Preview
OMAN
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technotogy Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-13-2007 1:21 pm
Case Number: CGC-07-470010
Filing Date: Dec-13-2007 1:16
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01967286
COMPLAINT
NATACHA CONTRERAS et al VS. JAMIE LEE et al
001001967286
a
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUM-100
FOR COURT USE ONLY
Ss ONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL) (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
JAMIE LEE, and DOES 1-20
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
NATACHA CONTRERAS, CECILIA CONTRERAS,
FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a
copy served on the ptaintiff. A letter or phone calt wil not protect you. Your written response must be In proper legal form if you want the
court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more
information at the California Courts Online Setf-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.govisetfhetp), your county law tibrary, or the courthouse
nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may
lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to catlan
attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services
program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the Catifornta Legal Services Web site (www.tawhelpcalifornia.org), the Califomla
Courts Online Self-Hetp Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp}, or by contacting your tocal court or county bar assoclation.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citacién y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito
en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una flamada telefénica no fo protegen. Su respuesta por
escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en Ja corte. Es posible que haya un formularlo que usted
pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y més Informacién en el Centro de Ayuda de fas Cortes de
California (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selthelp/espanol), en fa biblioteca da leyes de su condado 0 en fa corte que le quede més cerca. Sino
puede pagar fa cuota de presentacién, pida al secretario de la corte que fe dé un formulario de exenciéa de pago de cuotas. Sino presenta
su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder ef caso por Incumplimiento y la corte [a podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin més advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales, Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. SI no conoce a un abogado, puede Hamar aun
servicio de remisién a abogados. SI no puede pagar aun abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios
fegales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web do
California Legal Services, (www.Jawhelpcalifornia.org), en ef Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California,
(www.courtinfo.ca. gquiselfhelp/espanol) @ poniéndose en contacto con fa corte 0 ef colegio de abogados locales.
The name and address of the court is: CASE nme O ce BOLO |
(El nombre y direccién de la corte es): (tkimara det Case) ¥ + 6 0
SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT
400 McAllister Street, Room 103
San Francisco, CA 94102
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(Et nombre, ta direccién y el nimero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Richard Hurlburt, SBN 179072 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD HURLBURT
Sy
870 Market Street, Suite 315 m8 6496 ext, 122 Qasxiiikes
San FranBfdped, 24097102-3008 GdRON PAH Vibinw GN
DATE: ose Clerk, by L , Deputy
(Fecha) (Secretario) {Adjunto)
‘or proof of service of this summons, use Proot of ervice of Summons (form POS-010).
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use el formutario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
=RUFOR; NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
1. C2) as an individuat defendant.
2. (2) as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
’
3. [2] on behalf of (specify) : ‘
under; [(] CCP 416.10 (corporation) (1 CCP 416.60 (minor)
{] CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) () CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
(CC) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CJ ccP 416.90 (authorized person)
(CC) other (specify) :
4. (2 bypersonat delivery on (date) :
Pagetott
Form Adopted lor Mandatory Use SUMMONS: Code of Chl Procedure §§ 412,20, 465,
Jods
'SUM-100 [Rev. Jacwary 1, 2004]
Martin Dean's Essential Forms:ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Ff
Richard Hurlburt, SBN 179
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD RURLBURT
870 Market Street, Suite 315
San Francisco, CA 94102-3008
TELEPHONENO: 415.392.6496
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
street aporess: 400 McAllister Street
MAILING ADDRESS:
eityanozipcooe:San Francisco, CA 94102
FOR COURT USE ONLY
LEED.
nen 18 2007
Faxno: 415.391.6497
CASE NAM! Contreras
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Complex Case Designation
] Untimited (Cl) Limited
Cl counter [} Joinder
Filed with first appearance by defendant
(Cal, Rutes of Court, rule 3.402
items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
x below for the case type that best describes this case:
Contract
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
Auto (22) Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) Rute 3.740 cotfections (09) AntitrusvTrade regulation (03)
Other PYPD/WD (Personal Injury/Property per ‘collections (09) Construction defect (10)
Insurance coverage (18) Mass tort (40)
Pamageronat Death) Tort Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28)
Asbestos (
«abi Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
rogue Viability (24 Real Property . Insurance coverage claims arising from the
ledical malpractice (45) Eminent domairvinverse above listed provisionally complex case
‘Other PYPDIWD (23) condemnation (14) 3 (at) p
Non-PUPDAVD (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) ype
. Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
Business tort/unfair business practice (07) ao Enforcement of judgment (20)
Civil rights (08) Untawful Detainer igment (20)
Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Clvil Complaint
Fraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27)
Inteltectual property (19) Drugs (38} Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Other non-PUPDMWD tort (35) ‘Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not specified above) (43)
Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (02)
Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39)
2. Thiscase [J Is 1 is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rutes of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. Large number of separately represented parties
b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve
c. (2) Substantial amount of documentary evidence
da. Large number of witnesses
e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. (K¥ monetary b. nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive retief c. [XJ punitive
4, Number of causes of action (specify): seven
5. This case Is Is not a class action suit.
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.)
Date: December 13, 2007
Richard ur} by tersaney————_
(2)
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rute 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions, .
File this cover sheet In addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Califomia Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.
. Page 1 of
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. ‘Cour, rules 2,30, 3 220, 3400-3 403, 3 740;
Sto See ee eaeCc C
Richard Hurlburt, SBN 179072
Jonathan Joiner, SBN 228697
Law OFFICES OF RICHARD HURLBURT
870 Market Street, Suite 315 7, =
San Francisco, CA 94102-3008 an Francheete 2 BD
Telephone: 415.391.6496 CO CCUM Seo sie
Facsimile: 415.391.6497 nen y ® 2007
Attorneys for plaintiffs, GoRne
NATACHA CONTRERAS, CECILIA CONTR
and FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR.
way 16 2008 -9SAM
SUPERIOR COURT - i sma Aes
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO -'UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
NATACHA CONTRERAS,
CECILIA CONTRERAS,
FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR.,
No
OZ ~"47 9010
Plaintiffs COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
vs. :
(Landlord-Tenant)
JAMIE LEE,
and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges against all defendants:
1. Defendant JAMIE LEE (a.k.a. Jing Li) and DOES 2-5 are
competent adult individuals doing business in San Francisco. DOES
6-7 are business organizations of unknown form doing business in
San Francisco. This action concerns real property located in San
Francisco and a lease agreement to be performed in San Francisco.
2. Plaintiffs are ignorant of facts concerning the liability
of and/or does not know the true names of DOE defendants 1-20. At
all pertinent times, all defendants were agents of one another.
3. At all.pertinent times, all defendants owned or were
otherwise responsible for managing a residential building
-1-
Complaintyn Ww
wo ao
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C C
commonly known as 606 London Street in San Francisco, California
(“subject premises”). At all pertinent times defendant JAMIE LEE
was the owner of record of the subject premises.
4. Plaintiffs took possession of the subject premises
pursuant to a written rental agreement between plaintiff NATACHA
CONTRERAS and defendant JAMIE LEE. The agreement was executed by
the parties in mid October, 2004 and required plaintiffs to pay
JAMIE LEE rent at the rate of $1,800 per month. Plaintiffs
continuously occupied the subject premises as their principal
place of residence from November 2004 until mid November 2007
when they vacated the premises involuntarily.
5. At all pertinent times a landlord-tenant relationship
existed between each plaintiff and defendants.
6. Plaintiff NATACHA CONTRERAS performed all her obligations
under the rental agreement, except what she was excused or
prevented from performing. Plaintiffs did not cause any damage to
the premises beyond normal wear and tear.
7. Throughout plaintiffs’ tenancy the premises were
uninhabitable and lacked basic characteristics necessary for
human habitation. Despite her actual and constructive notice of
conditions requiring repair and/or maintenance, defendants failed
to make repairs or perform ordinary maintenance about the
premises. The hazardous or dilapidated conditions about the
premises included but were not limited to: broken window(s),
illegal unit in the premises with utilities cross-connected to
Plaintiffs’ unit, lack of fire protection, faulty wiring, lack of
egress for illegal unit, lack of proper heating facilities,
heating facilities not maintained in good working order, illegal
-2-
SSS
Complainta 2p WN
eo OD I a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
VW
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
€ C
cooking facilities and other fire hazards.
8. Defendants were at all pertinent times personally aware
of conditions needing repair and maintenance about the premises,
but refused and failed to correct them. None of these conditions
were caused by plaintiffs or anyone under plaintiffs’ control.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
9. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8, above.
10. Due to the landlord-tenant relationship between
plaintiff and defendants and under Civil Code § 1714, defendants
owed plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable care in the
ownership, management, maintenance and control of the premises.
11. The duty of care owed by defendants to plaintiffs
included but was not limited to the following duties: the duty to
protect plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the subject premises; the
duty to make repairs and perform ordinary maintenance; the duty
to adequately train, supervise, instruct and control agents,
employees or others acting on defendants’ behalf; the duty to
comply with all laws regarding plaintiffs’ tenancy and the
operation of the premises; the duty to refrain from illegally
subdividing the subject premises; the duty to refrain from
renting the illegal in-law unit on the premises as a: separate
dwelling; the duty to exercise reasonable care in the screening
of other tenants in the premises; the duty to take appropriate
action when it became apparent the occupants of the illegal in-
law unit were conducting illegal activity; the duty to provide
utility services to the premises and not to interfere with
-3-
SSeS
Complaint4 nO w &
Oo ©
10
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C C
utility service to the premises; and, the duty to provide
plaintiffs access to the subject premises. These duties were all
continuing in nature.
