Preview
THOMAS W. J. PURTELL, ESQ. (SBN 229961)
THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. J. PURTELL
534 Pacific Ave., Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94133 ELECTRONICALLY
Telephone: (415) 722-6291 FILED
Facsimile: (415) 834-5591 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Email: tpurtell thomaswjpurtell-law.corn
05/13/2024
JAMES O'RIEN, ESQ. (SBN 170035) Clerk of the Court
THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES O'RIEN BY: AUSTIN LAM
Deputy Clerk
1160 Battery St., Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 513-7942
Facsimile: (415) 923-9420
Email: jobrien@jamesobrienlaw.corn
Attornevs for Plaintiff,
10 EDITH ROBLES, an individual
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
EDITH ROBLES, an individual; CGC-24-614614
13 ) Case No.:
)
14 ) PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR:
)
15 Plaintiff, ) (1) NEGLIGENCE;
) (2) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
16 vs. ) WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY;
) (3) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
17 955 PINE STREET LLC, a California limited ) WARRANTY OF QUIET ENJOYMENT;
liability company; ) (4) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
18 HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL ESTATE ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
INVESTMENTS, INC., a California ) (5) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
19 ) (6) BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF
corporation; and GOOD FAITH FAIR
) AND DEALING;
20 DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, PRIVATE NUISANCE; and
) (7)
) (S) VIOLATION OF S.F. ADMIN. CODE,
21 ) CH.37
Defendants.
)
22 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23
24
COMES NOW Plaintiff EDITH ROBLES, an individual, to submit the following
25
Complaint based upon information and belief as follows:
26
27 PARTIES
28 1. Plaintiff EDITH ROBLES, an individual, is a female individual residing in the
- I-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, State of California.
2. Defendant 955 PINE STREET LLC, a California limited liability company
(hereinafter "955 PINE STREET LLC") is a California limited liability company, landlord, and
property manager doing business in the City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, State of
California.
3. Defendant HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC., a
California corporation (hereinafter "HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS,
INC.") is a California corporation, landlord, and property manager doing business in the City of
San Francisco, County of San Francisco, State of California.
10 4. At all times herein, Plaintiff EDITH ROBLES, may be referred to as "Plaintiff."
5. At all times herein, Defendant 955 PINE STREET LLC; Defendant
12 HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10 may be
13 collectively referred to as "Defendants."
14 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
15 otherwise, of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 to DOES 10 are unknown to Plaintiff at
16 this time. Plaintiff sues the Defendant DOES by such fictitious names pursuant to California
17 Code of Civil Procedure $ 474, and will amend this Complaint to show their true names and
18 capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on
19 such information and belief allege, that each of the Defendant DOES are legally responsible in
20 some manner for the events and happenings referred to in this Complaint and/or also unlawfully
21 caused the damages to Plaintiff as alleged herein.
22 7. Plaintiff is finisher informed and believes, and based on such information and
23 belief alleges, that at all times pled in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, were the
24 agents and/or employees of the other, and in doing the things alleged herein, Defendants were
25 acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment.
26 VENUE AND JURISDICTION
27 8. Venue in this Court is proper as the injuries and damages to Plaintiff occurred in
28 the City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, State of California.
-2-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
9. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper as the amount in controversy is in excess of the
statutory requirements of this Court.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
10. Plaintiff was a residential tenant at 955 Pine Street, ¹31, San Francisco, California
(hereinafter "Subject Property" ) from July 28, 2017, until April 3, 2024, when Plaintiff was
constructively evicted from the Subject Property, due to the atrocious conduct of Defendants
creating dangerous, unsafe, harassing, and uninhabitable conditions in the Subject Property.
11. At all times herein, Defendant 955 PINE STREET LLC; and DOES 1 to 10
owned, managed, maintained, and controlled the Subject Property.
10
12. At all times herein, Defendant HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENTS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10 managed, maintained, and controlled the Subject
12
Property.
13
13. Plaintiff took possession of a unit in the Subject Property pursuant to a contract
14
with Defendants (hereinafter "Contract" ).
