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 Plaintiff
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
11
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12
13
JILLIAN SANTOS, Case No.:
14
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
15 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; DEMAND FOR
vs. JURY TRIAL
16
17 LESLIE SHUBIN; and DOES 1-30, inclusive,
18 Defendants.
19
20
21
22
Plaintiff JILLIAN SANTOS (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:
23
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
24
1. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was a competent adult. Plaintiff resided in
25
the city of Alameda, County of Alameda, and State of California.
26
2. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, defendants LESLIE SHUBIN
27
and DOES 1-30 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), owned, controlled, and/or
28
managed the unit that Plaintiff resided in during all relevant time periods in this complaint.
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 1
1 3. Defendants and DOES 1-30 are individuals, business entities, non-profit
2 corporations, other organizations and entities, and/or alter egos of other defendants, doing
3 business in the County of Alameda and/or contracted to do work in the County of Alameda.
4 4. Plaintiff is further informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times
5 relevant herein, named defendants and defendants sued as DOES 1-30 were the agents,
employees, and representatives of their fellow co-defendants, and in doing the things alleged in
6
this complaint, were acting within the course and scope of that agency and employment, and,
7
therefore, are vicariously liable for the acts of each other. Each act was ratified by each other
8
defendant. Each defendant is liable, in whole or in part, for Plaintiff’s damages and injuries.
9
5. Plaintiff does not know the true names of defendants sued, as DOES 1-30, but
10
will seek leave to amend this complaint when Plaintiff discovers the identity of any of the
11 Defendants now sued under the fictitious names DOES 1-30.
12 6. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, Defendants were negligently
13 and legally responsible for the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, and for Plaintiff’s damages
14 and injuries.
15 7. This Court is the proper court because Defendants do business in its
jurisdictional area. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s jurisdictional
16
area. The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s
17
jurisdictional area. The breach of contract causes are founded upon a contract entered into
18
within this Court’s jurisdictional area. The contractual obligations were to be performed within
19
this Court’s jurisdictional area.
20
8. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times,
21 Defendants were Plaintiff’s landlords, and Plaintiff was the tenant of Defendants as those terms
22 “landlord” and “tenant” are defined under California common law, under California Code of
23 Civil Procedure sections 1161 et seq., and under California Civil Code section 1980.
24 9. On or about June 1, 2022, Plaintiff, as tenant, and defendant LESLIE SHUBIN,
25 as owner and/or landlord and/or lessor, entered into a written rental agreement to rent the
premises located at 2000 Clinton Avenue, Unit 2, Alameda, California 94501, to Plaintiff. Such
26
address is hereinafter referred to as “Subject Premises.” The material terms of this residential
27
rental agreement required Plaintiff to pay monthly rent of $1,455.75 and a security deposit of
28
$2,000.00. A true and correct copy of this agreement is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A.
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 2
1 10. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were the owners and/or property
2 managers or the agents, employees, and/or representatives of the owners and/or property
3 managers of the Subject Premises.
4 11. At all times relevant herein, substantial defective conditions within and related to
5 the Subject Premises include, but are not limited to, the following: rodents/insects,
inadequate/defective wiring, mold/mildew, water leak intrusions, no/unsecure mailbox, no
6
heater, defective smoke detector and general dilapidation and lack of maintenance. These
7
defects were severe and longstanding. These defects resulted in injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
8
12. Additionally, Defendants knew and should have known the Subject Premises
9
constituted an illegal unit because, at all times relevant herein, no Certificate of Occupancy
10
existed for the Subject Premises.
11 13. Defendants were on notice of the aforementioned defects. For example, Plaintiff
12 sent several repair requests to Defendants to have the aforementioned defects remedied. Plaintiff
13 complained both, verbally and in writing. Further, the defective conditions were severe and
14 longstanding such that Defendants would have noticed them had they conducted a reasonable
15 inspection of the Subject Premises.
14. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges, Defendants violated California Health
16
and Safety Code section 17920.3 because they allowed the Subject Premises to contain general
17
dilapidation and improper maintenance, constitute a nuisance, and to be substandard in every
18
way identified herein and as defined by applicable statutes, including Section 17920.3.
19
15. Despite Defendants having adequate opportunity and notice to repair said
20
defects prior to Plaintiff filing this complaint. Defendants failed and refused to repair the defects
21 existing in the Subject Premises.
22 16. Defendants have also engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation
23 towards Plaintiff, which included, but was not limited to, the following: entering Plaintiff’s unit
24 without notice; refusing to repair substantial habitability defects.
25 17. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, Defendants engaged in the
aforementioned neglect, retaliation, harassment and intimidation, to make Plaintiff’s life at the
26
Subject Premises as uncomfortable as possible such that she would eventually move-out.
27
18. Moreover, on or about March 1, 2024, Plaintiff relinquished possession of the
28
Subject Premises due to the Defendants’ harassment, and/or retaliation and/or deficient
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 3
1 conditions.
2 19. Plaintiff is a woman. During Plaintiff’s tenancy, an individual sent by the
3 defendant to perform repairs on the premises subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment. This
4 conduct was unwelcome, pervasive, and severe. Plaintiff rejected the sexual advances made by
5 this individual. Plaintiff found the conduct extremely offensive. Plaintiff is informed, believes,
and thereon alleges that this conduct would not have occurred but for her gender.
6
20. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort
7
and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property,
8
overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses, due to both Defendants’ acts and omissions
9
and the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises.
10
21. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages below.
11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12
TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ.
13 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
14 22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
15 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
16 23. Plaintiff made requests for repairs and reported uninhabitable conditions to
17 Defendants. However, these requests were ignored, refused, denied, or inadequately addressed.
18 This resulted in Defendants failing to provide and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable
19
condition.
