffs suffered actual damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Defendants 23 are also liable for punitive damages. 24 117. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for the damages stated below. 25 CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES (All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants) 26 118. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate into this claim for exemplary damages, the 27 allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 28 119. Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiffs' rights and retaliated against Plaintiffs Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 15 1 for enforcing their rights as tenants. 2 120. Defendants' actions were willful and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' 3 rights. Such willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' rights justifies an award of punitive 4 damages because Defendants’ conduct was oppressive and malicious as defined by California 5 Civil Code section 3294. The willful failure and refusal to repair longstanding defects existing in Plaintiffs' units also merits an award of substantial punitive damages against all Defendants. 6 Defendants knew or should have known that their intentional failure to maintain and repair the 7 Subject Premises posed a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ actions arose to 8 despicable conduct carried out with willful and conscious disregard of the consumer and tenant 9 rights and safety of others including Plaintiffs. 10 121. Defendant RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC is an entity. As an entity, it too is liable 11 for punitive damages. Defendant, through its managing agent, was on notice of the longstanding 12 defective condition, and still failed and refused make timely repairs. Defendant RENE J. 13 MARCOTTE, LLC, through its managing agent, engaged in a practice of retaliating, harassing 14 and intimidating Plaintiff. Defendant’s misconduct was authorized and ratified by the managing 15 agent, who was also an employee of the Defendant RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC The managing agent had discretion to make and deny repairs to the Subject Premises. The managing agent had 16 authority to bind Defendant RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC in contracts. The managing agent had 17 authority, on behalf of Defendant RENE J. MARCOTTE, LLC, to cease and desist from 18 engaging in retaliation, harassment, and intimidation. Finally, the misconduct that is at issue in 19 this case is wholly related to the entity’s business of owning and managing residential properties 20 like the Subject Premises. 21 PRAYER 22 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows as to all Defendants, and 23 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend according to proof: 24 A. For general damages according to proof for each cause of action including but 25 not limited to emotional distress and pain and suffering in the amount of $100,000.00 per 26 Plaintiff totaling $300,000.00; damages for annoyance and frustration due to nuisance and 27 interference with use and enjoyment of the subject property in the amount of $100,000.00 per 28 Plaintiff totaling $300,000.00. B. For special damages including property damage and loss according to proof for Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 16 1 each cause of action for rent reimbursement during the time the property was not up to Housing 2 and/or Building and/or Health and Safety code; return of security deposit in the amount of 3 $2,450.00; property damage in the amount of $50,000; rent differential damages in the amount 4 of $60,000.00 for the 10 years Plaintiffs would have reasonably stayed in the unit. Plaintiffs also 5 seeks recoup of $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs related to self-help repairs and/or moving costs. C. For punitive and exemplary damages according to statute and according to proof, 6 to be determined at trial and/or as stated in the served Notice of Seeking Punitive Damages 7 pursuant to CCP 425.15; 8 D. For treble damages in the amount of $1,972,350.00 pursuant to City of Hayward 9 Municipal Code Ordinance section 12-1.12(j)(1) [City of Hayward Retaliation Ordinance]; for a 10 civil penalty of the greater of $500 or treble actual damages pursuant to City of Hayward 11 Municipal Code Ordinance section 12-1.18(a); 12 E. Treble damages per Civil Code Section 1946.2. 13 F. For statutory damages, and penalties where available, of $2,000.00 for each 14 violation of Civil Code section 1942.5. 15 G. For incidental expenses, past, present and future, H. For attorney fees pursuant to civil code section 1946.2; 16 I. For interest on the amount of damages incurred at the prevailing legal rate; 17 J. For attorney's fees according to the attached lease per Civil Code Section 1717, 18 and the following statutes, in the amount of $100,000.00, pursuant to Civil Code sections 19 1946.2,1942.5(i) and City of Hayward Municipal Code Ordinance sections 12-1.12(l) and 12- 20 1.18(a); and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; 21 K. For pre-judgment interest; 22 L. For costs of suit incurred herein; 23 M. For an order requiring Defendants to disgorge any improper profits and restore 24 Plaintiffs’ monetary losses resulting from Defendants' unfair business practices; for restitution to 25 Plaintiffs of those profits and losses; and any pre-judgment interest thereon; . N. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent 26 injunction, all enjoining Defendants to repair and remedy defective conditions existing at the 27 Subject Premises; return possession of the Subject Premises to Plaintiffs; and to cease and desist 28 from retaliating against Plaintiffs for exercising their rights as tenants. Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 17 1 O. For such other and further relief which this Court deems just and proper. 2 3 Dated: May 7, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 4 5 ____________________________________ 6 Andrew Wolff, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Catherine Goodeill, et al. v. Rene J. Marcotte, LLC, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 18