15
14. At all times herein, a landlord-tenant relationship existed between Plaintiff and
16
Defendants.
17
15. Substantial defective conditions existed at the Subject Property during
18
Plaintiffs tenancy which constitute violations of applicable housing laws, including but
19
not limited to, violations of the City of San Francisco Building Code and City of San
20
Francisco Health Code for which Defendants received notices of violation from the City of
21
San Francisco Building Inspection and City of San Francisco Health Department,
22
Defendants knowingly and negligently refused to repair severe leaks in the Subject Property,
23
Defendants knowingly and negligently exposed Plaintiff to severe leaks in the Subject Property,
24
knowingly and negligently exposed Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit
25
on the Subject Property, Defendants'nowingly and negligently refused to remediate
26
unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject Property, Defendants knowingly
27
and negligently exposed Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property, Defendants knowingly
28
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
and negligently refused to remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, Defendants failed to
provide appliances that conformed with applicable law and adequately maintained in v orking
order, Defendants'nowingly and negligently exposed Plaintiff to garbage, debris, and
unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, Defendants'nowingly and negligently refused
to remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, Defendants
harassed Plaintiff by attempting to influence Plaintiff to vacate the Subject Property through
intimidation and coercion in violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37, Defendants permitted
the Subject Property to deteriorate into a dilapidated, substandard, uninhabitable state in bad faith
causing Plaintiff severe harm, including, but not limited to, general and special damages,
10 substantial loss of use of property damages, emotional distress, and Defendants constructively
evicted Plaintiff from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable Subject Property.
12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
13 (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10)
14 16. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this
15 count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint.
16 17. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable and due care to exercise
17 reasonable care in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance, and control
18 of the Subject Property.
19 18. Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in the
20 ownership, operation, management, and control of the Subject Property, which
21 included, but was not limited to, the following: the duty to comply with all applicable
22 state and local laws governing Plaintiffs rights, including, but not limited to, the duty to
23 repair severe leaks in the Subject Property, the duty to not expose Plaintiff to toxic mold in the
24 Subject Property, the duty to remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, the duty to provide
25 appliances that conformed with applicable law and adequately maintained in working order, the
26 duty to not expose Plaintiff to garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject
27 Property, the duty to remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject
28 Property, the duty to not expose Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on
-4-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
the Subject Property, the duty to remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on
the Subject Property, the duty not to interfere with Plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of the
premises, and the duty to provide Plaintiff a habitable unit.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of the foregoing duties by
Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages including in an amount
according to proof, and Plaintiff was constructively evicted by Defendants from the unsafe,
dangerous, and uninhabitable unit.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
(Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10)
10 20.. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this
count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint.
12 21. In renting the Subject Property to Plaintiff, Defendants impliedly undertook the
13 warranty that the Subject Property was in a habitable condition.
14 22. Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in the
15 ownership, operation, management, and control of the Subject Property, which
16 included, but was not limited to, the following: the duty to repair severe leaks in the Subject
17 Property, the duty to not expose Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property, the duty to
18 remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, the duty to provide appliances that conformed with
19 applicable law and adequately maintained in working order. the duty to not expose Plaintiff to
20 garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, the duty to remediate
21 garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, the duty to not expose
22 Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, the duty to
23 remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject Property, the duty not
24 to interfere with Plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of the premises, the duty to provide Plaintiff a
25 habitable unit, and Defendants thereby interfered with the habitability of Plaintiffs tenancy
26 and Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability.
27 23. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of the foregoing duties by
28 Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages including in an amount
-5-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
according to proof, and Plaintiff was constructively evicted by Defendants from the unsafe,
dangerous, and uninhabitable unit.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
(Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10)
24. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this
count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint.
25. In renting the Subject Property to the Plaintiff, Defendants impliedly undertook the
warranty not to disturb Plaintiffs quiet enjoyment and beneficial possession of the Subject
Property.