24. Defendants had an obligation pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1941 et
20
seq., and common law, to provide and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable condition.
21
Under these obligations, Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiff to use due care to provide
22
and maintain a habitable premises. Defendants breached their legal duty to Plaintiff by making
23
inadequate repairs, by failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary
24
repairs to the Subject Premises after they both knew and should have known of the poor
25 conditions existing at the Subject Premises.
26 25. The defective conditions were substantial. Defendants’ breaches of their legal
27 duty caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort
28 and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property,
overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages in amounts to be proven at
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 4
1 trial. Defendants’ breaches were both, actual and legal causes of Plaintiff’s complained of
2 injuries and damages. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on their damages.
3 26. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
CONTRACTUAL BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
5 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ.
(Plaintiff v. All Defedants)
6
7 27. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
8 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
28. Every rental agreement for residential property contains an implied warranty of
9
habitability.
10
29. During Plaintiff’s tenancy and pior to filing this complaint, Plaintiff performed
11
her obligations or was excused from performing obligations under the rental agreement.
12
30. Here, Defendants breached said agreements by making inadequate repairs, by
13
failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary repairs to the Subject
14 Premises after they knew and should have known of the poor conditions of the Subject Premises.
15 31. Defendants further breached the rental agreement on multiple occasions by
16 collecting rent from Plaintiff to which Defendants were not entitled because of the substantial
17 habitability defects.
18 32. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages, including
19
overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to
be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages.
20
33. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
21
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
22 BREACH OF CONTRACT
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3300 ET SEQ.
23
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
24
34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
25
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
26
35. Defendants were obligated to perform under the terms of their rental agreement
27
with Plaintiff. Plaintiff performed, or was excused from performing, her obligations under the
28 rental agreements. A covenant to provide a habitable premises and a covenant of good faith and
fair dealing are contained in every residential rental agreement in the State of California.
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 5
1 36. Regarding the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendants made an
2 implied promise not to do anything that would unfairly interfere with Plaintiff’s rights to
3 receives benefits under the residential rental agreement. Defendants also made an implied
4 promise not to mislead or take unfair advantage of Plaintiff.
5 37. Furthermore, Defendants warranted that the Subject Premises was in a habitable
condition at the time of entering into each agreement.
6
38. Defendants breached the terms of each agreement on multiple occasions during
7
the period preceding the filing of this complaint by failing to make requested repairs, failing to
8
provide a habitable premises to Plaintiff, and collecting rent without repairing habitability
9
defects at the Subject Premises after being given notice and reasonable opportunity to do so.
10
Defendants also failed to reasonably inspect the Subject Premises for defects, including health
11 and safety hazards. Defendants also failed to warn and protect Plaintiff from harm due to the
12 aforementioned defective conditions, and health and safety hazards.
13 39. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages including over-
14 payment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be
15 ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages.
40. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
16
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
18 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1927
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
19
41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
20
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
21
42. Every residential rental agreement includes the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
22
This covenant prohibits lessors and landlords from taking actions and inactions that diminish
23
Plaintiff’s beneficial enjoyment of the Subject Premises. The covenant also places on lessors
24
and landlords, an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment
25 of the Subject Premises from interference by other persons on or about the Subject Premises.
26 43. Defendants, by and through the acts and omissions alleged herein, breached the
27 covenant of quiet enjoyment. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the
28 Subject Premises by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions to exist after both,
knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these conditions.
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 6
1 44. Defendants also breached Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment by engaging in a pattern of
2 harassment, intimidation and retaliation towards Plaintiff, as alleged throughout this complaint.
3 45. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages including
4 overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to
5 be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages.
46. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
6
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7
PRIVATE NUISANCE
8 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3501 ET SEQ.
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
9
47. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
10
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
11
48. Defendants owned, controlled and/or managed the Subject Premises.
12
49. Defendants created a nuisance on the Subject Premises by interfering with
13
Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment, by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions, and others,
14 to exist after being knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these
15 defective conditions.
16 50. These conditions were harmful to Plaintiff’s health, offensive to her senses, and
17 an obstruction to her free use of the Subject Premises, which substantially interfered with the
18 comfortable enjoyment of Plaintiff’s life and property.
19
51. Plaintiff made several complaints to Defendants regarding the uninhabitable
conditions of the Subject Premises. Plaintiff complained of these and other disturbances to her
20
their possession and quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Defendants failed and refused to
21
repair the defective conditions of the Subject Premises. Defendants’ failure to make repairs was
22
intentional and unreasonable because Defendants knew of the defects, and still failed and
23
refused to make repairs. In the alternative, Defendants’ conduct was negligent and/or reckless.
24
52. Any reasonable person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by
25 Defendants’ conduct.
26 53. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. As a direct and proximate result
27 of the aforementioned defective conditions, Plaintiff was harmed. Plaintiff suffered injuries and
28 damages, including the following: emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, loss of use,
bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent,
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 7
1 out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiff is also
2 seeking statutorily authorized interest on her damages.
3 54. The harm to Plaintiff outweighs any potential benefit, if any, of Defendants’
4 conduct.
5 55. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6
PREMISES LIABILITY
7 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1714
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
8
56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
9
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
10
57. Defendants owned, controlled, and/or managed the Subject Premises. Plaintiff
11
suffered injuries and damages because of the way Defendants owned, controlled, and/or
12
managed the Subject Premises.
13
58. As tenants, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care that included maintaining
14 the Subject Premises and performing repairs in a reasonable and safe manner.
15 59. The Subject Premises contained substantial habitability defects, which included,
16 but were not limited to, the following: rodents/insects, inadequate/defective wiring,
17 mold/mildew, water leak intrusions, no/unsecure mailbox, no heater, defective smoke detector
18 and general dilapidation and lack of maintenance.
