arrow left
arrow right
  • KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER ET AL VS. 640 OCTAVIA, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER ET AL VS. 640 OCTAVIA, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER ET AL VS. 640 OCTAVIA, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER ET AL VS. 640 OCTAVIA, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER ET AL VS. 640 OCTAVIA, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER ET AL VS. 640 OCTAVIA, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER ET AL VS. 640 OCTAVIA, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER ET AL VS. 640 OCTAVIA, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
						
                                

Preview

un 6 GREGORY S. WALSTON, State Bar No. 196776 ELECTRONICALLY ROBIN A. SHEEHAN, State Bar No. 315933 FILED THE WALSTON LAW GROUP Stiporior” Goiire ct Gatinertia A Professional Corporation County of San Francisco our Charlton Court San Francisco, California 94123. . 02/25/2019 Telephone: (415) 956-9200 BY:JUDITH NUNEZ Facsimile: (415) 956-9205 Deputy Clerk Email: gwalston@walstonlaw.com rsheehan@walstonlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants 640 Octavia, LLC, Edward Kountze, Jean Bolden UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER and JOSE State Court Case No. CGC-18-571890 MONTOYA, DECLARATION OF GREGORY Plaintiffs, WALSTON IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REMOVAL Vv. 640 OCTAVIA, LLC, ODLAW, INC., EDWARD KOUNTZE, JEAN BOLDEN, NEIL MARTINSON, JUSTIN HUTTO, and DOES 1-20, Defendants. I, Gregory Walston, declare as follows: 1. On December 6, 2018, Karl-Heinze Pieper and Jose Montoya filed a state court action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (Case No, CGC-18-571890) subsequently amended on January 30, 2019, asserting twenty-five (25) causes of action relating t his tenancy in 640 Octavia's building and directing the following causes of action against, among other defendants, 640 Octavia: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) premises liability; (5) wrongful endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit in violation of §37.9(f) of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance; (6) tenant harassment in violation of §37.10B of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance; (7) tenant harassment in violation of Civil Code §1940.2; (8) landlord retaliation in violation of Civil Code §1942.5; (9) unlawful collection of rent in violation of §37.3 ofthe San Francisco Rent Ordinance; (10) unlawful collection of rent in violation of Civil Code §1942.4; (11) -1- Declaration of Gregory Walston in Support of Petition for Removalsexual orientation discrimination under the FEHA; (12) national. origin discrimination under the FEHA; (13) retaliation under the FEHA; (14) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §51; (15) violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §52.1; (16) breach of warranty of habitability; (17) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (18) stalking in violation of Civil Code §1708.7; (19) constructive invasion of privacy under Civil Code §1708.8; (20) invasion of constitutional right to privacy; (210) electronic eavesdropping and recording in violation of the Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code §630; (22) libel in violation of Civil Code §45a; (23) slander in violation of Civil Code §46; (24) conversion; and (25) unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professional Code §17200, et seq. [A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Ex. A]. 2. On January 30,2019, Pieper's counsel served the two complaints and summons upon me, as 640 Octavia's counsel. [See January 30, 2019 electronic correspondence attached as Ex. BI hereto]. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: February 25, 2019 Cc ss > Gregory S. Walston 2- Declaration of Gregory Walston in Support of Petition for RemovalmauraYosef Peretz (SBN 209288) Ser randeed ade yperetz@peretzlaw.com OY Superior Oy. up David Garibaldi (SBN 313641) DEC 062 dgaribaldi@peretzlaw.com 6 2048 PERETZ & ASSOCIATES 22 Battery Street, Suite 202 ay ROSs, San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 732-3777 Facsimile: (415) 732-3791 Attorneys for Plaintiffs KARL-HEINZ “KALLE” PIEPER and JOSE MONTOYA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. Céc - KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER, and JOSE Civil Case No. 18.57 189q MONTOYA, ’ COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs, 1. Wrongful Endeavor to Recover vs. Possession of a Rental Unit in Violation of § 37.9(f) of the San 640 OCTAVIA, LLC; ODLAW, INC.; Francisco Rent Ordinance; EDWARD KOUNTZE; JEAN BOLDAN; 2. Tenant Harassment in Violation of § NEIL MARTINSON; JUSTIN HUTTO; and 37.10B of the San Francisco Rent DOES 1-20, Ordinance; 3. Tenant Harassment in Violation of Defendants. Civil Code § 1940,2; 4. Landlord Retaliation in Violation of Civil Code §1942.5; 5. Unlawful Collection of Rent in Violation of § 37.3 of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance; 6. Unlawful Collection of Rent in Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; 7. Sexual Orientation Discrimination under the FEHA; 8. National Origin Discrimination under the FEHA; 9. Retaliation under the FEHA; 10. Violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51; 11. Violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § $2.1; 12. Breach of Warranty of Habitability; 13. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND =fe14. Stalking in Violation of Civil Code § 1708.7; 15. Constructive Invasion of Privacy under Civil Code § 1708.8; 16. Invasion of Constitutional Right to Privacy; 17. Electronic Eavesdropping and Recording in Violation of the Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code § 630, ef seq.; 18. Libel in Violation of Civil Code § 45a (including Libel per se); 19. Slander in Violation of Civil Code § 46 (including Slander per se): 20, Conversion; and 21. Unlawful and/or Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. Plaintiffs KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER and JOSE MONTOYA (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: L PARTIES 1. Plaintiff KALLE KARL-HEINZ PIEPER (“Pieper”) is an individual who resides at a 4-unit residential building located at 640 Octavia Street, San Francisco, CA 94131 (the “Building”) in Apartment No. 3 (the “Premises” or “Apt. 3”). Pieper has resided at the Premises since September 9, 1993 to the present. 