10 26. Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in the
ownership, operation, management, and control of the Subject Property, which
12 included, but was not limited to, the following: the duty to repair severe leaks in the Subject
13 Property, the duty to not expose Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property, the duty to
14 remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, the duty to provide appliances that conformed with
15 applicable law and adequately maintained in working order. the duty to not expose Plaintiff to
16 garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, the duty to remediate
17 garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, the duty to not expose
18 Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, the duty to
19 remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject Property, the duty not
20 to interfere with Plaintiff s quiet enjoyment of the premises, the duty to provide Plaintiff a
21 habitable unit, and Defendants thereby interfered with the quiet enjoyment of Plaintiffs
22 tenancy and Defendants breached the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment.
23 27. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of the foregoing duties by
24 Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages including in an amount
25 according to proof, and Plaintiff was constructively evicting by Defendants from the unsafe,
26 dangerous, and uninhabitable unit.
27
28
-6-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10)
28. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this
count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint.
29. Defendants'cts of knowingly and negligently refusing to repair severe leaks in
the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to severe leaks in the Subject
Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property,
knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, knowingly
and negligently exposing Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the
10 Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate unsanitary odors emanating
into Plaintiffs unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently failing to provide
12 appliances that conformed v ith applicable law and adequately maintained in working order,
13 knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on
14 the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate garbage, debris, and
15 unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, and constructively evicting Plaintiff from the
16 unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit are outrageous.
17 30. Defendants'aid acts were with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiff
18 would suffer emotional distress as a result of said acts.
19 31. Defendants'cts of knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to severe leaks
20 in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to toxic mold in the
21 Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate toxic mold in the Subject
22 Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into
23 Plaintiffs unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate
24 unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and
25 negligently failing to provide appliances that conformed with applicable law and adequately
26 maintained in v'orking order, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris,
27 and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to
28 remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, and constructively
-7-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
evicting Plaintiff from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit were a substantial factor
in causing Plaintiff s severe emotional distress.
32. As a direct and proximate result of said acts by Defendants, Plaintiff
suffered general and special damages, including, severe emotional distress, and as
Defendants'ctions
were malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and carried out with a conscious disregard of
Plaintiffs rights, Plaintiff prays for punitive damages pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure $ 3294.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10)
10 33. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this
count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint.
12 34. Plaintiff took possession of the Subject Property pursuant to a written contract
13 Plaintiff entered into with Defendants (hereinafter "Contract" ).
14 35. Pursuant to the Contract, Defendants were required to provide to Plaintiff a safe
15 unit, perform necessary repairs and maintenance, provide Plaintiff the Subject Property in a
16 non-dangerous condition, and provide Plaintiff the Subject Property in a habitable condition.
17 36. Defendants breached this Contract by knowingly and negligently exposing
18 Plaintiff to severe leaks in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to
19 toxic mold in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate toxic mold
20 in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to unsanitary odors
21 emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to
22 remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject Property, knowingly
23 and negligently failing to provide appliances that conformed with applicable law and adequately
24 maintained in v'orking order, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris,
25 and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to
26 remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, and constructively
27 evicting Plaintiff from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit and said was a
28 substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs.
-8-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
37. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing failures and breaches by
Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
(Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10)
38. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this
count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint.
39. Plaintiff took possession of a unit in the Subject Property pursuant to the
Contract with Defendants.
40. Plaintiff performed all of the material terms that the Contract with Defendants
10 required Plaintiff to do.
41. All conditions required for Defendants'performance under the Contract with
12 Plaintiff have occurred.
13 42. Defendants breached the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the
14 Contract when Defendants unfairly interfered with Plaintiffs right to receive the benefits of the
15 contract as Defendants knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to severe leaks in the
16 Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject
17 Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property,
18 knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit
19 on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate unsanitary odors
20 emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently failing to
21 provide appliances that conformed v ith applicable law and adequately maintained in working
22 order, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris, and unsanitary
23 conditions on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate garbage,
24 debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, and constructively evicting Plaintiff
25 from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit, and said was a substantial factor in
26 causing harm to Plaintiff.
27 43. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing failures and breaches by
Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages.
-9-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PRIVATE NUISANCE
(Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10)
44. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this
count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint.
45. Plaintiff took possession of a unit in the Subject Property pursuant to a
Contract with Defendants.