19
60. Defendants knew and should have known about the aforementioned substantial
habitability defects, and that exposure to these defective conditions posed a risk of injuries and
20
damages to Plaintiff. For example, Plaintiff complained to Defendants about the aforementioned
21
defective conditions. Moreover, a reasonable inspection would have revealed the
22
aforementioned defective conditions.
23
61. After Defendants knew and should have known of the aforementioned defects,
24
Defendants failed and refused to repair the defective conditions. Defendants also had the ability
25 and opportunity to warn Plaintiff about the defective conditions, including the risk of injuries
26 and damages, but did not do so.
27 62. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ negligence. At a
28 minimum, Defendants were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
63. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages included the following: emotional distress,
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 8
1 discomfort and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal
2 property, overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiff is seeking statutorily
3 authorized interest on her damages.
4 64. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
5 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
6 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
7
65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
8 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
9 66. Defendants owed a duty of care to maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable
10 condition, and not violate Plaintiff’s rights. When Defendants knew and should have known of
11 the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises, Defendants had a duty to take action
12
such as repairing the defective conditions.
67. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff by failing to maintain the Subject
13
Premises, and by failing to repair the aforementioned defective conditions.
14
68. Defendants also breached their duties by retaliating against Plaintiff for
15
exercising her rights as described above.
16
69. Defendants violated California Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 because
17
Defendants intentionally and/or negligently failed and refused to remedy the defective,
18 dilapidated, and appalling conditions at the Subject Premises.
19 70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered
20 injuries and damages.
21 71. Plaintiff is also in the class of persons that California Civil Code sections 1941.1,
22
and 1942.5 were intended to protect. The harm that Plaintiff suffered is the kind that California
Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 was designed to prevent. Defendants violated these
23
statutes by failing and refusing to repair defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises.
24
Defendants’ conduct constitutes a breach of said statutes. Therefore, Defendants’ statutory
25
breaches constitute negligence per se.
26
72. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of Defendants,
27
Plaintiff suffered harm, including emotional distress, physical discomfort and annoyance, bodily
28 injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent, out-
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 9
1 of-pocket expenses, and other injuries and damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiff
2 also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages.
3 73. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
4 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF CITY OF ALAMEDA RENT REVIEW, RENT STABILIZATION AND
5 LIMITATIONS ON EVICTIONS ORDINANCE SECTION 6-58.80
[WRONGFUL EVICTION AND TERMINATION OF TENANCY]
6
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
7
74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
8
the preceding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein.
9
75. As a tenant of residential property located in Alameda, California, and subject to
10
the City of Alameda’s Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance
11 (the “Ordinance”), Plaintiff is entitled to bring an action against all defendants who have
12 violated this ordinance to Plaintiff’s detriment. In particular, the ordinance provides grounds on
13 which a tenancy may be terminated.
14 76. When a landlord wrongfully endeavors to recover possession of a property in
15 violation of provisions governing limitations on evictions, Plaintiff is entitled to damages,
including damages for emotional distress.
16
77. Defendants violated the Ordinance by unlawfully influencing or attempting to
17
influence Plaintiff to vacate the Subject Premises, outside of the legal eviction process.
18
78. Defendants violated the Ordinance by wrongfully endeavoring to recover
19
possession of the Subject Premises.
20
79. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants’ violations. Plaintiff’s harm included
21 emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, and other actual damages, in amounts to be proven
22 at trial.
23 80. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
24 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF CITY OF ALAMEDA RENT CONTROL, LIMITATIONS ON
25 EVICTIONS AND RELOCATION PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN
DISPLACED TENANTS ORDINANCE SECTION 6-58.120
26
[RETALIATION]
27 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
28 81. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 10
1 the preceding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein.
2 82. As a tenant of residential property located in Alameda, California, and subject to
3 the City of Alameda’s Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance
4 (the “Retaliation Ordinance”), Plaintiff is entitled to bring an action against all defendants who
5 have violated this ordinance to Plaintiff’s detriment. In particular, the ordinance prohibits
retaliation.
6
83. Defendants violated the Ordinance when they engaged in a pattern of harassment,
7
intimidation, and retaliation toward Plaintiff.
8
84. Defendants violated the Ordinance by retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising
9
her rights as tenants.
10
85. Defendants acted in knowing violation or reckless disregard of the Ordinance.
11 86. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants’ violations. Plaintiff’s harm included
12 emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, and other actual damages, in amounts to be proven
13 at trial.
14 87. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
15 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
16 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ.
17
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
18
88. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
19
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
20
89. By reason of Defendants' failure to comply with state and local laws for the
21 management of real property, Defendants' conduct constitutes an unfair business practice under
22 California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and 17500 et seq.
23 90. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, it is the regular practice of
24 Defendants to intentionally disregard the rights of tenants and violate applicable laws relating to
25 tenancies in their buildings in ways that include, but are not limited to, failing to provide quiet
enjoyment, retaliating against tenants, and allowing the defects identified herein to continue to
26
exist despite having adequate opportunity to remediate said defects.
27
91. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were conducting business under the laws
28
of the State of California, the County of Alameda, and City of Alameda. In conducting said
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 11
1 business, Defendants were obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California, the
2 County of Alameda, and the City of Alameda.
3 92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have
4 accrued unjust enrichment.
5 93. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for an order for restitution requiring Defendants to
restore to Plaintiff, all money obtained from Plaintiff, including but not limited to, all monthly
6
rent payments.
7
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 WRONGFUL EVICTION
9
COMMON LAW
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
10
94. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
11
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
12
95. In addition to the affirmative duty imposed upon lessors and landlords by the
13
covenant of quiet enjoyment included in every residential lease, the covenant of quiet
14 enjoyment also protects a Plaintiff’s beneficial enjoyment of the Subject Premises from
15 intentionally annoying acts designed to compel a tenant to vacate their rental unit.