2. Plaintiff JOSE MONTOYA (“Montoya”) is an individual who resides at the Premises, and has resided there since the fall 2014 to the present. 3. Defendant 640 OCTAVIA, LLC (“Octavia LLC”) is a limited liability company registered in Wyoming and the owner and/or landlord of the Premises and Building. Octavia’s headquarters and its principal place of business is in San Francisco, California, at the Building. 4, Defendant ODLAW, INC. (“Odlaw”) is a corporation registered in Delaware with its principal place of business is in San Francisco, California, at the Building. Odlaw is one of the two members of Octavia. 5. Defendant EDWARD KOUNTZE (“Kountze”) is an individual and is the sole owner, shareholder, officer, and director of Octavia LLC and resides part-time at Apartment 2 of the Building (“Apt. 2”). Kountze is also one of two members of Octavia. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -2-6. Defendant JEAN BOLDAN (“Boldan”) is an individual and the domestic partner of KOUNTZE. Boldan resides part-time at Apt. 2. Boldan is also an agent of Octavia LLC, Odlaw, and Kountze, and occasionally acts on their behalf in her interactions with Plaintiffs. 7. Defendant NEIL MARTINSON (“Martinson”) is an individual whose primary residence is in San Francisco and/or Los Angeles. Martinson also frequently stays in Apt. 2 and Apt. 1. Martinson is an appointed agent of Octavia LLC, Odlaw, and Kountze, and occasionally acts on their behalf in his interactions with Plaintiffs. 8. Defendant JUSTIN HUTTO (“Hutto”) is an individual who resides at 636 Octavia Street, Apartment 102, San Francisco, CA 94102. Hutto is Plaintiffs’ next-door neighbor. Hutto is an appointed agent of Octavia LLC, Odlaw, and Kountze, and occasionally acts on their in his interactions with Plaintiffs. 9. Defendants Does | through 20 are sued herein under fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 474. These defendants are in some way liable for the damages sustained by Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Does | through 20 acted with and on behalf of Octavia LLC, Odlaw, Kountze, Bolden, Martinson, and Hutto (collectively, “Defendants”) in the alleged violations. Plaintiffs do not, at this time, know the true names or capacities of said unnamed defendants, but prays that the same may be inserted herein when ascertained, 10. Plaintiffs are informed, believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated as a Doe is responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages as hereinafter set forth were proximately caused by said Defendants. Plaintiff are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants sued herein was the agent and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and each of them, was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment. I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. Jurisdiction and venue are proper because Plaintiffs’ claims and causes of actions all arose in this county, because Plaintiffs are residents of this county, because some of the Defendants are residents of this county, because the Premises and Building are located in this county, and because the unlawful conduct subject to this action was performed in this county. i COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -3-It. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Plaintiffs’ Tenancy at Apt. 3 12. Plaintiffs are two gay, immigrant men that currently reside in Apt. 3. Pieper has resided in Apt. 3 since September 9, 1993, At the time of his move-in, Pieper executed a residential lease with Bob and Colbert Dare (the “Dares”), the owners of the Building at that time, and Octavia LLC’s predecessors-in-interest. 13. Montoya has resided in Apt. 3 since the fall of 2014, replacing Pieper’s previous roommate. At the time of Montoya’s move-in, the Building was being managed by Gaetani Building Maintenance (“Gaetani”). Pieper informed Gaetani of Montoya’s move-in, and Gaetani approved Montoya as Pieper’s new roommate. Montoya signed an agreement with Pieper that requires Montoya to keep Apt. 3 clean and drug-free as a condition of his occupancy, 14. The Building is a 2-story residential building that includes 4 residential units, two one each floor, a parking garage located on the ground floor, and a cottage in the back that is set up as another, illegal, residential unit. The Building was first built and occupied on or about 1923. 15. Apt. 3 is a one-bedroom/one-bathroom residential apartment located on the second story of the Building. 16. As. such, Plaintiffs’ tenancy at the Building is subject to the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration ordinance, San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 39 (the “Rent Ordinance”), and all applicable related ordinances, rules and regulations. 17. Pieper’s initial rent for Apt. 3 was $610.00 per month. Pieper’s current rent is $976.92 per month which is well under the market rate for a comparable apartment in San Francisco. 18. Over the years, Pieper was subjected to rent increases for the Premises that exceed the allowable rent that may be charged by a landlord pursuant to the Rent Ordinance. As such, over the years and through the present Pieper has been charged monthly rent that exceeds the allowable rent he should be charged for his residency at Apt. 3 pursuant to the Rent Ordinance. 19. Pieper has been an exemplary tenant throughout that time. Pieper has maintained Apt. 3 and numerous common areas in good condition since moving in. With the Dares’ approval, Pieper renovated the apartment in 1993 and 2013 and had the ceiling re-drywalled, the walls of Apt. 3 re-painted and the kitchen and bathroom floors replaced during his tenancy. Pieper vacuums the common area hallways at least twice per month, cleans the garage and the outside COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -4-nr 6 back area as needed or at least once per year, and, until a few months ago, continuously fixed the Building’s front doorstop and doorknob. 