46. Defendants created and permitted conditions to exist that were harmful to
Plaintiff, offensive to Plaintiff, obstructed Plaintiffs use of property, and interfered with
Plaintiffs enjoyment of life and property by knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to
10 severe leaks in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to toxic mold
in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate toxic mold in the
12 Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating
13 into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate
14 unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiffs unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and
15 negligently failing to provide appliances that conformed with applicable law and adequately
16 maintained in working order, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris,
17 and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to
18 remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, and constructively
19 evicting Plaintiff from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit.
20 47. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants'aid created and permitted conditions.
21 48. An ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed and disturbed by
22
Defendants'aid
created and permitted conditions.
23 49. Defendants'aid created and permitted conditions were a substantial factor in
24 causing Plaintiff s harm.
25 50. The seriousness of Plaintiffs harm outweighs the public benefit of
26
Defendants'aid
conduct.
27 51. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches and the foregoing conduct
28 by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages, including, but not limited to
-10-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
severe emotional distress, and as Defendants'ctions were malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive,
and carried out with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, Plaintiff further prays for punitive
damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure $ 3294 and Hassoldt v. Patrick Media
Group, Inc., (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 153.
EIGTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF S.F. ADMIN. CODE, CH. 37
(Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10)
52. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this
count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint.
53. Plaintiffs tenancy was subject to the provisions of S.F. Administrative Code,
10
Chapter 37 ("S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37"). S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37 prohibits a landlord or
their agent from influencing or attempting to influence a tenant to vacate a rental housing
12
unit through intimidation or coercion; prohibits a landlord or their agent from failing to
13
perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by State, County, or local housing,
14
health, or safety laws; and prohibits a landlord or their agent from endeavoring to recover
15
possession of the subject unit unless a just cause for terminating the tenancy was the
16
landlord's dominant motive. Defendants attempted to influence and did influence Plaintiff
17
to vacate the Subject Property through intimidation and coercion, knowingly and
18
negligently exposing Plaintiff to severe leaks in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently
19
exposing Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to
20 remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to
21
unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and
22
negligently refusing to remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject
23
Property, knowingly and negligently failing to provide appliances that conformed with
24
applicable law and adequately maintained in working order, knowingly and negligently
exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property,
26
knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on
27 the Subject Property, constructively evicting Plaintiff from the unsafe, dangerous, and
28
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
uninhabitable unit, failing to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by
State, County, and local housing, health and safety laws, and endeavored to recover
possession of the Subject Property. In carrying out said acts and omissions, Defendants
wrongfully endeavored to recover possession of the subject unit and did wrongfully take
possession of the Subject Property from Plaintiff without just cause.
54. Each of Defendants acts and omissions constitute violations of S.F. Admin.
Code $ 37.10B, and Defendants acted in knowing violation and with reckless disregard of
the protections for Plaintiff contained in S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37.
55. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches and the foregoing conduct
10 by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages, and as Defendants'ctions
were malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive, and carried out with a conscious disregard of
12 Plaintiffs rights, Plaintiff further prays for treble damages, attorneys'ees, and punitive damages
13 pursuant to S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37.
14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
15 follows:
16
1. For all Causes of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be
17
determined and according to proof at the trial of this action;
18
2. For all Causes of Action, general damages in an amount to be determined and
19
according to proof at the trial of this action;
20
3. For all Causes of Action, special damages in an amount to be determined and
21
according to proof at the trial of this action;
22
4. For the Causes of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and
23
Private Nuisance, punitive damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure ) 3294;
24
25
26
attorney'ees
5. For the Cause of Action of Violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37,
and costs pursuant to S.F. Admin. Code;
6. For the Cause of Action of Violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37, punitive
27
damages pursuant to S.F. Admin. Code;
28
-12-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
7. For the Cause of Action of Violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37, treble
2 damages pursuant to S.F. Admin. Code;
8. For pre-judgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal
4 rate;
9. For costs of suit herein occurred; and
10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this case.