16 96. An actor need not be a lessor or landlord to be liable for damages for a non-
17 trespassory invasion of a Plaintiff’s private use and enjoyment of land. Defendants, by and
18 through the series of acts and omissions alleged herein, tortiously breached the covenant of
19
quiet enjoyment by substantially invading Plaintiff’s private use and enjoyment of the Subject
Premises. Such acts are either intentional and unreasonable or unintentional but otherwise
20
actionable under the rules governing liability for negligent, reckless, or ultrahazardous conduct.
21
Defendants also tortiously breached Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment by engaging in a pattern of
22
harassment, intimidation and retaliation towards Plaintiff, as alleged throughout this complaint.
23
Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. As a direct and proximate result of the
24
aforementioned defective conditions, Plaintiff was harmed. Plaintiff suffered injuries and
25 damages. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
26 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATION
27
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1942.5
28 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
97. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 12
1 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
2 98. Plaintiff made requests for repairs and complained about habitability defects
3 existing at the Subject Premises to Defendants. In particular, Plaintiff consistently exercised her
4 rights to inform Defendants about the above-mentioned nuisance and breach of Plaintiff’s quiet
5 enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Plaintiff was within her rights to make the aforementioned
requests for repairs and complaints and are, and were, protected from being retaliated against
6
for making these requests and complaints.
7
99. Plaintiff was not in default as to rent payments. Further, Plaintiff is informed,
8
believes, and alleges, no rent was owed because the substantial habitability defects negated rent
9
for each month.
10
100. Defendants violated Section 1942.5 because they decreased services such as
11 repairs; caused Plaintiff to quit involuntarily. Defendants continually denied repairs and
12 maintenance at the Subject Premises, and common areas, for the stated reason of retaliating
13 against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity.
14 101. Defendants engaged in the aforementioned conduct within 180 days of Plaintiff
15 complaining to Defendants about habitability defects.
102. The aforementioned retaliatory conduct constitutes harassment and intimidation.
16
Further, Defendants engaged in the aforementioned retaliatory conduct for the stated reason of
17
retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising her rights, which included, but were not limited to, the
18
following: making complaints about tenantability; organizing as tenants to resist Defendants’
19
efforts to deprive Plaintiff of beneficial use and enjoyment; and demanding respect and
20
accountability from Defendants.
21 103. Plaintiff suffered actual damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Defendants are
22 also liable for punitive damages.
23 104. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
24 CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
25
105. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this claim for exemplary damages, the
26
allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
27
106. Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiff’s rights and retaliated against Plaintiff
28
for enforcing her rights as tenants.
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 13
1 107. Defendants' actions were willful and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
2 rights. Such willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights justifies an award of punitive
3 damages because Defendants’ conduct was oppressive and malicious as defined by California
4 Civil Code section 3294. The willful failure and refusal to repair longstanding defects existing
5 in Plaintiff’s units also merits an award of substantial punitive damages against all defendants.
Defendants knew or should have known that their intentional failure to maintain and repair the
6
Subject Premises posed a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff. Defendants’ actions arose to
7
despicable conduct carried out with willful and conscious disregard of the consumer and tenant
8
rights and safety of others including Plaintiff.
9
PRAYER
10
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows as to all Defendants, and
11
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend according to proof:
12
A. For general damages according to proof for each cause of action including but
13
not limited to emotional distress and pain and suffering in the amount of $100,000.00 per
14
Plaintiff totaling $100,000.00; damages for annoyance and frustration due to nuisance and
15 interference with use and enjoyment of the subject property in the amount of $100,000.00 per
16 Plaintiff totaling $100,000.00.
17 B. For special damages including property damage and loss according to proof for
18 each cause of action for rent reimbursement during the time the property was not up to Housing
19
and/or Building and/or Health and Safety code; return of security deposit in the amount of
$2,000.00; property damage in the amount of $50,000; rent differential damages in the amount
20
of $60,0000.00 for the 10 years Plaintiffs would have reasonably stayed in the unit; and
21
Plaintiffs also seeks recoup of $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs related to self-help repairs and/or
22
moving costs
23
C. For punitive and exemplary damages according to statute and according to proof,
24
to be determined at trial and/or as stated in the served Notice of Seeking Punitive Damages
25 pursuant to CCP 425.15;
26 D. Treble damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 1946.2 et seq.
27 E. For statutory damages, and penalties where available, of $2,000.00 for each
28 violation of Civil Code section 1942.5.
F. For incidental expenses, past, present and future,
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 14
1 G. For interest on the amount of damages incurred at the prevailing legal rate;
2 H. For attorney's fees according to the attached lease per Civil Code Section 1717,
3 and the following statutes, in the amount of $100,000.00, pursuant to Civil Code sections
4 1946.2, 1942.5(i); City of Alameda Ordinance section 6-58.135; and Code of Civil Procedure
5 section 1021.5;
I. For pre-judgment interest;
6
J. For attorney fees pursuant to civil code section 1946.2;
7
K. For costs of suit incurred herein;
8
L. For an order requiring Defendants to disgorge any improper profits and restore
9
Plaintiffs’ monetary losses resulting from Defendants' unfair business practices; for restitution to
10
Plaintiffs of those profits and losses; and any prejudgment interest thereon; .
11 M. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent
12 injunction, all enjoining Defendants to repair and remedy defective conditions existing at the
13 Subject Premises; return possession of the Subject Premises to Plaintiffs; and to cease and desist
14 from retaliating against Plaintiffs for exercising their rights as tenants.
15 N. For such other and further relief which this Court deems just and proper.
16
17
Dated: May 9, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
18
19 ___________________________________
Andrew Wolff, Esq.