12. Defendants substantially breached their duty of care to
plaintiffs in ways which include but are not limited to: failing
to make necessary repairs or perform ordinary maintenance to the
subject premises; failing to take appropriate action to protect
plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment; by illegally subdividing the subject
premises and renting an illegal unit to other tenants; by failing
to take reasonable steps to screen the tenants of the illegal
unit; by failing to abate nuisances an fire hazards about the
premises; by failing to take reasonable action in response to
plaintiffs’ complaints about noise and drug activity being
conducted in the illegal unit; by having the utility services to
plaintiffs’ unit shut off; by failing to pay defendants’ share of
the utility bills and having utilities shut off; and by changing
the locks to the premises so plaintiffs could not gain access.
These conditions continued until mid November 2007 when
plaintiffs vacated the premises involuntarily.
13. Defendants’ breaches of duty were a substantial factor
in causing and/or were the direct and proximate cause of damages
to plaintiff. Said damages include but are not limited to:
physical injuries such as emotional distress, anxiety,
sleeplessness and loss of appetite; substantial annoyance;
decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the premises;
constructive eviction, invasions of plaintiffs’ right to privacy
and other damages, the value of which will be presented at trial.
Mf
“4+
Complaint4 nan oo eB WN B
C C
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Violation of Statutory Duties)
14. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 9 through 13, above.
15. Defendants’ acts and omissions as described above, and
each of them, constituted violations of applicable laws. Such
laws include but are not limited to: California Civil Code §§
1927, 1941, 1941.1, 1954 & 3479; San Francisco Administrative
Code § 37.3; San Francisco Housing Code §§ 503, 504, 708, 801,
901, 902, 903, 909, 1001 & 1101. These laws were intended to
prevent the type of harm suffered by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are
the type of persons such laws were intended to protect.
Defendants’ failure to obey these laws constituted per se
negligence.
16. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws was a substantial
factor in causing and/or was the direct and proximate cause of
damages to plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited
to: those damages described above in paragraph No. 13.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Nuisance)
17. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 14 through 16, above.
18. Each of the actions and omissions of defendants, as
described above, and all of them taken together, constituted a
continuing nuisance, substantially depriving plaintiffs of the
safe, healthy and comfortable use and enjoyment of the premises.
19. As a direct and proximate result of defendants having
maintained these nuisances and having failed to abate said
-5-
ComplaintC C
nuisances, plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer general and
special damages, as described above in paragraph 13.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Tortious Violation of Statutory Duties)
20. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8, above.
21. Plaintiffs peaceable exercised certain legal rights
prior to September, 2007, which included but were not limited to:
repeatedly complaining to defendant JAMIE LEE about the noise and
drug activity in the basement of the premises; making calls to
the police; making complaints to defendant JAMIE LEE about
defective window(s) in plaintiffs’ unit; deducting from the rent
the utility charges defendant JAMIE LEE owed toward the
utilities; reporting conditions in need of repair to the San
Francisco Department of Building Inspection; and reporting the
illegal rental unit to the DBI inspector.
22. In order to retaliate against plaintiffs for lawfully
and peaceably exercising their legal rights, as described in the
previous paragraph, defendants embarked on retaliatory and
otherwise tortious course of conduct which consisted of acts and
omissions including but not limited to: deliberately maintaining
an environment at the subject premises. so hostile to human
habitation that plaintiffs would vacate involuntarily; refusing
and failing to make necessary repairs; refusing and failing to
take action to protect plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the
premises; continuing to rent the illegal downstairs unit to
persons JAMIE LEE knew were creating a nuisance and engaging in
criminal drug activity; failing to take action concerning the
-6-
i
Complaintop OD YW AH NUN B® WN
yp N NNN NY NN BF BP BP BP BP FP BP Pe BP
ot aA &® WKH FH FS 6 OD AY DA HO &F WN BP DO
C oO €
excess noise in the illegal unit; refusing and failing to pay
defendants’ share of the utility bills; locking plaintiffs out of
the subject premises; causing the utility services to the subject
premises to be cut off; unilaterally terminating plaintiffs’
tenancy at the subject premises in bad faith and without just
cause; causing plaintiffs to quit the premises involuntarily;
taking possession of the premises from plaintiffs under false
pretenses; and, thereafter failing to offer to re-rent the
premises to plaintiffs.
23. By said acts and omissions defendants violated laws
applicable to plaintiffs’ tenancy at the subject premises. Such
laws include but are not limited to: California Civil Code §§
1927, 1940.2, 1940.9, 1941, 1941.1, 1942.4, 1942.5, 1954 & 3479;
San Francisco Administrative Code §§ 37.3 & 37.9; San Francisco
Housing Code §§ 503, 504, 708, 801, 901, 902, 903, 909, 1001 &
1101. These laws were intended to prevent the type of harm
suffered by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are the type of person such
laws were intended to protect. Defendants’ failure to obey these
laws was intentional and constituted per se negligence.
24. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws was a substantial
factor in causing and was the direct and proximate cause of
damages to plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited
to: physical injuries such as emotional distress, anxiety,
sleeplessness and loss of appetite; substantial annoyance;
decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the premises;
constructive eviction, multiple invasions of plaintiffs’ right to
privacy, actual and permanent loss of possession of the subject
premises and rent-stabilized tenancy, and other damages, the
-T-
ComplaintC €
value of which will be presented at trial.
25. The acts and omissions of defendants, described herein,
were done with oppression, fraud and malice as defined in Civil
Code § 3294. For reasons including but not limited to the
following, plaintiffs should recover punitive damages, to make an
example of and to punish defendants: (a) Defendants’ conduct was
so unreasonable that defendants knew or should have known it was
highly probable that substantial harm would result to plaintiffs;
(b) The necessary repairs described above constituted long-
existing physical conditions of premises causing danger to™
plaintiffs; (c) the acts and omissions of defendants included
intentional trespasses on plaintiffs’ rights and nuisances
calculated to harm plaintiffs; and, (d) defendants’ conduct was
retaliatory, designed to punish plaintiffs for lawfully and
peacefully asserting their legal right(s).
: FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Nuisance)
26. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 20 through 25, above.
27. Each of the actions and omissions of defendants, as
described above, and all their acts and omissions taken together,
constituted a continuing nuisance, substantially depriving
plaintiffs of the safe, healthy and comfortable use and enjoyment
of the subject premises.
28. As a direct and proximate result of defendants having
maintained these nuisances and having failed to abate said
nuisances, plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer general and
special damages, as described above in paragraph 24.
-8-
a
ComplaintC €
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Chapter 37)
29. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 20 through 25, above.
30. With respect to the conduct of defendants giving rise to
this cause of action, all defendants are either directly liable
to plaintiff or vicariously liable by reason of facts including,
put not limited to the following: (a) all defendants entered into
and acted in conformity with a civil conspiracy with respect to
the events complained of herein; (b) all defendants deliberately
aided and abetted all other defendants in furtherance of said
events; and, (c) all defendants who were not “landlords” of
plaintiffs, did wilfully assist the other defendant landlords and
wrongfully endeavored to recover possession of the subject unit.
31. Plaintiffs’ tenancy was subject to the provisions of
S.F. Administrative Code, Chapter 37. In carrying out the acts
and omissions described above, defendants wrongfully endeavored
to recover possession the subject premises, and did wrongfully
take possession of the subject premises from plaintiffs.
32. Among other things, it was personally known to defendant
JAMIE LEE that: (1) it was illegal to subdivide the subject
premises into two units and it was illegal to rent the lower unit
as a separate dwelling; and (2) she was terminating plaintiffs’
tenancy, recovering possession of the dwelling and causing
plaintiffs to vacate involuntarily in direct retaliation for
plaintiffs having lawfully and peaceably exercised their rights
under the law.
Mf
-9-
a
Complaintao 2 WN &
ow Oo NH
C C
33. When defendants carried out these acts and omissions,
defendants had no “just cause” or substantial basis in fact for
evicting plaintiffs. Each of defendants’ acts and omissions and
all of said acts and omissions taken together constitute
violations of S.F. Admin. Code §§ 37.9. Defendants acted in
knowing violation and with reckless disregard of the protections
contained in the Ordinance.
34. As a direct and proximate result of defendants
violations of the Rent Ordinance, plaintiffs suffered and
continues to suffer general and special damages, as described
above in paragraph 24.
35. The Rent Ordinance provides for treble damages, attorney
fees and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to
such relief.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Written Rental Agreement)
36. Plaintiff NATACHA CONTRERAS incorporates in this cause
of action the allegations of paragraphs 20 through 24, above.
[The other plaintiffs do not join in this cause of action.]
37. The written rental agreement contains express and
implied covenants, including but not limited to: a warranty of
habitability, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a
covenant of quiet enjoyment, and a provision which provides for
reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action
arising out of ‘the tenancy.
38. By the acts and omissions described herein, defendants
substantially breached the agreement.