May 12, 2024 THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. J. PURTELL
10
By
12 THOMAS W. J. PURTELL
Attorney for Plaintiff
13 EDITH ROBLES, an individual
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-13-
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Preview
THOMAS W. J. PURTELL, ESQ. (SBN 229961) THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. J. PURTELL 534 Pacific Ave., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94133 ELECTRONICALLY Telephone: (415) 722-6291 FILED Facsimile: (415) 834-5591 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Email: tpurtell thomaswjpurtell-law.corn 05/13/2024 JAMES O'RIEN, ESQ. (SBN 170035) Clerk of the Court THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES O'RIEN BY: AUSTIN LAM Deputy Clerk 1160 Battery St., Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 513-7942 Facsimile: (415) 923-9420 Email: jobrien@jamesobrienlaw.corn Attornevs for Plaintiff, 10 EDITH ROBLES, an individual SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO EDITH ROBLES, an individual; CGC-24-614614 13 ) Case No.: ) 14 ) PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR: ) 15 Plaintiff, ) (1) NEGLIGENCE; ) (2) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED 16 vs. ) WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY; ) (3) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED 17 955 PINE STREET LLC, a California limited ) WARRANTY OF QUIET ENJOYMENT; liability company; ) (4) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 18 HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL ESTATE ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; INVESTMENTS, INC., a California ) (5) BREACH OF CONTRACT; 19 ) (6) BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF corporation; and GOOD FAITH FAIR ) AND DEALING; 20 DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, PRIVATE NUISANCE; and ) (7) ) (S) VIOLATION OF S.F. ADMIN. CODE, 21 ) CH.37 Defendants. ) 22 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 23 24 COMES NOW Plaintiff EDITH ROBLES, an individual, to submit the following 25 Complaint based upon information and belief as follows: 26 27 PARTIES 28 1. Plaintiff EDITH ROBLES, an individual, is a female individual residing in the - I- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, State of California. 2. Defendant 955 PINE STREET LLC, a California limited liability company (hereinafter "955 PINE STREET LLC") is a California limited liability company, landlord, and property manager doing business in the City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, State of California. 3. Defendant HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation (hereinafter "HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC.") is a California corporation, landlord, and property manager doing business in the City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, State of California. 10 4. At all times herein, Plaintiff EDITH ROBLES, may be referred to as "Plaintiff." 5. At all times herein, Defendant 955 PINE STREET LLC; Defendant 12 HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10 may be 13 collectively referred to as "Defendants." 14 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 15 otherwise, of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 to DOES 10 are unknown to Plaintiff at 16 this time. Plaintiff sues the Defendant DOES by such fictitious names pursuant to California 17 Code of Civil Procedure $ 474, and will amend this Complaint to show their true names and 18 capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on 19 such information and belief allege, that each of the Defendant DOES are legally responsible in 20 some manner for the events and happenings referred to in this Complaint and/or also unlawfully 21 caused the damages to Plaintiff as alleged herein. 22 7. Plaintiff is finisher informed and believes, and based on such information and 23 belief alleges, that at all times pled in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, were the 24 agents and/or employees of the other, and in doing the things alleged herein, Defendants were 25 acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment. 26 VENUE AND JURISDICTION 27 8. Venue in this Court is proper as the injuries and damages to Plaintiff occurred in 28 the City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, State of California. -2- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 9. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper as the amount in controversy is in excess of the statutory requirements of this Court. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. Plaintiff was a residential tenant at 955 Pine Street, ¹31, San Francisco, California (hereinafter "Subject Property" ) from July 28, 2017, until April 3, 2024, when Plaintiff was constructively evicted from the Subject Property, due to the atrocious conduct of Defendants creating dangerous, unsafe, harassing, and uninhabitable conditions in the Subject Property. 11. At all times herein, Defendant 955 PINE STREET LLC; and DOES 1 to 10 owned, managed, maintained, and controlled the Subject Property. 10 12. At all times herein, Defendant HAWTHORNE/STONE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10 managed, maintained, and controlled the Subject 12 Property. 13 13. Plaintiff took possession of a unit in the Subject Property pursuant to a contract 14 with Defendants (hereinafter "Contract" ). 15 14. At all times herein, a landlord-tenant relationship existed between Plaintiff and 16 Defendants. 