20
Attorney for Plaintiff
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
EXHIBIT A
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 16
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 Plaintiff 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 11 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 12 13 JILLIAN SANTOS, Case No.: 14 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 15 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; DEMAND FOR vs. JURY TRIAL 16 17 LESLIE SHUBIN; and DOES 1-30, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff JILLIAN SANTOS (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: 23 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 24 1. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was a competent adult. Plaintiff resided in 25 the city of Alameda, County of Alameda, and State of California. 26 2. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, defendants LESLIE SHUBIN 27 and DOES 1-30 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), owned, controlled, and/or 28 managed the unit that Plaintiff resided in during all relevant time periods in this complaint. Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 1 1 3. Defendants and DOES 1-30 are individuals, business entities, non-profit 2 corporations, other organizations and entities, and/or alter egos of other defendants, doing 3 business in the County of Alameda and/or contracted to do work in the County of Alameda. 4 4. Plaintiff is further informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times 5 relevant herein, named defendants and defendants sued as DOES 1-30 were the agents, employees, and representatives of their fellow co-defendants, and in doing the things alleged in 6 this complaint, were acting within the course and scope of that agency and employment, and, 7 therefore, are vicariously liable for the acts of each other. Each act was ratified by each other 8 defendant. Each defendant is liable, in whole or in part, for Plaintiff’s damages and injuries. 9 5. Plaintiff does not know the true names of defendants sued, as DOES 1-30, but 10 will seek leave to amend this complaint when Plaintiff discovers the identity of any of the 11 Defendants now sued under the fictitious names DOES 1-30. 12 6. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, Defendants were negligently 13 and legally responsible for the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, and for Plaintiff’s damages 14 and injuries. 15 7. This Court is the proper court because Defendants do business in its jurisdictional area. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s jurisdictional 16 area. The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s 17 jurisdictional area. The breach of contract causes are founded upon a contract entered into 18 within this Court’s jurisdictional area. The contractual obligations were to be performed within 19 this Court’s jurisdictional area. 20 8. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times, 21 Defendants were Plaintiff’s landlords, and Plaintiff was the tenant of Defendants as those terms 22 “landlord” and “tenant” are defined under California common law, under California Code of 23 Civil Procedure sections 1161 et seq., and under California Civil Code section 1980. 24 9. On or about June 1, 2022, Plaintiff, as tenant, and defendant LESLIE SHUBIN, 25 as owner and/or landlord and/or lessor, entered into a written rental agreement to rent the premises located at 2000 Clinton Avenue, Unit 2, Alameda, California 94501, to Plaintiff. Such 26 address is hereinafter referred to as “Subject Premises.” The material terms of this residential 27 rental agreement required Plaintiff to pay monthly rent of $1,455.75 and a security deposit of 28 $2,000.00. A true and correct copy of this agreement is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 2 1 10. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were the owners and/or property 2 managers or the agents, employees, and/or representatives of the owners and/or property 3 managers of the Subject Premises. 4 11. At all times relevant herein, substantial defective conditions within and related to 5 the Subject Premises include, but are not limited to, the following: rodents/insects, inadequate/defective wiring, mold/mildew, water leak intrusions, no/unsecure mailbox, no 6 heater, defective smoke detector and general dilapidation and lack of maintenance. These 7 defects were severe and longstanding. These defects resulted in injuries and damages to Plaintiff. 8 12. Additionally, Defendants knew and should have known the Subject Premises 9 constituted an illegal unit because, at all times relevant herein, no Certificate of Occupancy 10 existed for the Subject Premises. 11 13. Defendants were on notice of the aforementioned defects. For example, Plaintiff 12 sent several repair requests to Defendants to have the aforementioned defects remedied. Plaintiff 13 complained both, verbally and in writing. Further, the defective conditions were severe and 14 longstanding such that Defendants would have noticed them had they conducted a reasonable 15 inspection of the Subject Premises. 14. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges, Defendants violated California Health 16 and Safety Code section 17920.3 because they allowed the Subject Premises to contain general 17 dilapidation and improper maintenance, constitute a nuisance, and to be substandard in every 18 way identified herein and as defined by applicable statutes, including Section 17920.3. 19 15. Despite Defendants having adequate opportunity and notice to repair said 20 defects prior to Plaintiff filing this complaint. Defendants failed and refused to repair the defects 21 existing in the Subject Premises. 22 16. Defendants have also engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation 23 towards Plaintiff, which included, but was not limited to, the following: entering Plaintiff’s unit 24 without notice; refusing to repair substantial habitability defects. 25 17. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, Defendants engaged in the aforementioned neglect, retaliation, harassment and intimidation, to make Plaintiff’s life at the 26 Subject Premises as uncomfortable as possible such that she would eventually move-out. 27 18. Moreover, on or about March 1, 2024, Plaintiff relinquished possession of the 28 Subject Premises due to the Defendants’ harassment, and/or retaliation and/or deficient Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 3 1 conditions. 2 19. Plaintiff is a woman. During Plaintiff’s tenancy, an individual sent by the 3 defendant to perform repairs on the premises subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment. This 4 conduct was unwelcome, pervasive, and severe. Plaintiff rejected the sexual advances made by 5 this individual. Plaintiff found the conduct extremely offensive. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that this conduct would not have occurred but for her gender. 6 20. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort 7 and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, 8 overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses, due to both Defendants’ acts and omissions 9 and the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises. 10 21. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages below. 11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 12 TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ. 13 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 14 22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 15 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 16 23. Plaintiff made requests for repairs and reported uninhabitable conditions to 17 Defendants. However, these requests were ignored, refused, denied, or inadequately addressed. 18 This resulted in Defendants failing to provide and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable 19 condition. 24. Defendants had an obligation pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1941 et 20 seq., and common law, to provide and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable condition. 21 Under these obligations, Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiff to use due care to provide 22 and maintain a habitable premises. Defendants breached their legal duty to Plaintiff by making 23 inadequate repairs, by failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary 24 repairs to the Subject Premises after they both knew and should have known of the poor 25 conditions existing at the Subject Premises. 