‘i
-10-
a
ComplaintWw No
eo oan WH
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C C
39, As a direct and proximate result of said breach(es) of
the agreement by defendants, plaintiff suffered damages including
but not limited to: reduced enjoyment of the premises, increased
utility expenses, constructive eviction and eventual total loss
of possession of the subject premises, as well as other damages,
the value of which will be presented at trial. Also due to
defendants’ breach(es), defendants are unjustly enriched at
plaintiff's expense.
40. The subject premises are unique real property, which
afforded plaintiff certain benefits which cannot be replaced at
another location.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
Under the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
a. General damages, and,
b. Special damages.
Under the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
a. General damages,
b. Special damages, and,
Cc. Appropriate statutory remedies, including reasonable
attorney fees under S.F. Admin. Code § 37.11A.
Under the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
a. General damages,
b. Special damages, and,
c. Appropriate Order(s) of abatement.
Under the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
a. General damages,
b. Special damages,
c. Punitive and exemplary damages, and,
c. Appropriate statutory remedies, including reasonable
attorney fees under S.F. Admin. Code § 37.11A and Civil
Code § 1942.5(g)
-11-
ae
Complaint|
|
C €
Under the FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
a. General damages,
b. Special damages,
c. Punitive and exemplary damages, and,
d. Appropriate Order{s) of abatement.
Under the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
.- Actual damages,
Treble damages,
Punitive & exemplary damages,
Reasonable attorney fees, and,
. Appropriate injunctive relief.
oandnoas
Under the SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
a. Compensatory damages,
b. Restitution of unjust enrichment,
c. Specific performance of the agreement, and,
d. Reasonable attorney fees.
Under ALL CAUSES OF ACTION:
a. Costs of suit; and,
b. Such other relief the Court deems just and proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Dated: December 13, 2007
Richard Aurlburt
Attorney for plaintiffs.
~12-
I
Complaintiii
San Francisco Superior Courts
{nformation Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dee-13-2007 1:21pm
Case Number: CGC-07-470010
Filing Date: Dec-13-2007 1:16
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01967286
COMPLAINT
NATACHA CONTRERAS et al VS. JAMIE LEE et al
001001967286
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUM-100
SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
f
FOR COURT USE ONLY,
(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
JAMIE LEE, and DOES 1-20
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
NATACHA CONTRERAS, CECILIA CONTRERAS,
FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal Papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a
copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call wil! not protect you. Your written response must be In Proper legal form if you want the
court ta hear your race There moy he 3 oo: OF yous reaps can jing these court torms and more
information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.goviselfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse
nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk fora fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may
lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and Property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away, If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an
attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attomey, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services
Program. You can tocate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www lawhelpcalifornia.org}, the Californta
Courts Online Self-Hetp Center {www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association.
Tlene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que Ie entrequen esta citaclén Y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito
en esta corte y hacer que $e entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una lamada telefénica no fo protegen. Su respuesta ‘por
escrito tlene que estar en formato legal correcta si desea que procesen su caso en /a corte, Es posible que haya un formulario que usted
Pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacién en el Centro de Ayuda dea las Cortes de
California (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/espanol), en fa biblioteca de leyes de su condada o en la corte que fe quede mas cerca. Sino
puede pagar la cuota de presentacién, pida al secretarlo dela corte que fe dé un formularia de exencién de pago de cuofas. Si no presenta
Su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por Incumpiimlento y la corte le podrd quitar su sueldo, dinero y blenes sin més advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos fegales, Es recomendable que Hame a un abogado Inmediatamente, SI no conoce aun abogado, puede ilamar aun
servicio da remisién a abogados, Si no puede pagar zun abogado, es posible que cumpla con fos requisitos para obtener servicios
legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sito web de
California Legal S ices, fwww.lawhelpeatifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes da California,
a wiselfhelp/espanol/) o poniéndose en contacto con fa corte o ef colegio de abogados locales.
The name and address of the court is:
(El nombre y direccién de la corte es):
SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT
400 McAllister Street, Room 103
San Francisco, CA 94102
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attomey, or plaintiff without an attorney, Is:
(Ef nombre, la direccién y el namero de teléfono def abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Richard Hurlburt, SBN 179072 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD HURLBURT @ f,
870 Market Street, Suite 315 inftAy 6496 ext. 111 & heciihos
San FranBfatd, $4097102-3008 aditat Bay VE . ot
bale, PEGS EGF Clerk, by ‘ Ronn? , Deputy
(Fecha) {Secretario) (Adjunto)
(For of service of this surnmons, use Prooi of Service of summons: (form POS-010),
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
ATTORNEY FOR (Name: Plaintiffs
isco County Sucertor Court
‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
STREET aooREss: 400 McAllister Street
FOR COURT USE ONLY
MAILING ADDRESS; pen 18 2007
:S. F: i , 4102
emo CODE: an Francisco, CA 9. eo ow PARK, Clerk
CASENAME: Contreras v, Lee, et al,
Deputy Clerk
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Complex Case Designation
Unlimited (_} Limited
Cd Counter C2) Joinder ‘
(Amount {Amount
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal Rutae of Cou, rite 3.4623 DEPT:
items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on
'se type that best describes this case:
‘heck one box below for the ca:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
Auto (22) Breach of Contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rutes of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) AntitrusTrade reguiation (03)
Other PUPDIWD (Personal InjurylProperty pier coletions (09) Construction defect (10)
surance Coverage (18) Mass tort (40)
Perage/Wrongtul Death) Tort Other contract (37) Securities tigation (28)
Asbestos (04) Envionmenta/ Tone tort (30)
Product liability (24) Real Property insu
a rance Coverage claims arising from the
Medical malpractice (45) CQ Eminent domaivinverse above listed provisionally comptes case
Other PYPDAWD (23) condemnation (14) types (41) Provi mp
Non-PY/PDAWO (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33)
Business torvunfair business practice (07) Other real property (26) Enforcement of, Judgment
(Z] Enforcernent of judgment (20)
Civil rights (08) Untawfut Detainer
Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
Fraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27)
Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not specified. above) (42)
Oren negtge tet) Judiclal Review Miscettaneous Civil Petition
Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Emptoyment : Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not specified @bove) (43)
Wrongful termination (36) ‘Writ of mandate (02)
Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39)
. Thiscase (C) is KY isnot — comptex under rule 3.400 of the
Catifornia Rutes of Court. If the case Is complex, mark the
factors Fequinng exceptional judicial management:
a Large number of Separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses.
b. Extensive motion Practice ralsing difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
ce. (CY Substantial amount of documentary evidence f, Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. (KJ monetary b. Ronmonetary, declaratory or injunctive relief _¢, EX} punitive
. Number of causes of action (s cify): seven
. This case is Is not a class action suit.
. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case, (You may use form CM-015. )
Puaanw
Date: December 13, 2007 ()
. Oe Ire
—— Richard turin ct 7 »
NOTICE
© Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first Paper filed in the action or Preceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, of Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rute 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions. :
File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule, .
if this case is complex under rule 3.400 et Seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a Copy of this cover sheet on alll
other parties to the action or Proceeding.
* Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 ora complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical Purposes only.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ORES Ea Se eV€
Cc
Richard Hurlburt, SBN 179072
Jonathan Joiner, SBN 228697
Law OFFICES OF RICHARD HURLBURT
870 Market Street, Suite 315
San Francisco, CA 94102-3008
Telephone: 415.391.6496
Facsimile: 415.391.6497
Attorneys for plaintiffs,
NATACHA CONTRERAS, CECILIA CONT
and FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR.
tay 1g one oan ane c
meat = 6 euUn ~ aA] wn /
Gereqeanatn
SUPERIOR COURT - STATE HRA i a
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - "UNLIMITED crv M onISDreTION
NATACHA CONTRERAS, No.
CECILIA CONTRERAS,
FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR.,
TRO? ~"4F 9070 '
Plaintiffs COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
vs. .
(Landlord-Tenant)
JAMIE LEE,
and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
—
Plaintiff alleges against all defendants:
1, Defendant JAMIE LEE (a.k.a. Jing Li) and DOES 2-5 are
competent adult individuals doing business in San Francisco. DOES
6~7 are business organizations of unknown form doing business in
San Francisco. This action concerns real Property located in San
Francisco and a lease agreement to be performed in San Francisco,
2. Plaintiffs are ignorant of facts concerning the liability
of and/or does not know the true names of DOE defendants 1-20. At
all pertinent times, all defendants were agents of one another.
3. At all. pertinent times, all defendants owned or were
otherwise responsible for managing a residential building
' -1-
TO Ie
Complaint
Ra SY re me neCc €
commonly known as 606 London Street in San Francisco, California
(“subject premises”). At all pertinent times defendant JAMIE LEE
was the owner of record of the subject premises.
4. Plaintiffs took possession of.the subject premises
pursuant to a written rental agreement between Plaintiff NATACHA
CONTRERAS and defendant JAMIE LEE. The agreement was executed by
the parties in mid October. 2004 and required plaintiffc to pay
JAMIE LEE rent at the rate of $1,800 per month. Plaintiffs
continuously occupied the subject premises as their principal
place of residence from November 2004 until mid November 2007
when they vacated the premises involuntarily.