20. Pieper enjoyed a peaceful and mutually respectful relationship with the Dares and Gaetani during their ownership and/or management of the Building. Neither of these parties ever questioned or challenged Pieper about his habits, guests, or having roommates live in Apt. 3. In fact, the Dares routinely provided Pieper with written authorization and approval for all of his roommates throughout the time they owned the Building. 21. Rent Ordinance § 39(C)(i) provides Pieper with the right to have a second individual occupy Apt. 3 with him, and over the years he had had a roommate occupy the bedroom in Apt. 3, and he has been occupying the living room of the unit. 22. On or around May 1, 2003, Kounze and Boldan moved into Apt. 2.. They were tenants of Apt. 2 for over 13 years, until December 2016, when Kountze purchased the Building. 23. Throughout their tenancy at Apt. 2, Kountze and Boldan were on amicable terms with Pieper. Pieper hosted Kountze and Boldan during meetings of neighbors, tenants on several occasions over the years, and Kountze and Boldan invited Pieper out for a social dinner at a Peruvian restaurant in the fall of 2015 after he returned from a long trip to Peru. Kountze and Boldan even gave Pieper a key to Apt. 2 in April 2014 when the Building was up for sale, asking Pieper to be present when Apt. 2 was shown to potential purchasers. 24, In or around December 2016, Kountze purchased the Subject Building. Kountze’s purchase was a surprise to Pieper because on March 3, 2016, when the Building was still up for sale, Kountze and Boldan met with Pieper and the tenants then residing in Apartment | of the Building (“Apt. 1”), Matt Ball (“Ball”) and Hanna Felts (“Felts”), to discuss a potential joint purchase of the Building through a joint nonprofit entity. Ultimately, Kountze purchased the Building by himself without letting the group know of his intentions in advance. 25. At the time Kountze purchased the Building, Apt. 1 was vacant, and it remains vacant to date. Ball and Felts had vacated Apt. | in May 2016 after purchasing a condominium unit just around the corner. 26. At the time Kountze purchased the Building, Apartment 4 (“Apt. 4”) was occupied by Itamar Herzberg (“Herzberg”). Herzberg vacated Apt. 4 in April 2017, following a buyout agreement between him and Kountze, and that apartment remains vacant to date. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -5-wm Ce Na 27. Therefore, beginning with April 2017, the Building became completely vacant from any tenants other than the Plaintiffs whom resided in the Premises. 28. Shortly after purchasing the Building, Kountze created a limited liability corporation in Wyoming, Octavia LLC. Kountze then transferred ownership of the Building from himself to Octavia LLC. At or around this same time, Kountze also created a Delaware corporation, Odlaw. Kountze then had himself and Odlaw members of Octavia LLC, Kountze than appointed Martinson as the sole agent and operator of Odlaw. 29, After purchasing the Building, Kountze functioned as its landlord and collected rent from Plaintiffs. Pieper would pay Plaintiffs’ monthly rent by leaving checks for Kountze under the doormat of Apt. 3. Pieper continues this practice of paying rent to date. B. Defendants Engaged in a Harassment Campaign to Force Plaintiffs to Vacate the Premises 30. Shortly afier purchasing the Building, Kountze began to engage in a campaign of harassment and intimidation in order to force Plaintiffs to vacate Apt. 3. Kountze began to fabricate a series of issues that he then threatened to use as a basis to support eviction proceedings against Plaintiffs. Kountze also directed Martinson and Hutto to engage in harassing conduct against Plaintiffs to force them to vacate Apt. 3. This campaign intensified significantly after Herzberg vacated Apt. 4 in April 2017, following a buyout agreement between him and Kountze, as this rendered Plaintiffs the last remaining tenants in the Building. i. Kountze’s, Octavia LLC’s, Odlaw’s, and Bolden’s Harassing Conduct 31. In February of 2017, Kountze hired a private investigator to surveil Plaintiffs” activities in Apt. 3 for the purpose of finding or fabricating a basis to start eviction proceedings against Plaintiffs. Kountze falsely told this private investigator that Plaintiffs were engaging in criminal activity, such as dealing drugs or engaging in prostitution in Apt. 3. 32. In May or June of 2017, Kountze instructed the investigator to place a hidden surveillance camera inside the “peephole” of the door to Apt. 4, thereby facing the front door of Apt. 3 located just across the hallway. The camera has remained there to date. 33... The camera was completely hidden from view and emitted no light. Plaintiffs did not learn of the existence of this hidden “peephole” camera until approximately February 2018. As such, Plaintiffs were monitored by this surveillance camera for over one year without their knowledge or consent. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND, -6-we oo 34. This “peephole” camera was used to capture footage of every individual who entered and existed Apt. 3 since its installation, and caught footage of the inside of Apt. 3 on every occasion the door was opened or was left open, The camera “peephole” has thus captured footage of Plaintiffs and their friends entering and exiting Apt. 3 on countless occasions, and once or twice has even caught footage of Pieper while he was nude when he opened the door or left the door open when he was naked. 35. Kountze retains all of the video footage captured by the “peephole” camera of Apt. 3, and he used Apt. | as a “surveillance center” to view all of this footage with Defendants. 36. Kountze also instructed the investigator to gather evidence of the supposed drug and prostitution activity occurring at Apt. 3. Kountze caused the investigator to conduct outside surveillance of the property at night and at random hours to catalogue any and all visitors to the Building. Plaintiffs, however, do not use or sell drugs or engage in prostitution, and have never done so from the Premises. As a result, this portion of the investigation did not turn up any evidence regarding drug activity or any other illegal conduct by Plaintiffs. 