26 25. The defective conditions were substantial. Defendants’ breaches of their legal 27 duty caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort 28 and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages in amounts to be proven at Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 4 1 trial. Defendants’ breaches were both, actual and legal causes of Plaintiff’s complained of 2 injuries and damages. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on their damages. 3 26. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION CONTRACTUAL BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 5 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ. (Plaintiff v. All Defedants) 6 7 27. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 8 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 28. Every rental agreement for residential property contains an implied warranty of 9 habitability. 10 29. During Plaintiff’s tenancy and pior to filing this complaint, Plaintiff performed 11 her obligations or was excused from performing obligations under the rental agreement. 12 30. Here, Defendants breached said agreements by making inadequate repairs, by 13 failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary repairs to the Subject 14 Premises after they knew and should have known of the poor conditions of the Subject Premises. 15 31. Defendants further breached the rental agreement on multiple occasions by 16 collecting rent from Plaintiff to which Defendants were not entitled because of the substantial 17 habitability defects. 18 32. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages, including 19 overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages. 20 33. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 22 BREACH OF CONTRACT VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3300 ET SEQ. 23 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 24 34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 25 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 26 35. Defendants were obligated to perform under the terms of their rental agreement 27 with Plaintiff. Plaintiff performed, or was excused from performing, her obligations under the 28 rental agreements. A covenant to provide a habitable premises and a covenant of good faith and fair dealing are contained in every residential rental agreement in the State of California. Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 5 1 36. Regarding the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendants made an 2 implied promise not to do anything that would unfairly interfere with Plaintiff’s rights to 3 receives benefits under the residential rental agreement. Defendants also made an implied 4 promise not to mislead or take unfair advantage of Plaintiff. 5 37. Furthermore, Defendants warranted that the Subject Premises was in a habitable condition at the time of entering into each agreement. 6 38. Defendants breached the terms of each agreement on multiple occasions during 7 the period preceding the filing of this complaint by failing to make requested repairs, failing to 8 provide a habitable premises to Plaintiff, and collecting rent without repairing habitability 9 defects at the Subject Premises after being given notice and reasonable opportunity to do so. 10 Defendants also failed to reasonably inspect the Subject Premises for defects, including health 11 and safety hazards. Defendants also failed to warn and protect Plaintiff from harm due to the 12 aforementioned defective conditions, and health and safety hazards. 13 39. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages including over- 14 payment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be 15 ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages. 40. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 16 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 17 BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT 18 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1927 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 19 41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 20 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 21 42. Every residential rental agreement includes the covenant of quiet enjoyment. 22 This covenant prohibits lessors and landlords from taking actions and inactions that diminish 23 Plaintiff’s beneficial enjoyment of the Subject Premises. The covenant also places on lessors 24 and landlords, an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment 25 of the Subject Premises from interference by other persons on or about the Subject Premises. 26 43. Defendants, by and through the acts and omissions alleged herein, breached the 27 covenant of quiet enjoyment. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the 28 Subject Premises by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions to exist after both, knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these conditions. Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 6 1 44. Defendants also breached Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment by engaging in a pattern of 2 harassment, intimidation and retaliation towards Plaintiff, as alleged throughout this complaint. 3 45. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages including 4 overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to 5 be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages. 46. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 6 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 PRIVATE NUISANCE 8 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3501 ET SEQ. (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 9 47. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 10 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 11 48. Defendants owned, controlled and/or managed the Subject Premises. 12 49. Defendants created a nuisance on the Subject Premises by interfering with 13 Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment, by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions, and others, 14 to exist after being knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these 15 defective conditions. 16 50. These conditions were harmful to Plaintiff’s health, offensive to her senses, and 17 an obstruction to her free use of the Subject Premises, which substantially interfered with the 18 comfortable enjoyment of Plaintiff’s life and property. 19 51. Plaintiff made several complaints to Defendants regarding the uninhabitable conditions of the Subject Premises. Plaintiff complained of these and other disturbances to her 20 their possession and quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Defendants failed and refused to 21 repair the defective conditions of the Subject Premises. Defendants’ failure to make repairs was 22 intentional and unreasonable because Defendants knew of the defects, and still failed and 23 refused to make repairs. In the alternative, Defendants’ conduct was negligent and/or reckless. 24 52. Any reasonable person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by 25 Defendants’ conduct. 26 53. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. As a direct and proximate result 27 of the aforementioned defective conditions, Plaintiff was harmed. Plaintiff suffered injuries and 28 damages, including the following: emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, loss of use, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent, Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 7 1 out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiff is also 2 seeking statutorily authorized interest on her damages. 3 54. The harm to Plaintiff outweighs any potential benefit, if any, of Defendants’ 4 conduct. 5 55. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6 PREMISES LIABILITY 7 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1714 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 8 56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 9 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 10 57. Defendants owned, controlled, and/or managed the Subject Premises. Plaintiff 11 suffered injuries and damages because of the way Defendants owned, controlled, and/or 12 managed the Subject Premises. 13 58. As tenants, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care that included maintaining 14 the Subject Premises and performing repairs in a reasonable and safe manner. 