5. At all pertinent times a landlord-tenant relationship
existed between each plaintiff and defendants.
6. Plaintiff NATACHA CONTRERAS performed all her obligations
under the rental agreement, except what she was excused or
prevented from performing. Plaintiffs did not cause any damage to
the premises beyond normal wear and tear.
7. Throughout plaintiffs‘ tenancy the premises were
uninhabitable and lacked basic characteristics necessary for
human habitation. Despite her actual and constructive notice of
Conditions requiring repair and/or maintenance, defendants failed
to make repairs or perform ordinary maintenance about the
premises, The hazardous or dilapidated conditions about the
Premises included but were not limited to: broken window(s),
illegal unit in the premises with utilities cross-connected to
Plaintiffs’ unit, lack of fire protection, faulty wiring, lack of
egress for illegal unit, lack of proper heating facilities,
heating facilities not maintained in good working order, illegal
-2~
Complaint
LS SS SSN SE FN es2
3
4
5
6
20
€ Cc
1] cooking facilities and other fire hazards.
8. Defendants were at all pertinent times personally aware
of conditions needing repair and maintenance about the premises,
but refused and failed to correct them. None of these conditions
were caused by plaintiffs or anyone under plaintiffs’ control.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence}
9. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8, above.
10. Due to the landlord-tenant relationship between
plaintiff and defendants and under Civil Code § 1714, defendants
owed plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable care in the
ownership, management, maintenance and control of the premises.
11. The duty of care owed by defendants to plaintiffs
included but was not limited to the following duties: the duty to
protect plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the subject premises; the
duty to make repairs and perform ordinary maintenance; the duty
to adequately train, supervise, instruct and control agents,
employees or others acting on defendants’ behalf; the duty to
comply with all laws regarding plaintiffs’ tenancy and the
operation of the premises; the duty to refrain from illegally
subdividing the subject premises; the duty to refrain from
renting the illegal in-law unit on the premises as a: separate
dwelling; the duty to exercise reasonable care in the screening
of other tenants in the premises; the duty to take appropriate
action when it became apparent the occupants of the illegal in-
law unit were conducting illegal activity; the duty to provide
utility services to the premises and not to interfere with
-3-
—ocucxéc SSS
Complaintwn
9
c €
utility service to the premises; and, the duty to provide
plaintiffs access to the subject premises. These duties were all
continuing in nature.
12. Defendants substantially breached their duty of care to
plaintiffs in ways which include but are not limited to: failing
to make necessary repairs or perform ordinary maintenance to the
don to protect
plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment; by illegally subdividing the subject
premises and renting an illegal unit to other tenants; by failing
to take reasonable steps to screen the tenants of the illegal
unit; by failing to abate nuisances an fire hazards about the
premises; by failing to take reasonable action in response to
plaintiffs’ complaints about noise and drug activity being
conducted in the illegal unit; by having the utility services to
plaintiffs’ unit shut off; by failing to pay defendants’ share of
the utility bills and having utilities shut off; and by changing
the locks to the premises so plaintiffs could not gain access.
These conditions continued until mid November 2007 when
plaintiffs vacated the premises involuntarily.
13. Defendants’ breaches of duty were a substantial factor
in causing and/or were the direct and proximate cause of damages
to plaintiff. Said damages include but are not limited to:
Physical injuries such as emotional distress, anxiety,
Sleeplessness and loss of appetite; substantial annoyance;
decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the premises;
constructive eviction, invasions of plaintiffs’ right to privacy
and other’ damages, the value of which will be presented at trial.
//
-4-
SS
Complaint€ €
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Violation of Statutory Duties)
14. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 9 through 13, above.
15. Defendants’ acts and omissions as described above, and
each of them, constituted violations of applicable laws. Such
laws include but are not limited to: California Civil Code $$
1927, 1941, 1941.1, 1954 & 3479; San Francisco Administrative
Code § 37.3; San Francisco Housing Code §§ 503, 504, 708, 801,
901, 902, 903, 909, 1001 & 1101. These laws were intended to
prevent the type of harm suffered by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are
the type of persons such laws were intended to protect.
Defendants’ failure to obey these laws constituted per se
negligence. .
16. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws was a substantial
factor in causing and/or was the direct and proximate cause of
damages to plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not Limited
to: those damages described above in Paragraph No, 13.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Nuisance)
17, Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 14 through 16, above.
18. Each of the actions and omissions of defendants, as
described above, and all of them taken together, constituted a
continuing nuisance, substantially depriving plaintiffs of the
safe, healthy and comfortable use and enjoyment of the premises.
19. As a direct and proximate result of defendants having
maintained these nuisances and having failed to abate said
-5-
.
Complaintw Ne
b
C C
nuisances, plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer general and
special damages, as described above in paragraph 13.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
{Intentional Tortious Violation of Statutory Duties)
20. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8, above.
2t. .
prior to September, 2007, which included but were not limited to:
repeatedly complaining to defendant JAMIE LEE about the noise and
drug activity in the basement of the premises; making calls to
the police; making complaints to defendant JAMIE LEE about
defective window(s) in plaintiffs’ unit; deducting from the rent
the utility charges defendant JAMIE LEE owed toward the
utilities; reporting conditions in need of repair to the San
Francisco Department of Building Inspection; and reporting the
illegal rental unit to the DBI inspector.
22. In order to retaliate against plaintiffs for lawfully
and peaceably exercising their legal rights, as described in the
previous paragraph, defendants embarked on retaliatory and
otherwise tortious course of conduct which consisted of acts and
emissions including but not limited to: deliberately maintaining
an environment at the subject premises so hostile to human
habitation that plaintiffs would vacate involuntarily; refusin
and failing to make necessary repairs; refusing and failing to
take action to protect plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the
premises; continuing to rent the illegal downstairs unit to
persons JAMIE LEE knew were creating a nuisance and engaging in
criminal drug activity; failing to take action concerning the
-6-
oe
Complaint€ Oo €
excess noise in the illegal unit; refusing and failing to pay
defendants’ share of the utility bills; locking plaintiffs out of
the subject premises; causing the utility services to the subject
premises to be cut off; unilaterally terminating plaintiffs’
tenancy at the subject premises in bad faith and without just
cause; causing plaintiffs to quit the premises involuntarily;
pretenses; and, thereafter failing to offer to re-rent the
premises to plaintiffs.
23. By said acts and omissions defendants violated laws
applicable to plaintiffs’ tenancy at the subject premises. Such
laws include but are not limited to: California Civil Code §§
1927, 1940.2, 1940.9, 1941, 1941.1, 1942.4, 1942.5, 1954 & 3479;
San Francisco Administrative Code §§ 37.3 & 37.9; San Francisco
Housing Code §§ 503, 504, 708, 801, 901, 902, 903, 909, 1001 &
1101. These laws were intended to prevent the type of harm
suffered by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are the type of person such
laws were intended to protect. Defendants’ failure to obey these
laws was intentional and constituted per se negligence.
24. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws was a substantial
factor in causing and was the direct and proximate cause of
damages to plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited
to: physical injuries such as emotional distress, anxiety,
sleeplessness and loss of appetite; substantial annoyance;
decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the premises;
constructive eviction, multiple invasions of plaintiffs’ right to
privacy, actual and permanent loss of possession of the subject
premises and rent-stabilized tenancy, and other damages, the
-7-
Complaintwn
€ €
value of which will be presented at trial.
25. The acts and omissions of defendants, described herein,
were done with oppression, fraud and malice as defined in Civil
Code § 3294. For reasons including but not limited to the
following, plaintiffs should recover punitive damages, to make an
example of and to punish defendants: (a) Defendants’ conduct was
it was
highly probable that substantial harm would result to plaintiffs;
(b) The necessary repairs described above constituted long-
existing physical conditions of premises causing danger to
plaintiffs; (c) the acts and omissions of defendants included
intentional trespasses on plaintiffs’ rights and nuisances
calculated to harm plaintiffs; and, (d) defendants’ conduct was
retaliatory, designed to punish plaintiffs for lawfully and
peacefully asserting their legal right(s).
. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Nuisance)
26. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 20 through 25, above.
27. Each of the actions and omissions of defendants, as
described above, and all their acts and omissions taken together,
constituted a continuing nuisance, substantially depriving
plaintiffs of the safe, healthy and comfortable use and enjoyment
of the subject premises.
28, As a direct and proximate result of defendants having
maintained these nuisances and having failed to abate said
nuisances, plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer general and
special damages, as described above in Paragraph 24.
<8
Complaintwi NM
€ €
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Chapter 37)
29. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the
allegations of paragraphs 20 through 25, above.
30. With respect to the conduct of defendants giving rise to
this cause of action, all defendants are either directly liable
to piaintirfr or vicariousiy iiabie py reason or racts including,
but not limited to the following: (a) all defendants entered into
and acted in conformity with a civil conspiracy with respect to
the events complained of herein; (b) all defendants deliberately
aided and abetted all other defendants in furtherance of said
events; and, (c) all defendants who were not “landlords” of
plaintiffs, did wilfully assist the other defendant landlords and
wrongfully endeavored to recover possession of the subject unit.
31. Plaintiffs’ tenancy was subject to the provisions of
S.F. Administrative Code, Chapter 37. In carrying out the acts
and omissions described above, defendants wrongfully endeavored
to recover possession the subject premises, and did wrongfully
take possession of the subject premises from plaintiffs.
32. Among other things, it was personally known to defendant
JAMIE LEE that: (1) it was illegal to subdivide the subject
Premises into two units and it was illegal to rent the lower unit
as a separate dwelling; and (2) she was terminating plaintiffs’
tenancy, recovering possession of the dwelling and causing
plaintiffs to vacate involuntarily in direct retaliation for
plaintiffs having lawfully and peaceably exercised their rights
under the law.
ff
-9-
a
Complaint- Wn
w Orn nw
c €
33. When defendants carried out these acts and omissions,
defendants had no “just cause” or substantial basis in fact for
evicting plaintiffs. Each of defendants’ acts and omissions and
all of said acts and omissions taken together constitute
violations of S.F. Admin. Code §§ 37.9. Defendants acted in
knowing violation and with reckless disregard of the protections
containea in the Ordinance.
34. As a
Preview
OMAN San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technotogy Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dec-13-2007 1:21 pm Case Number: CGC-07-470010 Filing Date: Dec-13-2007 1:16 Juke Box: 001 Image: 01967286 COMPLAINT NATACHA CONTRERAS et al VS. JAMIE LEE et al 001001967286 a Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUM-100 FOR COURT USE ONLY Ss ONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): JAMIE LEE, and DOES 1-20 YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): NATACHA CONTRERAS, CECILIA CONTRERAS, FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the ptaintiff. A letter or phone calt wil not protect you. Your written response must be In proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Setf-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.govisetfhetp), your county law tibrary, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to catlan attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the Catifornta Legal Services Web site (www.tawhelpcalifornia.org), the Califomla Courts Online Self-Hetp Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp}, or by contacting your tocal court or county bar assoclation. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citacién y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una flamada telefénica no fo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en Ja corte. Es posible que haya un formularlo que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y més Informacién en el Centro de Ayuda de fas Cortes de California (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selthelp/espanol), en fa biblioteca da leyes de su condado 0 en fa corte que le quede més cerca. Sino puede pagar fa cuota de presentacién, pida al secretario de la corte que fe dé un formulario de exenciéa de pago de cuotas. Sino presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder ef caso por Incumplimiento y la corte [a podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin més advertencia. Hay otros requisitos legales, Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. SI no conoce a un abogado, puede Hamar aun servicio de remisién a abogados. SI no puede pagar aun abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios fegales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web do California Legal Services, (www.Jawhelpcalifornia.org), en ef Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.courtinfo.ca. gquiselfhelp/espanol) @ poniéndose en contacto con fa corte 0 ef colegio de abogados locales. The name and address of the court is: CASE nme O ce BOLO | (El nombre y direccién de la corte es): (tkimara det Case) ¥ + 6 0 SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT 400 McAllister Street, Room 103 San Francisco, CA 94102 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (Et nombre, ta direccién y el nimero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Richard Hurlburt, SBN 179072 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD HURLBURT Sy 870 Market Street, Suite 315 m8 6496 ext, 122 Qasxiiikes San FranBfdped, 24097102-3008 GdRON PAH Vibinw GN DATE: ose Clerk, by L , Deputy (Fecha) (Secretario) {Adjunto) ‘or proof of service of this summons, use Proot of ervice of Summons (form POS-010). (Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use el formutario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). =RUFOR; NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. C2) as an individuat defendant. 2. (2) as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): ’ 3. [2] on behalf of (specify) : ‘ under; [(] CCP 416.10 (corporation) (1 CCP 416.60 (minor) {] CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) () CCP 416.70 (conservatee) (CC) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CJ ccP 416.90 (authorized person) (CC) other (specify) : 4. (2 bypersonat delivery on (date) : Pagetott Form Adopted lor Mandatory Use SUMMONS: Code of Chl Procedure §§ 412,20, 465, Jods 'SUM-100 [Rev. Jacwary 1, 2004] Martin Dean's Essential Forms:ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Ff Richard Hurlburt, SBN 179 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD RURLBURT 870 Market Street, Suite 315 San Francisco, CA 94102-3008 TELEPHONENO: 415.392.6496 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO street aporess: 400 McAllister Street MAILING ADDRESS: eityanozipcooe:San Francisco, CA 94102 FOR COURT USE ONLY LEED. nen 18 2007 Faxno: 415.391.6497 CASE NAM! Contreras CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation ] Untimited (Cl) Limited Cl counter [} Joinder Filed with first appearance by defendant (Cal, Rutes of Court, rule 3.402 items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). x below for the case type that best describes this case: Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rute 3.740 cotfections (09) AntitrusvTrade regulation (03) Other PYPD/WD (Personal Injury/Property per ‘collections (09) Construction defect (10) Insurance coverage (18) Mass tort (40) Pamageronat Death) Tort Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) Asbestos ( «abi Environmental/Toxic tort (30) rogue Viability (24 Real Property . Insurance coverage claims arising from the ledical malpractice (45) Eminent domairvinverse above listed provisionally complex case ‘Other PYPDIWD (23) condemnation (14) 3 (at) p Non-PUPDAVD (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) ype . Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment Business tort/unfair business practice (07) ao Enforcement of judgment (20) Civil rights (08) Untawful Detainer igment (20) Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Clvil Complaint Fraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27) Inteltectual property (19) Drugs (38} Other complaint (not specified above) (42) Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other non-PUPDMWD tort (35) ‘Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not specified above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2. Thiscase [J Is 1 is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rutes of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. Large number of separately represented parties b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel issues that will be time-consuming to resolve c. (2) Substantial amount of documentary evidence da. Large number of witnesses e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. (K¥ monetary b. nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive retief c. [XJ punitive 4, Number of causes of action (specify): seven 5. This case Is Is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.) Date: December 13, 2007 Richard ur} by tersaney————_ (2) Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rute 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions, . File this cover sheet In addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Califomia Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. . Page 1 of Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. ‘Cour, rules 2,30, 3 220, 3400-3 403, 3 740; Sto See ee eaeCc C Richard Hurlburt, SBN 179072 Jonathan Joiner, SBN 228697 Law OFFICES OF RICHARD HURLBURT 870 Market Street, Suite 315 7, = San Francisco, CA 94102-3008 an Francheete 2 BD Telephone: 415.391.6496 CO CCUM Seo sie Facsimile: 415.391.6497 nen y ® 2007 Attorneys for plaintiffs, GoRne NATACHA CONTRERAS, CECILIA CONTR and FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR. way 16 2008 -9SAM SUPERIOR COURT - i sma Aes COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO -'UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION NATACHA CONTRERAS, CECILIA CONTRERAS, FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR., No OZ ~"47 9010 Plaintiffs COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF vs. : (Landlord-Tenant) JAMIE LEE, and DOES 1-20, Defendants. Plaintiff alleges against all defendants: 1. Defendant JAMIE LEE (a.k.a. Jing Li) and DOES 2-5 are competent adult individuals doing business in San Francisco. DOES 6-7 are business organizations of unknown form doing business in San Francisco. This action concerns real property located in San Francisco and a lease agreement to be performed in San Francisco. 2. Plaintiffs are ignorant of facts concerning the liability of and/or does not know the true names of DOE defendants 1-20. At all pertinent times, all defendants were agents of one another. 3. At all.pertinent times, all defendants owned or were otherwise responsible for managing a residential building -1- Complaintyn Ww wo ao 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C C commonly known as 606 London Street in San Francisco, California (“subject premises”). At all pertinent times defendant JAMIE LEE was the owner of record of the subject premises. 4. Plaintiffs took possession of the subject premises pursuant to a written rental agreement between plaintiff NATACHA CONTRERAS and defendant JAMIE LEE. The agreement was executed by the parties in mid October, 2004 and required plaintiffs to pay JAMIE LEE rent at the rate of $1,800 per month. Plaintiffs continuously occupied the subject premises as their principal place of residence from November 2004 until mid November 2007 when they vacated the premises involuntarily. 5. At all pertinent times a landlord-tenant relationship existed between each plaintiff and defendants. 6. Plaintiff NATACHA CONTRERAS performed all her obligations under the rental agreement, except what she was excused or prevented from performing. Plaintiffs did not cause any damage to the premises beyond normal wear and tear. 7. Throughout plaintiffs’ tenancy the premises were uninhabitable and lacked basic characteristics necessary for human habitation. Despite her actual and constructive notice of conditions requiring repair and/or maintenance, defendants failed to make repairs or perform ordinary maintenance about the premises. The hazardous or dilapidated conditions about the premises included but were not limited to: broken window(s), illegal unit in the premises with utilities cross-connected to Plaintiffs’ unit, lack of fire protection, faulty wiring, lack of egress for illegal unit, lack of proper heating facilities, heating facilities not maintained in good working order, illegal -2- SSS Complainta 2p WN eo OD I a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 VW 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 € C cooking facilities and other fire hazards. 8. Defendants were at all pertinent times personally aware of conditions needing repair and maintenance about the premises, but refused and failed to correct them. None of these conditions were caused by plaintiffs or anyone under plaintiffs’ control. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence) 9. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8, above. 10. Due to the landlord-tenant relationship between plaintiff and defendants and under Civil Code § 1714, defendants owed plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, management, maintenance and control of the premises. 11. The duty of care owed by defendants to plaintiffs included but was not limited to the following duties: the duty to protect plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the subject premises; the duty to make repairs and perform ordinary maintenance; the duty to adequately train, supervise, instruct and control agents, employees or others acting on defendants’ behalf; the duty to comply with all laws regarding plaintiffs’ tenancy and the operation of the premises; the duty to refrain from illegally subdividing the subject premises; the duty to refrain from renting the illegal in-law unit on the premises as a: separate dwelling; the duty to exercise reasonable care in the screening of other tenants in the premises; the duty to take appropriate action when it became apparent the occupants of the illegal in- law unit were conducting illegal activity; the duty to provide utility services to the premises and not to interfere with -3- SSeS Complaint4 nO w & Oo © 10 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C C utility service to the premises; and, the duty to provide plaintiffs access to the subject premises. These duties were all continuing in nature. 12. Defendants substantially breached their duty of care to plaintiffs in ways which include but are not limited to: failing to make necessary repairs or perform ordinary maintenance to the subject premises; failing to take appropriate action to protect plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment; by illegally subdividing the subject premises and renting an illegal unit to other tenants; by failing to take reasonable steps to screen the tenants of the illegal unit; by failing to abate nuisances an fire hazards about the premises; by failing to take reasonable action in response to plaintiffs’ complaints about noise and drug activity being conducted in the illegal unit; by having the utility services to plaintiffs’ unit shut off; by failing to pay defendants’ share of the utility bills and having utilities shut off; and by changing the locks to the premises so plaintiffs could not gain access. These conditions continued until mid November 2007 when plaintiffs vacated the premises involuntarily. 13. Defendants’ breaches of duty were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the direct and proximate cause of damages to plaintiff. Said damages include but are not limited to: physical injuries such as emotional distress, anxiety, sleeplessness and loss of appetite; substantial annoyance; decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the premises; constructive eviction, invasions of plaintiffs’ right to privacy and other damages, the value of which will be presented at trial. Mf “4+ Complaint4 nan oo eB WN B C C SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Violation of Statutory Duties) 14. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 9 through 13, above. 15. Defendants’ acts and omissions as described above, and each of them, constituted violations of applicable laws. Such laws include but are not limited to: California Civil Code §§ 1927, 1941, 1941.1, 1954 & 3479; San Francisco Administrative Code § 37.3; San Francisco Housing Code §§ 503, 504, 708, 801, 901, 902, 903, 909, 1001 & 1101. These laws were intended to prevent the type of harm suffered by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are the type of persons such laws were intended to protect. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws constituted per se negligence. 16. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws was a substantial factor in causing and/or was the direct and proximate cause of damages to plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited to: those damages described above in paragraph No. 13. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Nuisance) 17. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 14 through 16, above. 18. Each of the actions and omissions of defendants, as described above, and all of them taken together, constituted a continuing nuisance, substantially depriving plaintiffs of the safe, healthy and comfortable use and enjoyment of the premises. 19. As a direct and proximate result of defendants having maintained these nuisances and having failed to abate said -5- ComplaintC C nuisances, plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer general and special damages, as described above in paragraph 13. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Tortious Violation of Statutory Duties) 20. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8, above. 21. Plaintiffs peaceable exercised certain legal rights prior to September, 2007, which included but were not limited to: repeatedly complaining to defendant JAMIE LEE about the noise and drug activity in the basement of the premises; making calls to the police; making complaints to defendant JAMIE LEE about defective window(s) in plaintiffs’ unit; deducting from the rent the utility charges defendant JAMIE LEE owed toward the utilities; reporting conditions in need of repair to the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection; and reporting the illegal rental unit to the DBI inspector. 22. In order to retaliate against plaintiffs for lawfully and peaceably exercising their legal rights, as described in the previous paragraph, defendants embarked on retaliatory and otherwise tortious course of conduct which consisted of acts and omissions including but not limited to: deliberately maintaining an environment at the subject premises. so hostile to human habitation that plaintiffs would vacate involuntarily; refusing and failing to make necessary repairs; refusing and failing to take action to protect plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the premises; continuing to rent the illegal downstairs unit to persons JAMIE LEE knew were creating a nuisance and engaging in criminal drug activity; failing to take action concerning the -6- i Complaintop OD YW AH NUN B® WN yp N NNN NY NN BF BP BP BP BP FP BP Pe BP ot aA &® WKH FH FS 6 OD AY DA HO &F WN BP DO C oO € excess noise in the illegal unit; refusing and failing to pay defendants’ share of the utility bills; locking plaintiffs out of the subject premises; causing the utility services to the subject premises to be cut off; unilaterally terminating plaintiffs’ tenancy at the subject premises in bad faith and without just cause; causing plaintiffs to quit the premises involuntarily; taking possession of the premises from plaintiffs under false pretenses; and, thereafter failing to offer to re-rent the premises to plaintiffs. 23. By said acts and omissions defendants violated laws applicable to plaintiffs’ tenancy at the subject premises. Such laws include but are not limited to: California Civil Code §§ 1927, 1940.2, 1940.9, 1941, 1941.1, 1942.4, 1942.5, 1954 & 3479; San Francisco Administrative Code §§ 37.3 & 37.9; San Francisco Housing Code §§ 503, 504, 708, 801, 901, 902, 903, 909, 1001 & 1101. These laws were intended to prevent the type of harm suffered by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are the type of person such laws were intended to protect. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws was intentional and constituted per se negligence. 24. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws was a substantial factor in causing and was the direct and proximate cause of damages to plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited to: physical injuries such as emotional distress, anxiety, sleeplessness and loss of appetite; substantial annoyance; decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the premises; constructive eviction, multiple invasions of plaintiffs’ right to privacy, actual and permanent loss of possession of the subject premises and rent-stabilized tenancy, and other damages, the -T- ComplaintC € value of which will be presented at trial. 25. The acts and omissions of defendants, described herein, were done with oppression, fraud and malice as defined in Civil Code § 3294. For reasons including but not limited to the following, plaintiffs should recover punitive damages, to make an example of and to punish defendants: (a) Defendants’ conduct was so unreasonable that defendants knew or should have known it was highly probable that substantial harm would result to plaintiffs; (b) The necessary repairs described above constituted long- existing physical conditions of premises causing danger to™ plaintiffs; (c) the acts and omissions of defendants included intentional trespasses on plaintiffs’ rights and nuisances calculated to harm plaintiffs; and, (d) defendants’ conduct was retaliatory, designed to punish plaintiffs for lawfully and peacefully asserting their legal right(s). : FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Nuisance) 26. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 20 through 25, above. 27. Each of the actions and omissions of defendants, as described above, and all their acts and omissions taken together, constituted a continuing nuisance, substantially depriving plaintiffs of the safe, healthy and comfortable use and enjoyment of the subject premises. 28. As a direct and proximate result of defendants having maintained these nuisances and having failed to abate said nuisances, plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer general and special damages, as described above in paragraph 24. -8- a ComplaintC € SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Chapter 37) 29. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 20 through 25, above. 30. With respect to the conduct of defendants giving rise to this cause of action, all defendants are either directly liable to plaintiff or vicariously liable by reason of facts including, put not limited to the following: (a) all defendants entered into and acted in conformity with a civil conspiracy with respect to the events complained of herein; (b) all defendants deliberately aided and abetted all other defendants in furtherance of said events; and, (c) all defendants who were not “landlords” of plaintiffs, did wilfully assist the other defendant landlords and wrongfully endeavored to recover possession of the subject unit. 31. Plaintiffs’ tenancy was subject to the provisions of S.F. Administrative Code, Chapter 37. In carrying out the acts and omissions described above, defendants wrongfully endeavored to recover possession the subject premises, and did wrongfully take possession of the subject premises from plaintiffs. 32. Among other things, it was personally known to defendant JAMIE LEE that: (1) it was illegal to subdivide the subject premises into two units and it was illegal to rent the lower unit as a separate dwelling; and (2) she was terminating plaintiffs’ tenancy, recovering possession of the dwelling and causing plaintiffs to vacate involuntarily in direct retaliation for plaintiffs having lawfully and peaceably exercised their rights under the law. Mf -9- a Complaintao 2 WN & ow Oo NH C C 33. When defendants carried out these acts and omissions, defendants had no “just cause” or substantial basis in fact for evicting plaintiffs. Each of defendants’ acts and omissions and all of said acts and omissions taken together constitute violations of S.F. Admin. Code §§ 37.9. Defendants acted in knowing violation and with reckless disregard of the protections contained in the Ordinance. 34. As a direct and proximate result of defendants violations of the Rent Ordinance, plaintiffs suffered and continues to suffer general and special damages, as described above in paragraph 24. 35. The Rent Ordinance provides for treble damages, attorney fees and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to such relief. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Written Rental Agreement) 36. Plaintiff NATACHA CONTRERAS incorporates in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 20 through 24, above. [The other plaintiffs do not join in this cause of action.] 37. The written rental agreement contains express and implied covenants, including but not limited to: a warranty of habitability, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a covenant of quiet enjoyment, and a provision which provides for reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action arising out of ‘the tenancy. 38. By the acts and omissions described herein, defendants substantially breached the agreement. ‘i -10- a ComplaintWw No eo oan WH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C C 39, As a direct and proximate result of said breach(es) of the agreement by defendants, plaintiff suffered damages including but not limited to: reduced enjoyment of the premises, increased utility expenses, constructive eviction and eventual total loss of possession of the subject premises, as well as other damages, the value of which will be presented at trial. Also due to defendants’ breach(es), defendants are unjustly enriched at plaintiff's expense. 40. The subject premises are unique real property, which afforded plaintiff certain benefits which cannot be replaced at another location. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: Under the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: a. General damages, and, b. Special damages. Under the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: a. General damages, b. Special damages, and, Cc. Appropriate statutory remedies, including reasonable attorney fees under S.F. Admin. Code § 37.11A. Under the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: a. General damages, b. Special damages, and, c. Appropriate Order(s) of abatement. Under the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: a. General damages, b. Special damages, c. Punitive and exemplary damages, and, c. Appropriate statutory remedies, including reasonable attorney fees under S.F. Admin. Code § 37.11A and Civil Code § 1942.5(g) -11- ae Complaint| | C € Under the FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: a. General damages, b. Special damages, c. Punitive and exemplary damages, and, d. Appropriate Order{s) of abatement. Under the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: .- Actual damages, Treble damages, Punitive & exemplary damages, Reasonable attorney fees, and, . Appropriate injunctive relief. oandnoas Under the SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: a. Compensatory damages, b. Restitution of unjust enrichment, c. Specific performance of the agreement, and, d. Reasonable attorney fees. Under ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: a. Costs of suit; and, b. Such other relief the Court deems just and proper. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Dated: December 13, 2007 Richard Aurlburt Attorney for plaintiffs. ~12- I Complaintiii San Francisco Superior Courts {nformation Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dee-13-2007 1:21pm Case Number: CGC-07-470010 Filing Date: Dec-13-2007 1:16 Juke Box: 001 Image: 01967286 COMPLAINT NATACHA CONTRERAS et al VS. JAMIE LEE et al 001001967286 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUM-100 SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): f FOR COURT USE ONLY, (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE) JAMIE LEE, and DOES 1-20 YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): NATACHA CONTRERAS, CECILIA CONTRERAS, FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal Papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call wil! not protect you. Your written response must be In Proper legal form if you want the court ta hear your race There moy he 3 oo: OF yous reaps can jing these court torms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.goviselfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk fora fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and Property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away, If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attomey, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services Program. You can tocate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www lawhelpcalifornia.org}, the Californta Courts Online Self-Hetp Center {www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. Tlene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que Ie entrequen esta citaclén Y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que $e entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una lamada telefénica no fo protegen. Su respuesta ‘por escrito tlene que estar en formato legal correcta si desea que procesen su caso en /a corte, Es posible que haya un formulario que usted Pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacién en el Centro de Ayuda dea las Cortes de California (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/espanol), en fa biblioteca de leyes de su condada o en la corte que fe quede mas cerca. Sino puede pagar la cuota de presentacién, pida al secretarlo dela corte que fe dé un formularia de exencién de pago de cuofas. Si no presenta Su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por Incumpiimlento y la corte le podrd quitar su sueldo, dinero y blenes sin més advertencia. Hay otros requisitos fegales, Es recomendable que Hame a un abogado Inmediatamente, SI no conoce aun abogado, puede ilamar aun servicio da remisién a abogados, Si no puede pagar zun abogado, es posible que cumpla con fos requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sito web de California Legal S ices, fwww.lawhelpeatifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes da California, a wiselfhelp/espanol/) o poniéndose en contacto con fa corte o ef colegio de abogados locales. The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direccién de la corte es): SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT 400 McAllister Street, Room 103 San Francisco, CA 94102 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attomey, or plaintiff without an attorney, Is: (Ef nombre, la direccién y el namero de teléfono def abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Richard Hurlburt, SBN 179072 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD HURLBURT @ f, 870 Market Street, Suite 315 inftAy 6496 ext. 111 & heciihos San FranBfatd, $4097102-3008 aditat Bay VE . ot bale, PEGS EGF Clerk, by ‘ Ronn? , Deputy (Fecha) {Secretario) (Adjunto) (For of service of this surnmons, use Prooi of Service of summons: (form POS-010), (Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). ATTORNEY FOR (Name: Plaintiffs isco County Sucertor Court ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO STREET aooREss: 400 McAllister Street FOR COURT USE ONLY MAILING ADDRESS; pen 18 2007 :S. F: i , 4102 emo CODE: an Francisco, CA 9. eo ow PARK, Clerk CASENAME: Contreras v, Lee, et al, Deputy Clerk CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation Unlimited (_} Limited Cd Counter C2) Joinder ‘ (Amount {Amount demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal Rutae of Cou, rite 3.4623 DEPT: items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on 'se type that best describes this case: ‘heck one box below for the ca: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach of Contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rutes of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) AntitrusTrade reguiation (03) Other PUPDIWD (Personal InjurylProperty pier coletions (09) Construction defect (10) surance Coverage (18) Mass tort (40) Perage/Wrongtul Death) Tort Other contract (37) Securities tigation (28) Asbestos (04) Envionmenta/ Tone tort (30) Product liability (24) Real Property insu a rance Coverage claims arising from the Medical malpractice (45) CQ Eminent domaivinverse above listed provisionally comptes case Other PYPDAWD (23) condemnation (14) types (41) Provi mp Non-PY/PDAWO (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) Business torvunfair business practice (07) Other real property (26) Enforcement of, Judgment (Z] Enforcernent of judgment (20) Civil rights (08) Untawfut Detainer Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27) Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not specified. above) (42) Oren negtge tet) Judiclal Review Miscettaneous Civil Petition Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Emptoyment : Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not specified @bove) (43) Wrongful termination (36) ‘Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) . Thiscase (C) is KY isnot — comptex under rule 3.400 of the Catifornia Rutes of Court. If the case Is complex, mark the factors Fequinng exceptional judicial management: a Large number of Separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses. b. Extensive motion Practice ralsing difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court ce. (CY Substantial amount of documentary evidence f, Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision . Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. (KJ monetary b. Ronmonetary, declaratory or injunctive relief _¢, EX} punitive . Number of causes of action (s cify): seven . This case is Is not a class action suit. . If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case, (You may use form CM-015. ) Puaanw Date: December 13, 2007 () . Oe Ire —— Richard turin ct 7 » NOTICE © Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first Paper filed in the action or Preceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, of Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rute 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions. : File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule, . if this case is complex under rule 3.400 et Seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a Copy of this cover sheet on alll other parties to the action or Proceeding. * Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 ora complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical Purposes only. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ORES Ea Se eV€ Cc Richard Hurlburt, SBN 179072 Jonathan Joiner, SBN 228697 Law OFFICES OF RICHARD HURLBURT 870 Market Street, Suite 315 San Francisco, CA 94102-3008 Telephone: 415.391.6496 Facsimile: 415.391.6497 Attorneys for plaintiffs, NATACHA CONTRERAS, CECILIA CONT and FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR. tay 1g one oan ane c meat = 6 euUn ~ aA] wn / Gereqeanatn SUPERIOR COURT - STATE HRA i a COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - "UNLIMITED crv M onISDreTION NATACHA CONTRERAS, No. CECILIA CONTRERAS, FRANCISCO CONTRERAS SR., TRO? ~"4F 9070 ' Plaintiffs COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF vs. . (Landlord-Tenant) JAMIE LEE, and DOES 1-20, Defendants. — Plaintiff alleges against all defendants: 1, Defendant JAMIE LEE (a.k.a. Jing Li) and DOES 2-5 are competent adult individuals doing business in San Francisco. DOES 6~7 are business organizations of unknown form doing business in San Francisco. This action concerns real Property located in San Francisco and a lease agreement to be performed in San Francisco, 2. Plaintiffs are ignorant of facts concerning the liability of and/or does not know the true names of DOE defendants 1-20. At all pertinent times, all defendants were agents of one another. 3. At all. pertinent times, all defendants owned or were otherwise responsible for managing a residential building ' -1- TO Ie Complaint Ra SY re me neCc € commonly known as 606 London Street in San Francisco, California (“subject premises”). At all pertinent times defendant JAMIE LEE was the owner of record of the subject premises. 4. Plaintiffs took possession of.the subject premises pursuant to a written rental agreement between Plaintiff NATACHA CONTRERAS and defendant JAMIE LEE. The agreement was executed by the parties in mid October. 2004 and required plaintiffc to pay JAMIE LEE rent at the rate of $1,800 per month. Plaintiffs continuously occupied the subject premises as their principal place of residence from November 2004 until mid November 2007 when they vacated the premises involuntarily. 5. At all pertinent times a landlord-tenant relationship existed between each plaintiff and defendants. 6. Plaintiff NATACHA CONTRERAS performed all her obligations under the rental agreement, except what she was excused or prevented from performing. Plaintiffs did not cause any damage to the premises beyond normal wear and tear. 7. Throughout plaintiffs‘ tenancy the premises were uninhabitable and lacked basic characteristics necessary for human habitation. Despite her actual and constructive notice of Conditions requiring repair and/or maintenance, defendants failed to make repairs or perform ordinary maintenance about the premises, The hazardous or dilapidated conditions about the Premises included but were not limited to: broken window(s), illegal unit in the premises with utilities cross-connected to Plaintiffs’ unit, lack of fire protection, faulty wiring, lack of egress for illegal unit, lack of proper heating facilities, heating facilities not maintained in good working order, illegal -2~ Complaint LS SS SSN SE FN es2 3 4 5 6 20 € Cc 1] cooking facilities and other fire hazards. 8. Defendants were at all pertinent times personally aware of conditions needing repair and maintenance about the premises, but refused and failed to correct them. None of these conditions were caused by plaintiffs or anyone under plaintiffs’ control. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence} 9. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8, above. 10. Due to the landlord-tenant relationship between plaintiff and defendants and under Civil Code § 1714, defendants owed plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, management, maintenance and control of the premises. 11. The duty of care owed by defendants to plaintiffs included but was not limited to the following duties: the duty to protect plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the subject premises; the duty to make repairs and perform ordinary maintenance; the duty to adequately train, supervise, instruct and control agents, employees or others acting on defendants’ behalf; the duty to comply with all laws regarding plaintiffs’ tenancy and the operation of the premises; the duty to refrain from illegally subdividing the subject premises; the duty to refrain from renting the illegal in-law unit on the premises as a: separate dwelling; the duty to exercise reasonable care in the screening of other tenants in the premises; the duty to take appropriate action when it became apparent the occupants of the illegal in- law unit were conducting illegal activity; the duty to provide utility services to the premises and not to interfere with -3- —ocucxéc SSS Complaintwn 9 c € utility service to the premises; and, the duty to provide plaintiffs access to the subject premises. These duties were all continuing in nature. 12. Defendants substantially breached their duty of care to plaintiffs in ways which include but are not limited to: failing to make necessary repairs or perform ordinary maintenance to the don to protect plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment; by illegally subdividing the subject premises and renting an illegal unit to other tenants; by failing to take reasonable steps to screen the tenants of the illegal unit; by failing to abate nuisances an fire hazards about the premises; by failing to take reasonable action in response to plaintiffs’ complaints about noise and drug activity being conducted in the illegal unit; by having the utility services to plaintiffs’ unit shut off; by failing to pay defendants’ share of the utility bills and having utilities shut off; and by changing the locks to the premises so plaintiffs could not gain access. These conditions continued until mid November 2007 when plaintiffs vacated the premises involuntarily. 13. Defendants’ breaches of duty were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the direct and proximate cause of damages to plaintiff. Said damages include but are not limited to: Physical injuries such as emotional distress, anxiety, Sleeplessness and loss of appetite; substantial annoyance; decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the premises; constructive eviction, invasions of plaintiffs’ right to privacy and other’ damages, the value of which will be presented at trial. // -4- SS Complaint€ € SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Violation of Statutory Duties) 14. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 9 through 13, above. 15. Defendants’ acts and omissions as described above, and each of them, constituted violations of applicable laws. Such laws include but are not limited to: California Civil Code $$ 1927, 1941, 1941.1, 1954 & 3479; San Francisco Administrative Code § 37.3; San Francisco Housing Code §§ 503, 504, 708, 801, 901, 902, 903, 909, 1001 & 1101. These laws were intended to prevent the type of harm suffered by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are the type of persons such laws were intended to protect. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws constituted per se negligence. . 16. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws was a substantial factor in causing and/or was the direct and proximate cause of damages to plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not Limited to: those damages described above in Paragraph No, 13. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Nuisance) 17, Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 14 through 16, above. 18. Each of the actions and omissions of defendants, as described above, and all of them taken together, constituted a continuing nuisance, substantially depriving plaintiffs of the safe, healthy and comfortable use and enjoyment of the premises. 19. As a direct and proximate result of defendants having maintained these nuisances and having failed to abate said -5- . Complaintw Ne b C C nuisances, plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer general and special damages, as described above in paragraph 13. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION {Intentional Tortious Violation of Statutory Duties) 20. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8, above. 2t. . prior to September, 2007, which included but were not limited to: repeatedly complaining to defendant JAMIE LEE about the noise and drug activity in the basement of the premises; making calls to the police; making complaints to defendant JAMIE LEE about defective window(s) in plaintiffs’ unit; deducting from the rent the utility charges defendant JAMIE LEE owed toward the utilities; reporting conditions in need of repair to the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection; and reporting the illegal rental unit to the DBI inspector. 22. In order to retaliate against plaintiffs for lawfully and peaceably exercising their legal rights, as described in the previous paragraph, defendants embarked on retaliatory and otherwise tortious course of conduct which consisted of acts and emissions including but not limited to: deliberately maintaining an environment at the subject premises so hostile to human habitation that plaintiffs would vacate involuntarily; refusin and failing to make necessary repairs; refusing and failing to take action to protect plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the premises; continuing to rent the illegal downstairs unit to persons JAMIE LEE knew were creating a nuisance and engaging in criminal drug activity; failing to take action concerning the -6- oe Complaint€ Oo € excess noise in the illegal unit; refusing and failing to pay defendants’ share of the utility bills; locking plaintiffs out of the subject premises; causing the utility services to the subject premises to be cut off; unilaterally terminating plaintiffs’ tenancy at the subject premises in bad faith and without just cause; causing plaintiffs to quit the premises involuntarily; pretenses; and, thereafter failing to offer to re-rent the premises to plaintiffs. 23. By said acts and omissions defendants violated laws applicable to plaintiffs’ tenancy at the subject premises. Such laws include but are not limited to: California Civil Code §§ 1927, 1940.2, 1940.9, 1941, 1941.1, 1942.4, 1942.5, 1954 & 3479; San Francisco Administrative Code §§ 37.3 & 37.9; San Francisco Housing Code §§ 503, 504, 708, 801, 901, 902, 903, 909, 1001 & 1101. These laws were intended to prevent the type of harm suffered by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are the type of person such laws were intended to protect. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws was intentional and constituted per se negligence. 24. Defendants’ failure to obey these laws was a substantial factor in causing and was the direct and proximate cause of damages to plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited to: physical injuries such as emotional distress, anxiety, sleeplessness and loss of appetite; substantial annoyance; decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the premises; constructive eviction, multiple invasions of plaintiffs’ right to privacy, actual and permanent loss of possession of the subject premises and rent-stabilized tenancy, and other damages, the -7- Complaintwn € € value of which will be presented at trial. 25. The acts and omissions of defendants, described herein, were done with oppression, fraud and malice as defined in Civil Code § 3294. For reasons including but not limited to the following, plaintiffs should recover punitive damages, to make an example of and to punish defendants: (a) Defendants’ conduct was it was highly probable that substantial harm would result to plaintiffs; (b) The necessary repairs described above constituted long- existing physical conditions of premises causing danger to plaintiffs; (c) the acts and omissions of defendants included intentional trespasses on plaintiffs’ rights and nuisances calculated to harm plaintiffs; and, (d) defendants’ conduct was retaliatory, designed to punish plaintiffs for lawfully and peacefully asserting their legal right(s). . FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Nuisance) 26. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 20 through 25, above. 27. Each of the actions and omissions of defendants, as described above, and all their acts and omissions taken together, constituted a continuing nuisance, substantially depriving plaintiffs of the safe, healthy and comfortable use and enjoyment of the subject premises. 28, As a direct and proximate result of defendants having maintained these nuisances and having failed to abate said nuisances, plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer general and special damages, as described above in Paragraph 24. <8 Complaintwi NM € € SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of S.F. Admin. Code, Chapter 37) 29. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 20 through 25, above. 30. With respect to the conduct of defendants giving rise to this cause of action, all defendants are either directly liable to piaintirfr or vicariousiy iiabie py reason or racts including, but not limited to the following: (a) all defendants entered into and acted in conformity with a civil conspiracy with respect to the events complained of herein; (b) all defendants deliberately aided and abetted all other defendants in furtherance of said events; and, (c) all defendants who were not “landlords” of plaintiffs, did wilfully assist the other defendant landlords and wrongfully endeavored to recover possession of the subject unit. 31. Plaintiffs’ tenancy was subject to the provisions of S.F. Administrative Code, Chapter 37. In carrying out the acts and omissions described above, defendants wrongfully endeavored to recover possession the subject premises, and did wrongfully take possession of the subject premises from plaintiffs. 32. Among other things, it was personally known to defendant JAMIE LEE that: (1) it was illegal to subdivide the subject Premises into two units and it was illegal to rent the lower unit as a separate dwelling; and (2) she was terminating plaintiffs’ tenancy, recovering possession of the dwelling and causing plaintiffs to vacate involuntarily in direct retaliation for plaintiffs having lawfully and peaceably exercised their rights under the law. ff -9- a Complaint- Wn w Orn nw c € 33. When defendants carried out these acts and omissions, defendants had no “just cause” or substantial basis in fact for evicting plaintiffs. Each of defendants’ acts and omissions and all of said acts and omissions taken together constitute violations of S.F. Admin. Code §§ 37.9. Defendants acted in knowing violation and with reckless disregard of the protections containea in the Ordinance. 34. As a