17 15. Substantial defective conditions existed at the Subject Property during 18 Plaintiffs tenancy which constitute violations of applicable housing laws, including but 19 not limited to, violations of the City of San Francisco Building Code and City of San 20 Francisco Health Code for which Defendants received notices of violation from the City of 21 San Francisco Building Inspection and City of San Francisco Health Department, 22 Defendants knowingly and negligently refused to repair severe leaks in the Subject Property, 23 Defendants knowingly and negligently exposed Plaintiff to severe leaks in the Subject Property, 24 knowingly and negligently exposed Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit 25 on the Subject Property, Defendants'nowingly and negligently refused to remediate 26 unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject Property, Defendants knowingly 27 and negligently exposed Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property, Defendants knowingly 28 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL and negligently refused to remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, Defendants failed to provide appliances that conformed with applicable law and adequately maintained in v orking order, Defendants'nowingly and negligently exposed Plaintiff to garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, Defendants'nowingly and negligently refused to remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, Defendants harassed Plaintiff by attempting to influence Plaintiff to vacate the Subject Property through intimidation and coercion in violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37, Defendants permitted the Subject Property to deteriorate into a dilapidated, substandard, uninhabitable state in bad faith causing Plaintiff severe harm, including, but not limited to, general and special damages, 10 substantial loss of use of property damages, emotional distress, and Defendants constructively evicted Plaintiff from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable Subject Property. 12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE 13 (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10) 14 16. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this 15 count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint. 16 17. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable and due care to exercise 17 reasonable care in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance, and control 18 of the Subject Property. 19 18. Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in the 20 ownership, operation, management, and control of the Subject Property, which 21 included, but was not limited to, the following: the duty to comply with all applicable 22 state and local laws governing Plaintiffs rights, including, but not limited to, the duty to 23 repair severe leaks in the Subject Property, the duty to not expose Plaintiff to toxic mold in the 24 Subject Property, the duty to remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, the duty to provide 25 appliances that conformed with applicable law and adequately maintained in working order, the 26 duty to not expose Plaintiff to garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject 27 Property, the duty to remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject 28 Property, the duty to not expose Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on -4- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL the Subject Property, the duty to remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, the duty not to interfere with Plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of the premises, and the duty to provide Plaintiff a habitable unit. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of the foregoing duties by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages including in an amount according to proof, and Plaintiff was constructively evicted by Defendants from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10) 10 20.. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint. 12 21. In renting the Subject Property to Plaintiff, Defendants impliedly undertook the 13 warranty that the Subject Property was in a habitable condition. 14 22. Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in the 15 ownership, operation, management, and control of the Subject Property, which 16 included, but was not limited to, the following: the duty to repair severe leaks in the Subject 17 Property, the duty to not expose Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property, the duty to 18 remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, the duty to provide appliances that conformed with 19 applicable law and adequately maintained in working order. the duty to not expose Plaintiff to 20 garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, the duty to remediate 21 garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, the duty to not expose 22 Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, the duty to 23 remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject Property, the duty not 24 to interfere with Plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of the premises, the duty to provide Plaintiff a 25 habitable unit, and Defendants thereby interfered with the habitability of Plaintiffs tenancy 26 and Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability. 27 23. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of the foregoing duties by 28 Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages including in an amount -5- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL according to proof, and Plaintiff was constructively evicted by Defendants from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF QUIET ENJOYMENT (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10) 24. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint. 25. In renting the Subject Property to the Plaintiff, Defendants impliedly undertook the warranty not to disturb Plaintiffs quiet enjoyment and beneficial possession of the Subject Property. 10 26. Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, operation, management, and control of the Subject Property, which 12 included, but was not limited to, the following: the duty to repair severe leaks in the Subject 13 Property, the duty to not expose Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property, the duty to 14 remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, the duty to provide appliances that conformed with 15 applicable law and adequately maintained in working order. the duty to not expose Plaintiff to 16 garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, the duty to remediate 17 garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, the duty to not expose 18 Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, the duty to 19 remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject Property, the duty not 20 to interfere with Plaintiff s quiet enjoyment of the premises, the duty to provide Plaintiff a 21 habitable unit, and Defendants thereby interfered with the quiet enjoyment of Plaintiffs 22 tenancy and Defendants breached the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment. 23 27. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of the foregoing duties by 24 Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages including in an amount 25 according to proof, and Plaintiff was constructively evicting by Defendants from the unsafe, 26 dangerous, and uninhabitable unit. 27 28 -6- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10) 28. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint. 29. Defendants'cts of knowingly and negligently refusing to repair severe leaks in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to severe leaks in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the 10 Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiffs unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently failing to provide 12 appliances that conformed v ith applicable law and adequately maintained in working order, 13 knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on 14 the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate garbage, debris, and 15 unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, and constructively evicting Plaintiff from the 16 unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit are outrageous. 17 30. Defendants'aid acts were with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiff 18 would suffer emotional distress as a result of said acts. 19 31. Defendants'cts of knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to severe leaks 20 in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to toxic mold in the 21 Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate toxic mold in the Subject 22 Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into 23 Plaintiffs unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate 24 unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and 25 negligently failing to provide appliances that conformed with applicable law and adequately 26 maintained in v'orking order, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris, 27 and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to 28 remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, and constructively -7- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL evicting Plaintiff from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff s severe emotional distress. 32. As a direct and proximate result of said acts by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages, including, severe emotional distress, and as Defendants'ctions were malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and carried out with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, Plaintiff prays for punitive damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure $ 3294. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10) 10 33. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint. 12 34. Plaintiff took possession of the Subject Property pursuant to a written contract 13 Plaintiff entered into with Defendants (hereinafter "Contract" ). 14 35. Pursuant to the Contract, Defendants were required to provide to Plaintiff a safe 15 unit, perform necessary repairs and maintenance, provide Plaintiff the Subject Property in a 16 non-dangerous condition, and provide Plaintiff the Subject Property in a habitable condition. 17 36. Defendants breached this Contract by knowingly and negligently exposing 18 Plaintiff to severe leaks in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to 19 toxic mold in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate toxic mold 20 in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to unsanitary odors 21 emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to 22 remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject Property, knowingly 23 and negligently failing to provide appliances that conformed with applicable law and adequately 24 maintained in v'orking order, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris, 25 and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to 26 remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, and constructively 27 evicting Plaintiff from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit and said was a 28 substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs. -8- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 37. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing failures and breaches by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10) 38. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint. 39. Plaintiff took possession of a unit in the Subject Property pursuant to the Contract with Defendants. 40. Plaintiff performed all of the material terms that the Contract with Defendants 10 required Plaintiff to do. 41. All conditions required for Defendants'performance under the Contract with 12 Plaintiff have occurred. 13 42. Defendants breached the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the 14 Contract when Defendants unfairly interfered with Plaintiffs right to receive the benefits of the 15 contract as Defendants knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to severe leaks in the 16 Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject 17 Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, 18 knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit 19 on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate unsanitary odors 20 emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently failing to 21 provide appliances that conformed v ith applicable law and adequately maintained in working 22 order, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris, and unsanitary 23 conditions on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate garbage, 24 debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, and constructively evicting Plaintiff 25 from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit, and said was a substantial factor in 26 causing harm to Plaintiff. 27 43. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing failures and breaches by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages. -9- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PRIVATE NUISANCE (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10) 44. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint. 45. Plaintiff took possession of a unit in the Subject Property pursuant to a Contract with Defendants. 