15 59. The Subject Premises contained substantial habitability defects, which included, 16 but were not limited to, the following: rodents/insects, inadequate/defective wiring, 17 mold/mildew, water leak intrusions, no/unsecure mailbox, no heater, defective smoke detector 18 and general dilapidation and lack of maintenance. 19 60. Defendants knew and should have known about the aforementioned substantial habitability defects, and that exposure to these defective conditions posed a risk of injuries and 20 damages to Plaintiff. For example, Plaintiff complained to Defendants about the aforementioned 21 defective conditions. Moreover, a reasonable inspection would have revealed the 22 aforementioned defective conditions. 23 61. After Defendants knew and should have known of the aforementioned defects, 24 Defendants failed and refused to repair the defective conditions. Defendants also had the ability 25 and opportunity to warn Plaintiff about the defective conditions, including the risk of injuries 26 and damages, but did not do so. 27 62. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ negligence. At a 28 minimum, Defendants were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 63. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages included the following: emotional distress, Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 8 1 discomfort and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal 2 property, overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiff is seeking statutorily 3 authorized interest on her damages. 4 64. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 5 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE 6 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 7 65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 8 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 9 66. Defendants owed a duty of care to maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable 10 condition, and not violate Plaintiff’s rights. When Defendants knew and should have known of 11 the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises, Defendants had a duty to take action 12 such as repairing the defective conditions. 67. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff by failing to maintain the Subject 13 Premises, and by failing to repair the aforementioned defective conditions. 14 68. Defendants also breached their duties by retaliating against Plaintiff for 15 exercising her rights as described above. 16 69. Defendants violated California Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 because 17 Defendants intentionally and/or negligently failed and refused to remedy the defective, 18 dilapidated, and appalling conditions at the Subject Premises. 19 70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered 20 injuries and damages. 21 71. Plaintiff is also in the class of persons that California Civil Code sections 1941.1, 22 and 1942.5 were intended to protect. The harm that Plaintiff suffered is the kind that California Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 was designed to prevent. Defendants violated these 23 statutes by failing and refusing to repair defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises. 24 Defendants’ conduct constitutes a breach of said statutes. Therefore, Defendants’ statutory 25 breaches constitute negligence per se. 26 72. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of Defendants, 27 Plaintiff suffered harm, including emotional distress, physical discomfort and annoyance, bodily 28 injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent, out- Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 9 1 of-pocket expenses, and other injuries and damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiff 2 also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages. 3 73. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 4 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF CITY OF ALAMEDA RENT REVIEW, RENT STABILIZATION AND 5 LIMITATIONS ON EVICTIONS ORDINANCE SECTION 6-58.80 [WRONGFUL EVICTION AND TERMINATION OF TENANCY] 6 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 7 74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 8 the preceding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein. 9 75. As a tenant of residential property located in Alameda, California, and subject to 10 the City of Alameda’s Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance 11 (the “Ordinance”), Plaintiff is entitled to bring an action against all defendants who have 12 violated this ordinance to Plaintiff’s detriment. In particular, the ordinance provides grounds on 13 which a tenancy may be terminated. 14 76. When a landlord wrongfully endeavors to recover possession of a property in 15 violation of provisions governing limitations on evictions, Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including damages for emotional distress. 16 77. Defendants violated the Ordinance by unlawfully influencing or attempting to 17 influence Plaintiff to vacate the Subject Premises, outside of the legal eviction process. 18 78. Defendants violated the Ordinance by wrongfully endeavoring to recover 19 possession of the Subject Premises. 20 79. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants’ violations. Plaintiff’s harm included 21 emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, and other actual damages, in amounts to be proven 22 at trial. 23 80. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 24 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF CITY OF ALAMEDA RENT CONTROL, LIMITATIONS ON 25 EVICTIONS AND RELOCATION PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN DISPLACED TENANTS ORDINANCE SECTION 6-58.120 26 [RETALIATION] 27 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 28 81. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 10 1 the preceding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein. 2 82. As a tenant of residential property located in Alameda, California, and subject to 3 the City of Alameda’s Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance 4 (the “Retaliation Ordinance”), Plaintiff is entitled to bring an action against all defendants who 5 have violated this ordinance to Plaintiff’s detriment. In particular, the ordinance prohibits retaliation. 6 83. Defendants violated the Ordinance when they engaged in a pattern of harassment, 7 intimidation, and retaliation toward Plaintiff. 8 84. Defendants violated the Ordinance by retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising 9 her rights as tenants. 10 85. Defendants acted in knowing violation or reckless disregard of the Ordinance. 11 86. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants’ violations. Plaintiff’s harm included 12 emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, and other actual damages, in amounts to be proven 13 at trial. 14 87. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 15 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 16 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ. 17 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 18 88. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 19 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 20 89. By reason of Defendants' failure to comply with state and local laws for the 21 management of real property, Defendants' conduct constitutes an unfair business practice under 22 California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and 17500 et seq. 23 90. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, it is the regular practice of 24 Defendants to intentionally disregard the rights of tenants and violate applicable laws relating to 25 tenancies in their buildings in ways that include, but are not limited to, failing to provide quiet enjoyment, retaliating against tenants, and allowing the defects identified herein to continue to 26 exist despite having adequate opportunity to remediate said defects. 27 91. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were conducting business under the laws 28 of the State of California, the County of Alameda, and City of Alameda. In conducting said Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 11 1 business, Defendants were obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California, the 2 County of Alameda, and the City of Alameda. 3 92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have 4 accrued unjust enrichment. 5 93. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for an order for restitution requiring Defendants to restore to Plaintiff, all money obtained from Plaintiff, including but not limited to, all monthly 6 rent payments. 7 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 WRONGFUL EVICTION 9 COMMON LAW (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 10 94. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 11 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 12 95. In addition to the affirmative duty imposed upon lessors and landlords by the 13 covenant of quiet enjoyment included in every residential lease, the covenant of quiet 14 enjoyment also protects a Plaintiff’s beneficial enjoyment of the Subject Premises from 15 intentionally annoying acts designed to compel a tenant to vacate their rental unit. 16 96. An actor need not be a lessor or landlord to be liable for damages for a non- 17 trespassory invasion of a Plaintiff’s private use and enjoyment of land. Defendants, by and 18 through the series of acts and omissions alleged herein, tortiously breached the covenant of 19 quiet enjoyment by substantially invading Plaintiff’s private use and enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Such acts are either intentional and unreasonable or unintentional but otherwise 20 actionable under the rules governing liability for negligent, reckless, or ultrahazardous conduct. 21 Defendants also tortiously breached Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment by engaging in a pattern of 22 harassment, intimidation and retaliation towards Plaintiff, as alleged throughout this complaint. 23 Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. As a direct and proximate result of the 24 aforementioned defective conditions, Plaintiff was harmed. Plaintiff suffered injuries and 25 damages. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 26 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION 27 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1942.5 28 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 97. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 12 1 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 2 98. Plaintiff made requests for repairs and complained about habitability defects 3 existing at the Subject Premises to Defendants. In particular, Plaintiff consistently exercised her 4 rights to inform Defendants about the above-mentioned nuisance and breach of Plaintiff’s quiet 5 enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Plaintiff was within her rights to make the aforementioned requests for repairs and complaints and are, and were, protected from being retaliated against 6 for making these requests and complaints. 7 99. Plaintiff was not in default as to rent payments. Further, Plaintiff is informed, 8 believes, and alleges, no rent was owed because the substantial habitability defects negated rent 9 for each month. 10 100. Defendants violated Section 1942.5 because they decreased services such as 11 repairs; caused Plaintiff to quit involuntarily. Defendants continually denied repairs and 12 maintenance at the Subject Premises, and common areas, for the stated reason of retaliating 13 against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity. 14 101. Defendants engaged in the aforementioned conduct within 180 days of Plaintiff 15 complaining to Defendants about habitability defects. 102. The aforementioned retaliatory conduct constitutes harassment and intimidation. 16 Further, Defendants engaged in the aforementioned retaliatory conduct for the stated reason of 17 retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising her rights, which included, but were not limited to, the 18 following: making complaints about tenantability; organizing as tenants to resist Defendants’ 19 efforts to deprive Plaintiff of beneficial use and enjoyment; and demanding respect and 20 accountability from Defendants. 21 103. Plaintiff suffered actual damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Defendants are 22 also liable for punitive damages. 23 104. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 24 CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 25 105. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this claim for exemplary damages, the 26 allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 27 106. Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiff’s rights and retaliated against Plaintiff 28 for enforcing her rights as tenants. Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 13 1 107. Defendants' actions were willful and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 2 rights. Such willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights justifies an award of punitive 3 damages because Defendants’ conduct was oppressive and malicious as defined by California 4 Civil Code section 3294. The willful failure and refusal to repair longstanding defects existing 5 in Plaintiff’s units also merits an award of substantial punitive damages against all defendants. Defendants knew or should have known that their intentional failure to maintain and repair the 6 Subject Premises posed a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff. Defendants’ actions arose to 7 despicable conduct carried out with willful and conscious disregard of the consumer and tenant 8 rights and safety of others including Plaintiff. 9 PRAYER 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows as to all Defendants, and 11 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend according to proof: 12 A. For general damages according to proof for each cause of action including but 13 not limited to emotional distress and pain and suffering in the amount of $100,000.00 per 14 Plaintiff totaling $100,000.00; damages for annoyance and frustration due to nuisance and 15 interference with use and enjoyment of the subject property in the amount of $100,000.00 per 16 Plaintiff totaling $100,000.00. 17 B. For special damages including property damage and loss according to proof for 18 each cause of action for rent reimbursement during the time the property was not up to Housing 19 and/or Building and/or Health and Safety code; return of security deposit in the amount of $2,000.00; property damage in the amount of $50,000; rent differential damages in the amount 20 of $60,0000.00 for the 10 years Plaintiffs would have reasonably stayed in the unit; and 21 Plaintiffs also seeks recoup of $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs related to self-help repairs and/or 22 moving costs 23 C. For punitive and exemplary damages according to statute and according to proof, 24 to be determined at trial and/or as stated in the served Notice of Seeking Punitive Damages 25 pursuant to CCP 425.15; 26 D. Treble damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 1946.2 et seq. 27 E. For statutory damages, and penalties where available, of $2,000.00 for each 28 violation of Civil Code section 1942.5. F. For incidental expenses, past, present and future, Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 14 1 G. For interest on the amount of damages incurred at the prevailing legal rate; 2 H. For attorney's fees according to the attached lease per Civil Code Section 1717, 3 and the following statutes, in the amount of $100,000.00, pursuant to Civil Code sections 4 1946.2, 1942.5(i); City of Alameda Ordinance section 6-58.135; and Code of Civil Procedure 5 section 1021.5; I. For pre-judgment interest; 6 J. For attorney fees pursuant to civil code section 1946.2; 7 K. For costs of suit incurred herein; 8 L. For an order requiring Defendants to disgorge any improper profits and restore 9 Plaintiffs’ monetary losses resulting from Defendants' unfair business practices; for restitution to 10 Plaintiffs of those profits and losses; and any prejudgment interest thereon; . 11 M. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent 12 injunction, all enjoining Defendants to repair and remedy defective conditions existing at the 13 Subject Premises; return possession of the Subject Premises to Plaintiffs; and to cease and desist 14 from retaliating against Plaintiffs for exercising their rights as tenants. 15 N. For such other and further relief which this Court deems just and proper. 16 17 Dated: May 9, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 18 19 ___________________________________ Andrew Wolff, Esq. 20 Attorney for Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EXHIBIT A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jillian Santos v. Leslie Shubin, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 16