37. Kountze also caused the investigator to hire another private investigator to appear at Montoya’s place of work “undercover” on two occasions in June 2017 in an attempt to illicit information about his supposed drug use, prostitution or other illegal activity. This investigator posed as a customer and received two haircuts from Montoya, and questioned him about his alleged drug use and “partying” during the haircuts. Since he never engaged in any type of illegal activity, Montoya did not respond positively to these suggestive comments, so this investigator did not elicit “admissions” supporting the allegation that Montoya engaged in drug-related, prostitution or other illegal activities. 38. On August 20, 2017, Montoya was being visited at the Premis s by a guest named Miguel. Upon his arrival to the Premises, Miguel realized he forgot something in his car, parked a few blocks away. At that time, the doorbell of Apt. 3 had not been working since shortly after Kountze purchased the Building. As such, when going to retrieve the item, Montoya let Miguel borrow his key to the Building so Miguel could let himself back inside without needing to use the doorbell of Apt. 3. It than happened that on his way back to the Building, Kountze ran into Miguel and began to threaten him, asking Miguel who he was and why he had copies of keys to the Building. From upstairs, Montoya heard Kountze’s screaming and explained that he had let Miguel borrow his key for his one instance, at which point Kountze let Miguel go. COMPLAINT AND. JURY DEMAND, -7T-39, On August 21, 2017, the day after this incident, Kountze falsely told a third party that Montoya was an “illegal tenant” at the Building and falsely accused Pieper of copying keys to Apt. 3 and giving a copy of said key to Miguel. Kountze than repeated these false allegations to other third parties, including Defendants. 40. In order to smear Montoya, sometimes in 2017, Kountze also falsely told to various third parties, including Defendants, that Montoya was an illegal immigrant. 41. In December 2017, Montoya overheard a conversation between Kountze and Hutto, whom were standing outside the Building’s front gate one morning as he happened to observed them from his bedroom window. A passerby, who appeared to be a gay man, walked by the Building and apparently made eye contact with Hutto at that time. Hutto then yelled at the passerby: “what are you looking at faggot?”. The passerby said something in response and then walked away. Kountze then patted Hutto’s shoulder in approval. This incident startled Montoya and increased his fear of Kountze and Hutto. 42. On January 26, 2018, Pieper filed a complaint with the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board (the “Rent Board”) regarding Kountze’s ongoing harassment campaign intended to force Plaintiffs to evict Apt. 3. Following this complaint, Kountze’s harassment and surveillance of Plaintiffs only intensified. 43. On January 31, 2018, after returning from a long overseas flight, Pieper noticed that the Building’s garage door code had been changed and he could not access the garage with the old combination, Over the next few days, the Building’s garbage could not be picked up by because the garage could not be accessed with the old code. Upon information and belief, Defendants changed the garage’s key code so Defendants could then search through Plaintiffs’ garbage to look for any “evidence” that would support an attempt to lawfully evict Plaintiffs. 44. The oven in the Premises has been malfunctioning for a long time, and Pieper informed Kountze of that problem on a few occasions to no avail. Pieper attempted to fix the problem with Plaintiffs’ local gas company in January 2017, but the issue kept recurring. Plaintiffs went without a working oven for nearly a year before reiterating his complaints to Kountze in April 2018. After that, Pieper spoke to Kountze about this issue over the next several months, but Kountze never effectuated any repairs of the oven and falsely told Pieper that he had purchased a new stove but never did. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND =8-45, Later in April or May 2018, Kountze had Martinson contact the local gas company out to investigate the issue at a time that Kountze knew Plaintiffs were not home. Kountze did so even after Plaintiffs offered to coordinate a visit at a time Montoya would be present. Kountze also did not report the issue as oven repair; instead, he told Martinson to tell the gas company that Apt. 3 had a possible gas leak. Upon not being able to enter Apt. 3 when going to investigate the problem, the gas company shut off all of the gas to Apt. 3 due to Kountze’s false instructions. Martinson was present for the gas company’s “inspection” but did not tell the gas company representative to leave the gas on. Once Plaintiffs returned home, they had to contact the gas company to restore their gas, and still had an unrepaired oven. 46. — To date that the stove in the Premises remains malfunctioning because Kountze refuses to repair or replace it. 47. In response to Kountze’s surveillance campaign against Plaintiffs, in or around May 2018, Pieper put up his own security camera outside of Apt. 3, along with a sign to notify people of the camera’s presence. The camera faced the common area hallway in front of the unit. Unlike the “peephole” camera, this camera was easily visible and any individual walking up to Apt. 3 would recognize that they were potentially being recorded. On May 12, 2018, Kountze walked up to Plaintiffs’ security camera and made a throat-slashing gesture. 48. Around this same time, beginning in early 2018 a pigeon infestation took root in the south side and garage of the Building. A herd of pigeons began to nest in the garage and leave feces all over the garage floor and the Building’s air well. Pieper notified Kountze about the pigeon infestation, but Kountze did not take any immediate action to address the problem. Pieper had to then resort to sweeping away the pigeon feces from the garage on his own, which he did periodically over the next few months, but this did not get rid of the pigeons themselves. 49. On May 26, 2018, while Pieper was cleaning up the pigeon feces in the garage along witha friend, Kountze and Martinson arrived at the Building. Kountze immediately became hostile towards Pieper, appeared intoxicated, and repeatedly yelled and demanded Pieper’s friend to answer whether he was “from [Pieper’s] lawyer or not.” 50. Faced with no alternative to Kountze’s inaction on these issues, in May 2018 Pieper filed a complaint with the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (“DBI”) concerning the malfunctioning oven and the pigeon infestation. A DBI inspector then visited the Building and Apt. 3 and on May 31, 2018, issued a Notice of Violation directing Kountze to repair COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND. -9-SO Re RN Aw the malfunctioning oven and abate the pigeon infestation, along with numerous other code violations including servicing a fire extinguisher and maintaining the fire escape’s drop ladder in working order (the “NOV”). 51. . In June 2018, after the NOV was issued, Kountze finally appeared to be responsive and asked Pieper for measurements for the stove so that the oven could be replaced. Pieper sent Kountze those measurements and proposed to arrange a time to be present for the oven’s replacement. 52. Despite this, Kountze failed to respond to Pieper and did not act to replace the malfunctioning oven. The oven remains without repair or replacement to date. As a result, some of the violations set forth in the NOV remain unabated to date. 53. On June 20, 2018, Montoya’s place of work, a hair salon, was visited by the California State Board of Cosmetology. The Board has received a call from someone whom falsely claimed that Montoya was practicing his hairstyling without a license. Upon information and belief, Kountze made this false accusation. Kountze made this false statement to other third parties, including Defendants. 54, As for the pigeon infestation, Kountze finally sent a pigeon abatement company to address the issue on June 25, 2018. 55. In or around July 2018, Kountze continued telling third parties false allegations about Plaintiffs. On several occasions during that time, Kountze falsely told third parties, including Defendants, that Plaintiffs were engaged in the creation and distribution of child pornography and were engaged in sex trafficking from Apt. 3. Plaintiffs suffered significant distress after learning that Kountze made these false allegations. $6. On July 14, 2018 at 6:25 p.m., Kountze physically threatened Pieper in the street as Pieper was walking back to the Building from his work. As Pieper was walking down the street, Kountze was ringing the doorbell of the next door building at 636 Octavia Street, where Hutto resides. Upon seeing Pieper, Kountze suddenly walked towards Pieper and made a sharp turn into Pieper’s path and attempted to barge Pieper with his shoulder. Pieper had to jump to the side quickly to avoid a collision, 57. Pieper’s lease for Apt. 3 makes reference to “rules and regulations” of the Building, but at the time of its execution, there were no such “rules and regulations” imposed on the Building by the Dares. On July 17, 2018, Kountze served Pieper for the first time with a COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -10-Uw 6 document entitled “House Rules” containing eleven new conditions of Pieper’s tenancy. These “House Rules” included a provision of “quiet hours” when visitors would be barred from the Building and a provision preventing tenants from leaving any property in the hallways of the Building. 58. Ironically, on September 1, 2018, Kountze violated his own rule about “quiet hours” in the Building, as he stayed at the Building on this date and caused very loud noise at night. Kountze also violated his own rule by allowing Martinson to stay at the Building, rent- free, for most of August and September 2018, and allowing Martinson to host numerous overnight visitors and cause loud noises and disturbances throughout that time. 59, On September 14, 2018, Kountze and Martinson directed another agent, who introduced himself as “Jason,” to install new surveillance cameras in the hallways, garage, and back stairs of the Building so that he could keep watch of Plaintiffs’ activities throughout the Building, as Plaintiffs were and remain the only tenants living in the Building. 60. Throughout his tenancy, Pieper had been allowed to maintain a table, chairs, plants, and shoes in an alcove area located just outside his front door in the common area hallway of the second floor of the Building. On September 28, 2018, Kountze directed Martinson and another unknown individual to leave a note on these materials stating that Kountze would confiscate them if Plaintiffs did not remove them from the hallway, pursuant to the House Rules. Plaintiffs disagreed with the imposition of the House Rules and, that same day, informed Kountze that they would not accept them. Plaintiffs now live in fear that their personal property will be confiscated by Kountze despite having been allowed to maintain the space in this manner since 1993. 61. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs further allege that Kountze has set up some sort of electronic audio recording device on the ceiling of Apt. 1, the unit directly below Apt. 3, in order to capture any conversations or sounds made by Plaintiffs in Apt. 3, as part of Kountze’s ongoing surveillance campaign against Plaintiffs. ii, Martinson’s Harassing Conduct 62. In December 2017, Kountze invited Martinson to stay in Apt. | rent-free in order to monitor Plaintiffs’ activities even further. At the time, Kountze falsely told Martinson that he was having trouble with a tenant and that the Building had safety issues due to this tenant. Kountze also falsely told Martinson that drug-related activity was going on at the Building. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -11-63. Since at least December 2017, Martinson has kept watch on Plaintiffs’ activities on a regular basis and provided regular updates about Plaintiffs’ activities to Kountze. 64. On March 1, 2018, Kountze informed Martinson in writing that he was an “appointed agent” for Octavia LLC and had been hired to “secure the premises at 640 Octavia.” Martinson’s surveillance of Plaintiffs intensified after this date. 65. Martinson would go on to stay at the Building on numerous occasions. Martinson stayed in Apt. | offand on for numerous days and nights weeks at a time during at least December 2017, February 2018, April 2018, May 2018, and June 2018, and in Apt. 2 for numerous days and nights in February and March 2018. Throughout this time, Martinson would surveil Plaintiffs’ conduct and report that conduct to Kountze. 66... As stated above, feeling unsafe in their own apartment, in or around May 2018, Plaintiffs installed two security cameras of their own just outside the front and back doors to Apt. 3, as stated above. 67. On May 23, 2018, Kountze wrote a letter to Pieper demanding that the cameras be taken down. Pieper refused since the lease did not bar him from putting up these cameras and because he felt unsafe and was already being surveilled by Defendants. 68. — On September 14, 2018, at Kountze’s and Martinson’s direction, a person named “Jason” installed new surveillance cameras in the hallways, garage, and back stairs of the Building so that Kountze could keep watch of Plaintiffs’ activities throughout the Building, as Plaintiffs were and are the only tenants living in the Building. 69. On October 1, 2018, Martinson and another unknown individual, identified only as “Dan,” walked up to Apt. 3, took down Pieper’s camera, and carried the camera off to Kountze’s “surveillance center” in Apt. 4. On October 3, 2018, Pieper demanded that Kountze return his camera to him and that Kountze’s seizure of the camera was unlawful. Despite this, Kountze has yet to return the camera to Pieper to date. iii. Hutto’s Harassing Conduct 70. Upon information and belief, Kountze also appointed Hutto as an agent of himself, Octavia LLC, and Odlaw, and instructed Hutto to surveil Plaintiffs’ activities since at least February 2018. Since then, Hutto has kept watch on Plaintiffs’ activities on a regular basis and provided regular updates about Plaintiffs’ activities to Kountze. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND. -12-oN DW 71. On February 15, 2018, while Pieper was walking in downtown San Francisco during his workday, Hutto walked up to Pieper on the public sidewalk and took a picture of Pieper with his cell phone. While taking this picture, Hutto yelled to Pieper: “you are in a lot of trouble!” Pieper recognized Hutto, and walked away from him. Pieper was left significantly startled by the incident. 72... On April 5, 2018, Pieper was awakened by loud noises coming from the downstairs area of the Building. Pieper clearly heard Kountze’s voice along with other unknown individuals, all of whom were loudly stomping and appeared to be using construction tools like a screwdriver or power drill for several minutes. After a short while, Pieper went downstairs and outside the Building to investigate and found Hutto sitting in his car parked in front of the garage. Pieper did not want to be accused of making loud noises by Kountze, so Pieper took a short video and photograph of Hutto at that time in order to obtain proof that Pieper was not responsible for the noise. 73... On or around April 2018, Hutto sent a letter to a third party falsely claiming that Pieper was maintaining a “prostitution ring based out his apartment” and was “harboring fugitives that have been deported from the country before for criminal charges.” Hutto falsely claimed in this letter that Pieper was “very armed and dangerous.” Hutto falsely claimed in this letter that Pieper “threatened all of the neighbors and also threatened to burn down the apartment building if he is evicted.” Hutto falsely claimed that Montoya “is one of the individuals that [Pieper] is smuggling back into the country.” Hutto also falsely claimed in this letter that Plaintiffs were “both using false identities and have stolen social security numbers.” Hutto’s letter ended with a plea for help to get “these individuals out of the country.” 74. On April 18, 2018, Hutto told Boldan that he had sent a letter to a third party containing the above false allegations against Plaintiffs, and repeated those allegations to Boldan as though they were the truth. Hutto also told Boldan that another third party, a friend of Hutto’s, was going to go “to a Congress guy he knows that works in Immigration” to attempt to “pick up” Montoya. 75... On April 25, 2018, Hutto sent Kountze and Boldan screenshots of Pieper’s “Amazon wish list” and advised Kountze to “check all of [Pieper’s] light bulbs” based on the fact that a lightbulb with audio and video recording capabilities was on the wish list. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -13~76. On April 26, 2018, Hutto falsely told Kountze and Boldan that a friend of his had been speaking to government officials and that Montoya would soon be “charged with a felony” for using a “fake” social security number. Hutto also falsely told Kountze and Boldan that Montoya was on a “federal global watch list,” most likely for “using false identities,” and that Montoya’s social security number was “flagged by the administration.” 77. On July 21, 2018, Apt. 3 suddenly experienced an internet outage. Pieper called his internet service provider and they determined that the outage was likely caused by interference with the physical cable lines running to the Building, which come through the backyard of the property next door to the Building where Hutto resides. Hutto refused to allow Pieper or his internet service provider access to the backyard, forcing Pieper to change internet providers. 78. On October 18, 2018 at around 1:00 p.m., Montoya was leaving for a fundraiser hosted by the hair salon that he works at. Montoya called a “Lyft” rideshare vehicle and began packing the trunk of the vehicle with various materials for the fundraiser: two big bags full of make-up, several outfits, and two doll heads with wigs on them. While this was happening, Hutto was sitting in his car on the same street, staring at Montoya and his “Lyft,” and taking pictures of the vehicle with his cell phone as Montoya was grabbing his bags to load in the trunk. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Endeavor to Recover Possession in Violation of § 37.9(f) of the Rent Ordinance (Alleged by Plaintiffs against Octavia LLC, Odlaw and Kountze) 79. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all of the previous allegations herein by reference. 80. The Rent Ordinance outlines the legitimate bases for a landlord to endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit from a tenant. 81. Plaintiffs are “tenants” of the Subject Building as the term is defined by the Rent Ordinance § 37.2(t). 82. Defendants are a “landlord” to each of the Plaintiffs as the term is defined by Rent Ordinance § 37.2(h). 83. Apt. 3 was a “rental unit” as that term is defined by the Rent Ordinance § 37.2(r). 84. Defendants endeavored to recover possession for a basis not identified in the Rent Ordinance § 37.9 through their aforementioned actions, including but not limited to effectuating the unwarranted surveillance and private investigation of Plaintiffs, making false statements to COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND. -14-various third parties about Plaintiffs, failing to make repairs to Apt. 3, and confiscating Plaintiffs’ personal property. Defendants thereby violated the Rent Ordinance. 85. By endeavoring to force Plaintiffs to vacate the Apt. 3 with the intent not consistent with the Rent Ordinance based on the conduct described above, Defendants have violated the Rent Ordinance and demonstrated a lack of good faith. 86. Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial as a result of Defendants’ wrongful endeavor to evict Plaintiffs. 87. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiffs, and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights as a lawful tenant. 88. Because the acts taken towards Plaintiffs were carried out by Defendants acting in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages in an amount according to proof, as well as statutory penalties and punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Tenant Harassment in Violation of § 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance (Alleged by Plaintiffs against Octavia LLC, Odlaw and Kountze) 89. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all of the previous allegations herein by reference. 90... The Rent Ordinance outlines various actions that a landlord may not engage in in bad faith. 91. . Plaintiffs are “tenants” of the Subject Building as the term is defined by the Rent Ordinance § 37.2(t). 92. . Defendants are a “landlord” to each of the Plaintiffs as the term is defined by Rent Ordinance § 37.2(h). 93. Apt. 3 was a “rental unit” as that term is defined by the Rent Ordinance § 37.2(r). 94, The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not “[i]nterrupt, terminate, or fail to provide housing services required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws.” Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(1). 95... The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not “(fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws.” Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(2). COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -15-96. The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not “[flail to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance once undertaken or fail to follow appropriate industry repair, containment or remediation protocols designed to minimize exposure to noise, dust, lead, paint, mold, asbestos, or other building materials with potentially harmful health impacts.” Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(3). 97. The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not “[a]buse the landlord’s right of access into a rental housing unit as that right is provided by law.” Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(4). 98. . The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not “[i]nfluence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion.” Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(5). 99. The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not “[t]hreaten the tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm.” Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(8). 100. The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not “[vJiolate any law which prohibits discrimination based on actual or perceived race, gender, sexual preference, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality, place of birth, immigration or citizenship status, religion, age, parenthood, marriage, pregnancy, disability, AIDS or occupancy by a minor child.” Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(9). 101. The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not “[i]nterfere with a tenant’s right to quiet use and enjoyment of a rental housing unit as that right is defined by California law.” Rent Ordinance § 37,10B(a)(10). 102. The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not “[i]nterfere with a tenant’s right to privacy.” Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(13). 103. The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not “[rJequest information that violates a tenant’s right to privacy, including but not limited to residence or citizenship status or social security number.” Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(14). 104. The Rent Ordinance provides that a landlord shall not engage in any “[o]ther repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that cause, are likely to cause, or are intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND. -16-occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dweiling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy.” Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(15). 105. During the course of Plaintiffs’ tenancies at the Apt. 3, Defendants harassed Plaintiffs in violation of Rent Ordinance § 37.10B, inter alia, by engaging in the conduct described above, including but not limited to failing to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance once undertaken, effectuating the unwarranted surveillance and private investigation of Plaintiffs, making false statements to third parties about Plaintiffs, confiscating Plaintiffs’ personal property, and otherwise interfering with Plaintiffs’ quiet use and enjoyment of Apt. 3. 106. . Defendants engaged in this conduct with the intent to influence Plaintiffs to vacate Apt. 3. 107. Defendants acted in a knowing or intentional manner or with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, and in bad faith. 108. Plaintiffs are entitled to three times actual damages suffered and statutory penalties as a result of Defendants’ violation of § 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance, pursuant to § 37.10B(c) of the Rent Ordinance. 109. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiffs, and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights as lawful Plaintiffs. 110. - Because the acts taken towards Plaintiffs were carried out by Defendants acting in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages in an amount according to proof, as well as statutory penalties and punitive damages. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Tenant Harassment in Violation of Civil Code § 1940.2 (Alleged by Plaintiffs against Octavia LLC, Odlaw and Kountze) 111. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all of the previous allegations herein by reference. 112. Civil Code § 1940.2 provides that it is unlawful for a landlord, for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling, to “[e]ngage in conduct that violates subdivision (a) of Section 484 of the Penal Code.” Civil Code § 1940.2(a)(1). Section 484 of the Penal Code COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -17-provides that “[e]very person who shal! felonivusly steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another...is guilty of theft.” Penal Code § 484(a). 113, Civil Code § 1940.2 provides that it is unlawful for a landlord, for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling, to “[u]se, or threaten to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a course of conduct that interferes with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of Section 1927 that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person.” Civil Code § 1940.2(a)(3). 114. . Civil Code. § 1940.2 provides that it is unlawful for a landlord, for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling, to “[c]ommit a significant and intentional violation of Section 1954,” which provides that a landlord may only enter a tenant’s dwelling in certain limited cases, may not abuse this right of entry, and must give the tenant reasonable written notice of entry. Civil Code § 1940.2(a)(4). 115. Civil Code § 1940.2 provides that it is unlawful for a landlord, for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling, to “[t]hreaten to disclose information regarding or relating to the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, occupant, or other person known to the landlord to be associated with a tenant or occupant.” Civil Code § 1940.2(a)(5). 116. During the course of Plaintiffs’ tenancies at the Apt. 3, Defendants harassed Plaintiffs in violation of Civil Code § 1940.2, inter alia, by engaging in the conduct described above, including but not limited to failing to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance once undertaken, effectuating the unwarranted surveillance and private investigation of Plaintiffs, making false statements to third parties about Plaintiffs, confiscating Plaintiffs’ personal property, and otherwise interfering with Plaintiffs’ quiet use and enjoyment of Apt. 3. 117. . Defendants engaged in this conduct with the intent to influence Plaintiffs to vacate Apt. 3. 118, | Defendants acted in a knowing or intentional manner or with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, and in bad faith. 119, Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages and statutory penalties in an amount not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000) for each violation of Civil Code § 1940.2. if i if COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -18-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Landlord Retaliation in Violation of Civil Code § 1942.5 (Alleged by Plaintiffs against Octavia LLC, Odlaw and Kountze) 120. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all the previous allegations herein by reference. 121. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the actions taken by Defendants against Plaintiffs as set forth above were in retaliation for Pieper’s complaint to the Rent Board in January 2018 regarding Kountze’s harassment and surveillance campaign against Plaintiffs. Following this conduct, Defendants engaged in a wrongful endeavor to take possession of Apt. 3 and engaged in tenant harassment against Plaintiffs, as described above. 122. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the actions taken by Defendants against Plaintiffs as set forth above were also in retaliation for Plaintiffs complaints to DBI regarding necessary repairs and uninhabitable conditions at Apt. 3 and the Building, including but not limited to the malfunctioning oven and pigeon infestation. Following this conduct, Defendants engaged in a wrongful endeavor to take possession of Apt. 3 and engaged in tenant harassment against Plaintiffs, as described above. 123. The retaliatory actions of Defendants as alleged herein were oppressive and malicious within the meaning of Civil Code § 1942, in that it was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and safety. 124. Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial as a result of Defendants’ conduct. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unlawful Collection of Rent in Violation of § 37.3 of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance (Alleged by Plaintiffs against Octavia LLC, Odlaw and Kountze) 125. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all of the previous allegations herein by reference. 126. Civil Code § 1941 mandates the lessor of a building intended for the occupation of human beings to “put it into a condition fit for occupation, and repair subsequent dilapidations thereof, which render it untenable...” 127. By allowing the Building to fall into disrepair by failing to remediate a pigeon infestation, failing to repair the oven in Apt. 3, and neglecting to make all other necessary repairs COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND -19-to Apt. 3 as proscribed by DBI, Defendants violated the warranty of habitability and Civil Code § 1941. 128. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of each defective condition, Plaintiffs and DBI notified Defendants of the defective conditions of Apt. 3, and Defendants nevertheless failed or refused to correct all of these defective conditions. 129, - Defendants continued to demand and collect rent and/or do other acts which were set forth in Civil Code § 1942.4(a) from Plaintiffs while said substandard conditions continued to exist. 130. As a proximate result of the acts or omissions of Defenda