46. Defendants created and permitted conditions to exist that were harmful to Plaintiff, offensive to Plaintiff, obstructed Plaintiffs use of property, and interfered with Plaintiffs enjoyment of life and property by knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to 10 severe leaks in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate toxic mold in the 12 Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to unsanitary odors emanating 13 into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate 14 unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiffs unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and 15 negligently failing to provide appliances that conformed with applicable law and adequately 16 maintained in working order, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris, 17 and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to 18 remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, and constructively 19 evicting Plaintiff from the unsafe, dangerous, and uninhabitable unit. 20 47. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants'aid created and permitted conditions. 21 48. An ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed and disturbed by 22 Defendants'aid created and permitted conditions. 23 49. Defendants'aid created and permitted conditions were a substantial factor in 24 causing Plaintiff s harm. 25 50. The seriousness of Plaintiffs harm outweighs the public benefit of 26 Defendants'aid conduct. 27 51. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches and the foregoing conduct 28 by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages, including, but not limited to -10- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL severe emotional distress, and as Defendants'ctions were malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive, and carried out with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, Plaintiff further prays for punitive damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure $ 3294 and Hassoldt v. Patrick Media Group, Inc., (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 153. EIGTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF S.F. ADMIN. CODE, CH. 37 (Plaintiff Against All Defendants and DOES 1-10) 52. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this count, each and every preceding Paragraph of this Complaint. 53. Plaintiffs tenancy was subject to the provisions of S.F. Administrative Code, 10 Chapter 37 ("S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37"). S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37 prohibits a landlord or their agent from influencing or attempting to influence a tenant to vacate a rental housing 12 unit through intimidation or coercion; prohibits a landlord or their agent from failing to 13 perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by State, County, or local housing, 14 health, or safety laws; and prohibits a landlord or their agent from endeavoring to recover 15 possession of the subject unit unless a just cause for terminating the tenancy was the 16 landlord's dominant motive. Defendants attempted to influence and did influence Plaintiff 17 to vacate the Subject Property through intimidation and coercion, knowingly and 18 negligently exposing Plaintiff to severe leaks in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently 19 exposing Plaintiff to toxic mold in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently refusing to 20 remediate toxic mold in the Subject Property, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to 21 unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff's unit on the Subject Property, knowingly and 22 negligently refusing to remediate unsanitary odors emanating into Plaintiff s unit on the Subject 23 Property, knowingly and negligently failing to provide appliances that conformed with 24 applicable law and adequately maintained in working order, knowingly and negligently exposing Plaintiff to garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on the Subject Property, 26 knowingly and negligently refusing to remediate garbage, debris, and unsanitary conditions on 27 the Subject Property, constructively evicting Plaintiff from the unsafe, dangerous, and 28 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL uninhabitable unit, failing to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by State, County, and local housing, health and safety laws, and endeavored to recover possession of the Subject Property. In carrying out said acts and omissions, Defendants wrongfully endeavored to recover possession of the subject unit and did wrongfully take possession of the Subject Property from Plaintiff without just cause. 54. Each of Defendants acts and omissions constitute violations of S.F. Admin. Code $ 37.10B, and Defendants acted in knowing violation and with reckless disregard of the protections for Plaintiff contained in S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches and the foregoing conduct 10 by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages, and as Defendants'ctions were malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive, and carried out with a conscious disregard of 12 Plaintiffs rights, Plaintiff further prays for treble damages, attorneys'ees, and punitive damages 13 pursuant to S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37. 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 15 follows: 16 1. For all Causes of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be 17 determined and according to proof at the trial of this action; 18 2. For all Causes of Action, general damages in an amount to be determined and 19 according to proof at the trial of this action; 20 3. For all Causes of Action, special damages in an amount to be determined and 21 according to proof at the trial of this action; 22 4. For the Causes of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and 23 Private Nuisance, punitive damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure ) 3294; 24 25 26 attorney'ees 5. For the Cause of Action of Violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37, and costs pursuant to S.F. Admin. Code; 6. For the Cause of Action of Violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37, punitive 27 damages pursuant to S.F. Admin. Code; 28 -12- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7. For the Cause of Action of Violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Ch. 37, treble 2 damages pursuant to S.F. Admin. Code; 8. For pre-judgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal 4 rate; 9. For costs of suit herein occurred; and 10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this case. May 12, 2024 THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. J. PURTELL 10 By 12 THOMAS W. J. PURTELL Attorney for Plaintiff 13 EDITH ROBLES, an individual 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -13- PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL