Preview
SD em IN DH RB YH N
12
20
TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP
JOSEPH TOBENER, SBN 203419
BRIAN BROPHY, SBN 282011 ELECTRONICALLY
21 Masonic Avenue, Suite A FILED
San Francisco, California 94118 Superior Court of California,
Telephone: (415) 504-2165 County of San Francisco
Facsimile: (415) 418-3492 08/22/2018
Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Deputy|Clerk
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ALEXIS MASSOL, Case No.: CGC-17-560723
Plaintiff, (Unlimited Civil Case)
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF ERRATA AND
v. AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT B TO THE
DECLARATION OF BRIAN BROPHY IN
MINH GIAO KHAC LE, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TERRY TRAN, LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
XUAN NHUT TRAN, and COMPLAINT
DOES | through 10,
Dept. 501
Defendants. Date: September 5, 2018
Time: 9:30 a.m.
There was an error in the Declaration of Brian Brophy, filed on August 7, 2018 in support)
of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Specifically, the exhibits t
the Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit B to Brophy Decl.) were inadvertently left
out. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully submits the following errata: Exhibit B, a copy of which
is attached hereto, and which includes the missing exhibits, shall replace Exhibit B to the
Declaration of Brian Brophy in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint.
Af
If
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ERRATA AND AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT B TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN BROPHY}
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - |SD em IN DH RB YH N
Se IAA RE OH =
20
DATED: August 22, 2018 TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP
rophy
Attorney for Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ERRATA AND AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT B TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN BROPHY}
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - 2EXHIBIT BSD em IN DH RB YH N
12
20
TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP
JOSEPH TOBENER, SBN 203419
BRIAN BROPHY, SBN 282011
21 Masonic Avenue, Suite A
San Francisco, California 94118
Telephone: (415) 504-2165
Facsimile: (415) 418-3492
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ALEXIS MASSOL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MINH GIAO KHAC LE,
TERRY TRAN,
XUAN NHUT TRAN, and
DOES | through 10,
Defendants.
Plaintiff ALEXIS MASSOL alleges:
Case No.: CGC-17-560723
(Unlimited Civil Case)
[PROPOSED] SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(*)
(8)
(9)
(10)
NEGLIGENCE;
WRONGFUL EVICTION IN
VIOLATION OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE;
WRONGFUL EVICTION IN
VIOLATION OF THE ELLIS ACT:
VIOLATION OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE
SECTION 37.11A;
VIOLATION OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE
SECTION 37.9A;
VIOLATION OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE
SECTION 37.9(f);
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES;
FRAUD; and
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1. Plaintiff ALEXIS MASSOL was a residential tenant at 2855 Folsom Street, San
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 1SD em IN DH RB YH N
12
20
Francisco, California (“the Subject Unit”) from in or around 1996 to on or about March 16,
2014.
2. The Subject Unit is one of three units located at 2853-2855 Folsom Street, San
Francisco, California (“the Subject Property”). The Subject Property was built in 1902.
3. When Plaintiff MASSOL vacated the Subject Unit, his monthly rent-controlled
rate was $1,160 per month, which was well below the then fair market value.
4, Defendants TERRY TRAN and XUAN NHUT TRAN purchased the Subject
Property in June 4, 2014.
5. Defendant MINH GIAO KHAC LE was granted a twenty-five percent undivided
interest in the Subject Property on December 2, 2014.
6. Defendants TERRY TRAN, XUAN NHUT TRAN, MINH GIAO KHAC LE, and
DOES | to 10 are the current owner and managers of the Subject Property.
7. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, involvement, or capacities of Defendants
DOES | through 10. Plaintiff is informed and believe that each DOE Defendant is in some way
responsible for Plaintiff's damages. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint when he learns the true
names of the DOE Defendants.
8. Defendants TERRY TRAN, XUAN NHUT TRAN, MINH GIAO KHAC LE, and}
DOES | to 10 are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”.
9. At all times relevant herein, each Defendant was the agent, servant, employee or
alter ego of the remaining Defendants, or acted with their consent, ratification and authorization,
and in doing the acts hereinafter alleged, each Defendant acted in such capacity with respect to
the remaining Defendants.
10. This Court is the proper jurisdiction for this complaint because Defendants reside
in its jurisdictional area, the Subject Unit is in its jurisdictional area, Plaintiff is subject to a
residential rental agreement in its jurisdictional area, Defendants conduct business in its
jurisdictional area, and Plaintiff was injured in its jurisdictional area.
11. The amount in controversy is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
12. At all relevant times, the Subject Unit was covered under the San Francisco Rent
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 2SD em IN DH RB YH N
12
20
Ordinance (the “Rent Ordinance”). SAN FRANCISCO ADMIN. CODE § 37.2(r).
13. On December 16, 2013, the former owners of the Subject Unit delivered a notice
of intent to withdraw the Subject Unit from the rental market (the “Withdrawal Notice”).
14. On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff MASSOL informed the former owners that he
was disabled and therefore entitled to an extension of the end of his tenancy to one year from the
date of the delivery of the notice. Under California Civil Civil Code section 7060.4, when an
evicted tenant is disabled, the withdrawal date is extended to one year after the date of delivery
of the Withdrawal Notice to the public entity. The date of withdrawal was therefore extended by
law to December 16, 2014.
15. At the time that Plaintiff MASSOL timely vacated pursuant to a proper Ellis Act
notice, Plaintiff MASSOL filed a Notice of Interest in Renewed Accommodations, providing
notice that he wanted to return if the unit was re-rented. The Notice of Interest in Renewed
Accommodations had Plaintiff MASSOL’s current contact information. (Exhibit A).
16. A Notice of Constraints was filed against the Subject Property, removing all units
from rent or lease. (Exhibit B).
17. On September 1, 2015, Defendants re-rented the Subject Unit to a third party
without offering the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff MASSOL, in violation of Ellis Act restrictions}
on the property, in violation of the Rent Ordinance, and in violation of the Ellis Act.
18. Plaintiff MASSOL planned on living in the Subject Unit indefinitely.
19, Because of Defendants re-rental of the unit in violation of the San Francisco Rent
Ordinance and the Ellis Act, Plaintiff MASSOL suffered from, inter alia, property loss, bodily
injury, lost wages, emotional distress, and loss of the value of a rent-controlled unit.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
20. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
21. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff as owners and/or managers of a
residential rental property.
22. Defendants breached that duty by (1) failing to offer the Subject Unit back to
Plaintiff MASSOL; (2) re-renting the unit in violation of the Ellis Act restrictions; and (3)
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 3SD em IN DH RB YH N
12
20
concealing the fact that the Subject Unit had been re-rented.
23. Defendants’ acts and omissions were in violation of sections 37.9 et seg., 37.10A
et seq. and 37.11A et seg. of the Rent Ordinance and the Ellis Act is found in California
Government Code section 7060, et seg.
24. These statutes were designed to protect Plaintiff from the very harm complained
about herein.
25. Defendants’ violations of these statutes were substantial factors in causing harm
to Plaintiff MASSOL.
26. Asaresult of Defendants’ breach of duty and obligations, Plaintiff MASSOL
suffered from property loss, including loss of furniture, artwork, musical instruments, and
musical equipment.
27. Asaresult of Defendants’ breach of duty and obligations, Plaintiff MASSOL
suffered bodily injury, including chest pain, back pain, and shoulder pain.
28. As aresult of Defendants’ breach of duty and obligations, Plaintiff MASSOL
suffered wage loss.
29. As aresult of Defendants’ breach of duty and obligations under these statutes,
Plaintiff MASSOL suffered from serious emotional distress, including anguish, nervousness,
sleeplessness, stress, worry, shock, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation.
30. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff MASSOL was sufficiently severe that}
an ordinary person would have been unable to deal with it.
31. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their duty, Plaintiff MASSOL
suffered the loss of the future use, the value, and the enjoyment of his rent-controlled apartment.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION IN
VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
32. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
33. Under section 37.9 of the Rent Ordinance, a landlord cannot re-rent a unit
following an Ellis Act eviction to a third party at market rate without first offering the unit back
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 4SD em IN DH RB YH N
12
20
to the original tenant.
34. Defendants violated section 37.9 et seg. of the Rent Ordinance by (1) failing to
offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff MASSOL; (2) re-renting the unit in violation of the Ellis
Act restrictions; and (3) concealing the fact that the Subject Unit had been re-rented.
35. Defendants re-rented the unit in violation of Rent Ordinance section 37.9 et seq.
36. Defendants acted in knowing violation of, or in reckless disregard of, the eviction
protections of the Rent Ordinance.
37. Defendants acted in bad faith and with dishonest intent.
38. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered rent differential
damages, bodily injury, wage loss, property damage, emotional distress, statutory damages,
statutory penalties, treble damages, attorney fees, and litigation costs
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ELLIS ACT AGAINST ALL
DEFENDANTS
39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
40. Under the Ellis Act is found in California Government Code Section 7060 et segq.,
a landlord cannot Ellis Act a tenant out of a residential building and re-rent the unit to a third
party at market rate without first offering the unit back to the original tenant.
Al. Defendants violated the Ellis Act by (1) failing to offer the Subject Unit back to
Plaintiff MASSOL; (2) re-renting the unit in violation of the Ellis Act restrictions; and (3)
concealing the fact that the Subject Unit had been re-rented.
42. Defendants re-rented the unit to a third party in violation of the Ellis Act.
43. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered rent differential
damages, bodily injury, wage loss, property loss, emotional distress, statutory damages, statutory
penalties, and litigation costs.
44. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants
were willful, malicious, and oppressive. The Notice of Constraints was recorded before
Defendants took ownership of the property. The Notice of Constraints stated that the Subject
Property could not be re-rented. Plaintiff timely filed a Notice of Interest in Renewed
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 5SD em IN DH RB YH N
12
20
Accommodations with the San Francisco Rent Board with his current contact information, but
Defendants failed to offer the Subject Unit back to him.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 37.11A OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.
46. Under section 37.11A of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, no landlord or
landlord agent shall attempt to prevent tenants from acquiring any rights under the San Francisco
Rent Ordinance. Defendants violated section 37.11A of the Rent Ordinance by failing to offer
the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff prior to Defendants re-renting the unit to a new tenant.
47. Defendants prevented Plaintiff from acquiring Plaintiff's right to re-rent the
Subject Unit at Plaintiff's rent-controlled rate in violation of Rent Ordinance section 37.9A(a)(1)J
48. Defendants did these acts in bad faith.
49. AS a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered from emotional
distress, statutory penalties, statutory damages, treble damages, loss of the use and enjoyment of
a rental unit, moving costs, attorney fees, and litigation costs.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 37.9A OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.
51. Under section 37.9A of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, a landlord is required
to offer a unit back to an original tenant prior to renting that unit to a third party if the Ellis Act
was used to evict tenants from that property.
52. Defendants violated section 37.9A of the Rent Ordinance by failing to offer the
Subject Unit back to Plaintiff prior to Defendants re-renting the unit to a new tenant.
53. Defendants did these acts in bad faith.
54. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered from emotional
distress, statutory penalties, statutory damages, treble damages, loss of the use and enjoyment of
arental unit, moving costs, attorney fees, and litigation costs.
Ml
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 6SD em IN DH RB YH N
12
20
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 37.9(f) OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
55. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
56. Under section 37.9(f) of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, it is unlawful for a
landlord to wrongfully endeavor to recover possession or recover possession of a rental unit in
violation of San Francisco Rent Ordinance section 37.10A.
357. San Francisco Rent Ordinance section 37.10A requires that a landlord satisfy all
requirements for recovery of the unit, including offering to re-rent the unit to an evicted tenant at
that tenant’s rent-controlled rate prior to re-renting to another tenant when possession was
recovered pursuant to the Ellis Act.
58. | Defendants violated section 37.9(f) of the Rent Ordinance by recovering
possession and failing to offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff prior to Defendants re-renting
the unit to a new tenant.
59. Defendants acted in knowing violation of or in reckless disregard of Section 37.9
or 37.10A.
60. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered rent differential
damages, bodily injury, wage loss, property damage, emotional distress, statutory damages,
statutory penalties, treble damages, attorney fees, and litigation costs.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
62. Defendants’ conduct in (1) failing to offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff
MASSOL,; (2) re-renting the unit in violation of the Ellis Act restrictions; and (3) concealing the
fact that the Subject Unit had been re-rented was outrageous.
63. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiff emotional distress or acted with reckless
disregard of the probability that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress.
64. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress. Plaintiff suffered from annoyance,
mental anguish, sleeplessness, worry, fear, discomfort, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 7SD em IN DH RB YH N
12
20
65. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff severe emotional
distress, and Plaintiff suffered mental injury, rent differential damages, and loss of enjoyment of
the rental home.
66. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’
conduct was willful, malicious, and oppressive.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
68. Defendants owned and/or managed the Subject Unit as a residential rental
property. Defendants were and are in the business of landlording and in the business of property
management.
69. Defendants engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices by (1) failing to
offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff MASSOL; (2) re-renting the unit in violation of the Ellis
Act restrictions; and (3) concealing the fact that the Subject Unit had been re-rented.
70. Defendants violated Rent Ordinance section 37.9 and the Ellis Act.
71. By failing to offer to re-rent the Subject Property to Plaintiff MASSOL at his rent+
controlled rate, and by instead renting it at market rate to third parties, Defendants were unjustly
enriched.
72. Asaresult of the unfair business practices by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered from
loss of enjoyment of the rental home for which he had a right to re-rent at his rent-controlled rate
and rent differential damages.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
73. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
(Fraudulent Concealment)
74. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff as owners and/or managers of the
Subject Unit and Subject Property.
75. Plaintiff was harmed because Defendants concealed from Plaintiff the fact that
they re-rented the Subject Unit.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 8SD em IN DH RB YH N
12
20
76. Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiff by actively concealing these facts.
77. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’ deceptions.
78. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants’ deception and concealment.
79. Defendants’ deception and concealment was a substantial factor in causing harm
to Plaintiff. As a result of Defendants’ deception and concealment, Plaintiff suffered rent
differential damages, emotional distress, bodily injury, property damage, and wage loss.
80. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’
conduct was willful, malicious, and oppressive.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
81. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.
82. An actual controversy now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants in that
Plaintiff contends:
a. Plaintiff has the right to recover possession of the Subject Unit.
b. Upon Plaintiff's recovery of possession, Plaintiff's monthly rent is $1,160 per
month, which is the amount it was at the time he was wrongfully evicted.
83. Defendants contend to the contrary and deny that they are obligated to fulfill
those duties or that Plaintiff has these rights.
84. By virtue of the above controversy, Plaintiff seeks a declaration as to the above
and to enjoin Defendants to allow Plaintiff to recover possession of the Subject Unit at the same
rental amount as that which was in place at the time they vacated.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. For declaratory relief as requested above;
2. For injunctive relief ordering Defendants to re-rent the Subject Unit to Plaintiff as
a rent-controlled unit at the monthly rent of $1,160;
3. For general damages;
4. For special damages according to proof;
5. For prejudgment interest on the amount of any damages awarded;
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 91 6. For damages for emotional distress under applicable causes of action;
2 7. For damages for property loss under applicable causes of action;
3 8. For damages for wage loss under applicable causes of action;
4 9. For damages for bodily injury under applicable causes of action;
5 10. For contractual damages under applicable causes of action;
6 11. For attorney fees, expert witness fees, and costs pursuant to contract and statute
7 || under applicable causes of action;
8 12. For an order requiring Defendants to disgorge any improper profits and restore
9 || Plaintiff's monetary losses resulting from Defendants’ unfair business practices; for restitution to]
10 || Plaintiff of those profits and losses; and any prejudgment interest thereon;
ll 13. For statutory penalties under applicable causes of action;
12 14. For statutory damages under applicable causes of action;
13 15. For punitive damages under applicable causes of action: and
14 16. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
15
16 || DATED: August, 2018
7 TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP
18
19
0 Joseph 8S. Tobener
Attorney for Plaintiff
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 10EXHIBIT A“4
City and County of San Francisco Residentiar Rent Stabilization and
Arbitration Board
gy 3g
To: Migvél PALA BON a
7 {Owner's Nama) Bom a 3
My name is AlEXxIS MASS67. : =
(Print Your Name) 2 Se = nm
| am/was a tenant at ZB6S Foleo Ff. Sén Kathi, o
(Tenant's Address) Zor to
San Francisco, California 941 10.
| wish to be contacted by the owner in the event that the accommodations at this
address are again offered for rent or lease within ten years from the date on which they
are withdrawn from rent or lease. | can be contacted at or through the following
address(es) and wish any offer to renew the tenancy be sent to me as follows:
First Address Second Address
2. 2at
perueien 9466!
Ph : Y4igs - S77 - G08 7 Ph :
Emails, 2225502. auAo 6 9 Hatl il ermal:
If you wish to include additional addresses, please attach a separate sheet of paper with
the address(es) legibly written under the title "NOTICE OF INTEREST IN
ACCOMMODATIONS - ADDITIONAL ADDRESSES." IT IS IMPORTANT TO UPDATE THIS
INFORMATION IF THE TENANT LATER CHANGES HIS/HER ADDRESS BECAUSE THE OWNER
IS ONLY OBLIGATED TO ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE TENANT AT THE LAST ADDRESS
GIVEN BY THE TENANT. BE SURE THESE OTHER ADDRESSES ARE FORWARDED TO BOTH
THE OWNER(S) AND THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT BOARD.
This notice should be given to the owner(s) no later than 30 days after the day the
tenant has vacated the property to be withdrawn. This notice can also be given to the
San Francisco Rent Board, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320, San Francisco, CA 94102 at
any time.
3/ tof vol
7 (Date) (Signature of Tenant)
NOTE: EACH TENANT WHO IS INTERESTED IN RECEIVING NOTICE THAT THE
ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS ADDRESS ARE AGAIN OFFERED FOR RENT OR LEASE
MUST FILE A SEPARATE NOTICE OF INTEREST IN RENEWED ACCOMMODATIONS.
541/Ellisforms/Notice of Interest/9/28/06 FORM 6
25 Van Ness Ave., #320, San Francisco, CA 94102 415.252.4602 Fax 415.252.4699EXHIBIT BRECORDING REQUESTED at
City and County of San Francisco
Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320
San Francisco, CA 94102
ama MUA
ae Assessor-Recorder
tare lu, Assessor-Recorder
(415) 252-4602 DOC- 2014-3871836-00
Acct 37-Rent Arbitration Board
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Wednesday, APR 30, 2014 10:58:44
City and County of San Francisco Tt] Pd $0. 0 Rept # 0004928374
Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board oke/KC/1-1
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 252-4602 |
NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY
(to be recorded by the Rent Board)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7060.2 and San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 37, Section
37.9A, the City of San Francisco has determined to apply constraints to successors in interest to an owner(s)
who has withdrawn residential accommodations from rent or lease.
The real property where the accommodations are located is specifically described as:
Block: 6521 Lot: 31
Address: 2853-2855 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94110
Name of Owner(s): Alberto Parra Irrevocable Trust (Miguel Parra, Trustee)
The date on which the accommodations are to be withdrawn from rent or lease is April 15, 2014.
The constraints set forth in the following sections apply to the units until the dates indicated:
+ Government Code Section 7060.2(a)&(d) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(a)&(b):
April 15, 2019. (Five years from date of withdrawal)
* Government Code Section 7060.2(c) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(c):
April 15, 2024, (Ten years from date of withdrawal)
ALL OF THE TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS AS NAMED IN THIS DOCUMENT
WILL TERMINATE AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF ANY
RECORDED TERMINATION, AFTER APRIL 15, 2024.
Dated: April 16, 2014 Lib lly
Delene Wolf, Executive Director, San Francisco Rent Board
tIshrd/ellis/2013ellisdocs/L132030 FORM7oC Om YD HA
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of
18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 21 Masonic Avenue, Suite A, San
Francisco, California 94118.
On today’s date, I served the following document(s) described as PLAINTIFF’S
NOTICE OF ERRATA AND AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT B TO THE DECLARATION
OF BRIAN BROPHY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on all parties in this action as follows:
Mr. Jeffrey V. Ta
BLEDSOE, D) TEL, TREPPA & CRANE LLP
601 California Street, 16" Floor
San Francisco, California 94108
Fax: (415) 981-0352
Email: jta@bledsoelaw.com
_X_ By placing a true copy of the above-referenced document(s) in a sealed envelope to
be sent by mail. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and
processing of mailing. Under the practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepared at San Francisco,
California in the ordinary course of business.
By Fax. I forwarded the above-referenced document(s) by fax to the office of the
addressee(s) at the fax number listed above.
By Email. I forwarded the above-referenced document(s) by email to the office of the
addressee(s) at the email address(es) listed above.
X By Electronic Service. I transmitted electronically the above-referenced document(s)
as set forth on the electronic service list on this date before 5:00 p.m.
By Personal Service. By causing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, to
be personally delivered on the date indicated below.
Executed on August 22, 2018 at San Francisco, California.
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
— Miovey ;
Preview
SD em IN DH RB YH N 12 20 TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP JOSEPH TOBENER, SBN 203419 BRIAN BROPHY, SBN 282011 ELECTRONICALLY 21 Masonic Avenue, Suite A FILED San Francisco, California 94118 Superior Court of California, Telephone: (415) 504-2165 County of San Francisco Facsimile: (415) 418-3492 08/22/2018 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Deputy|Clerk Attorneys for PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ALEXIS MASSOL, Case No.: CGC-17-560723 Plaintiff, (Unlimited Civil Case) PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF ERRATA AND v. AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT B TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN BROPHY IN MINH GIAO KHAC LE, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TERRY TRAN, LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED XUAN NHUT TRAN, and COMPLAINT DOES | through 10, Dept. 501 Defendants. Date: September 5, 2018 Time: 9:30 a.m. There was an error in the Declaration of Brian Brophy, filed on August 7, 2018 in support) of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Specifically, the exhibits t the Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit B to Brophy Decl.) were inadvertently left out. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully submits the following errata: Exhibit B, a copy of which is attached hereto, and which includes the missing exhibits, shall replace Exhibit B to the Declaration of Brian Brophy in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Af If PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ERRATA AND AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT B TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN BROPHY} IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - |SD em IN DH RB YH N Se IAA RE OH = 20 DATED: August 22, 2018 TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP rophy Attorney for Plaintiff PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ERRATA AND AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT B TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN BROPHY} IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - 2EXHIBIT BSD em IN DH RB YH N 12 20 TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP JOSEPH TOBENER, SBN 203419 BRIAN BROPHY, SBN 282011 21 Masonic Avenue, Suite A San Francisco, California 94118 Telephone: (415) 504-2165 Facsimile: (415) 418-3492 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ALEXIS MASSOL, Plaintiff, v. MINH GIAO KHAC LE, TERRY TRAN, XUAN NHUT TRAN, and DOES | through 10, Defendants. Plaintiff ALEXIS MASSOL alleges: Case No.: CGC-17-560723 (Unlimited Civil Case) [PROPOSED] SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (*) (8) (9) (10) NEGLIGENCE; WRONGFUL EVICTION IN VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE; WRONGFUL EVICTION IN VIOLATION OF THE ELLIS ACT: VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE SECTION 37.11A; VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE SECTION 37.9A; VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE SECTION 37.9(f); INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; FRAUD; and DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. Plaintiff ALEXIS MASSOL was a residential tenant at 2855 Folsom Street, San SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 1SD em IN DH RB YH N 12 20 Francisco, California (“the Subject Unit”) from in or around 1996 to on or about March 16, 2014. 2. The Subject Unit is one of three units located at 2853-2855 Folsom Street, San Francisco, California (“the Subject Property”). The Subject Property was built in 1902. 3. When Plaintiff MASSOL vacated the Subject Unit, his monthly rent-controlled rate was $1,160 per month, which was well below the then fair market value. 4, Defendants TERRY TRAN and XUAN NHUT TRAN purchased the Subject Property in June 4, 2014. 5. Defendant MINH GIAO KHAC LE was granted a twenty-five percent undivided interest in the Subject Property on December 2, 2014. 6. Defendants TERRY TRAN, XUAN NHUT TRAN, MINH GIAO KHAC LE, and DOES | to 10 are the current owner and managers of the Subject Property. 7. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, involvement, or capacities of Defendants DOES | through 10. Plaintiff is informed and believe that each DOE Defendant is in some way responsible for Plaintiff's damages. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint when he learns the true names of the DOE Defendants. 8. Defendants TERRY TRAN, XUAN NHUT TRAN, MINH GIAO KHAC LE, and} DOES | to 10 are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”. 9. At all times relevant herein, each Defendant was the agent, servant, employee or alter ego of the remaining Defendants, or acted with their consent, ratification and authorization, and in doing the acts hereinafter alleged, each Defendant acted in such capacity with respect to the remaining Defendants. 10. This Court is the proper jurisdiction for this complaint because Defendants reside in its jurisdictional area, the Subject Unit is in its jurisdictional area, Plaintiff is subject to a residential rental agreement in its jurisdictional area, Defendants conduct business in its jurisdictional area, and Plaintiff was injured in its jurisdictional area. 11. The amount in controversy is within the jurisdiction of this Court. 12. At all relevant times, the Subject Unit was covered under the San Francisco Rent SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 2SD em IN DH RB YH N 12 20 Ordinance (the “Rent Ordinance”). SAN FRANCISCO ADMIN. CODE § 37.2(r). 13. On December 16, 2013, the former owners of the Subject Unit delivered a notice of intent to withdraw the Subject Unit from the rental market (the “Withdrawal Notice”). 14. On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff MASSOL informed the former owners that he was disabled and therefore entitled to an extension of the end of his tenancy to one year from the date of the delivery of the notice. Under California Civil Civil Code section 7060.4, when an evicted tenant is disabled, the withdrawal date is extended to one year after the date of delivery of the Withdrawal Notice to the public entity. The date of withdrawal was therefore extended by law to December 16, 2014. 15. At the time that Plaintiff MASSOL timely vacated pursuant to a proper Ellis Act notice, Plaintiff MASSOL filed a Notice of Interest in Renewed Accommodations, providing notice that he wanted to return if the unit was re-rented. The Notice of Interest in Renewed Accommodations had Plaintiff MASSOL’s current contact information. (Exhibit A). 16. A Notice of Constraints was filed against the Subject Property, removing all units from rent or lease. (Exhibit B). 17. On September 1, 2015, Defendants re-rented the Subject Unit to a third party without offering the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff MASSOL, in violation of Ellis Act restrictions} on the property, in violation of the Rent Ordinance, and in violation of the Ellis Act. 18. Plaintiff MASSOL planned on living in the Subject Unit indefinitely. 19, Because of Defendants re-rental of the unit in violation of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and the Ellis Act, Plaintiff MASSOL suffered from, inter alia, property loss, bodily injury, lost wages, emotional distress, and loss of the value of a rent-controlled unit. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 20. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 21. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff as owners and/or managers of a residential rental property. 22. Defendants breached that duty by (1) failing to offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff MASSOL; (2) re-renting the unit in violation of the Ellis Act restrictions; and (3) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 3SD em IN DH RB YH N 12 20 concealing the fact that the Subject Unit had been re-rented. 23. Defendants’ acts and omissions were in violation of sections 37.9 et seg., 37.10A et seq. and 37.11A et seg. of the Rent Ordinance and the Ellis Act is found in California Government Code section 7060, et seg. 24. These statutes were designed to protect Plaintiff from the very harm complained about herein. 25. Defendants’ violations of these statutes were substantial factors in causing harm to Plaintiff MASSOL. 26. Asaresult of Defendants’ breach of duty and obligations, Plaintiff MASSOL suffered from property loss, including loss of furniture, artwork, musical instruments, and musical equipment. 27. Asaresult of Defendants’ breach of duty and obligations, Plaintiff MASSOL suffered bodily injury, including chest pain, back pain, and shoulder pain. 28. As aresult of Defendants’ breach of duty and obligations, Plaintiff MASSOL suffered wage loss. 29. As aresult of Defendants’ breach of duty and obligations under these statutes, Plaintiff MASSOL suffered from serious emotional distress, including anguish, nervousness, sleeplessness, stress, worry, shock, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation. 30. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff MASSOL was sufficiently severe that} an ordinary person would have been unable to deal with it. 31. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their duty, Plaintiff MASSOL suffered the loss of the future use, the value, and the enjoyment of his rent-controlled apartment. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION IN VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 32. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 33. Under section 37.9 of the Rent Ordinance, a landlord cannot re-rent a unit following an Ellis Act eviction to a third party at market rate without first offering the unit back SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 4SD em IN DH RB YH N 12 20 to the original tenant. 34. Defendants violated section 37.9 et seg. of the Rent Ordinance by (1) failing to offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff MASSOL; (2) re-renting the unit in violation of the Ellis Act restrictions; and (3) concealing the fact that the Subject Unit had been re-rented. 35. Defendants re-rented the unit in violation of Rent Ordinance section 37.9 et seq. 36. Defendants acted in knowing violation of, or in reckless disregard of, the eviction protections of the Rent Ordinance. 37. Defendants acted in bad faith and with dishonest intent. 38. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered rent differential damages, bodily injury, wage loss, property damage, emotional distress, statutory damages, statutory penalties, treble damages, attorney fees, and litigation costs THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ELLIS ACT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 40. Under the Ellis Act is found in California Government Code Section 7060 et segq., a landlord cannot Ellis Act a tenant out of a residential building and re-rent the unit to a third party at market rate without first offering the unit back to the original tenant. Al. Defendants violated the Ellis Act by (1) failing to offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff MASSOL; (2) re-renting the unit in violation of the Ellis Act restrictions; and (3) concealing the fact that the Subject Unit had been re-rented. 42. Defendants re-rented the unit to a third party in violation of the Ellis Act. 43. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered rent differential damages, bodily injury, wage loss, property loss, emotional distress, statutory damages, statutory penalties, and litigation costs. 44. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants were willful, malicious, and oppressive. The Notice of Constraints was recorded before Defendants took ownership of the property. The Notice of Constraints stated that the Subject Property could not be re-rented. Plaintiff timely filed a Notice of Interest in Renewed SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 5SD em IN DH RB YH N 12 20 Accommodations with the San Francisco Rent Board with his current contact information, but Defendants failed to offer the Subject Unit back to him. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 37.11A OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 46. Under section 37.11A of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, no landlord or landlord agent shall attempt to prevent tenants from acquiring any rights under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. Defendants violated section 37.11A of the Rent Ordinance by failing to offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff prior to Defendants re-renting the unit to a new tenant. 47. Defendants prevented Plaintiff from acquiring Plaintiff's right to re-rent the Subject Unit at Plaintiff's rent-controlled rate in violation of Rent Ordinance section 37.9A(a)(1)J 48. Defendants did these acts in bad faith. 49. AS a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered from emotional distress, statutory penalties, statutory damages, treble damages, loss of the use and enjoyment of a rental unit, moving costs, attorney fees, and litigation costs. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 37.9A OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 51. Under section 37.9A of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, a landlord is required to offer a unit back to an original tenant prior to renting that unit to a third party if the Ellis Act was used to evict tenants from that property. 52. Defendants violated section 37.9A of the Rent Ordinance by failing to offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff prior to Defendants re-renting the unit to a new tenant. 53. Defendants did these acts in bad faith. 54. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered from emotional distress, statutory penalties, statutory damages, treble damages, loss of the use and enjoyment of arental unit, moving costs, attorney fees, and litigation costs. Ml SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 6SD em IN DH RB YH N 12 20 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 37.9(f) OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 55. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 56. Under section 37.9(f) of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, it is unlawful for a landlord to wrongfully endeavor to recover possession or recover possession of a rental unit in violation of San Francisco Rent Ordinance section 37.10A. 357. San Francisco Rent Ordinance section 37.10A requires that a landlord satisfy all requirements for recovery of the unit, including offering to re-rent the unit to an evicted tenant at that tenant’s rent-controlled rate prior to re-renting to another tenant when possession was recovered pursuant to the Ellis Act. 58. | Defendants violated section 37.9(f) of the Rent Ordinance by recovering possession and failing to offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff prior to Defendants re-renting the unit to a new tenant. 59. Defendants acted in knowing violation of or in reckless disregard of Section 37.9 or 37.10A. 60. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered rent differential damages, bodily injury, wage loss, property damage, emotional distress, statutory damages, statutory penalties, treble damages, attorney fees, and litigation costs. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 62. Defendants’ conduct in (1) failing to offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff MASSOL,; (2) re-renting the unit in violation of the Ellis Act restrictions; and (3) concealing the fact that the Subject Unit had been re-rented was outrageous. 63. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiff emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress. 64. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress. Plaintiff suffered from annoyance, mental anguish, sleeplessness, worry, fear, discomfort, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 7SD em IN DH RB YH N 12 20 65. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress, and Plaintiff suffered mental injury, rent differential damages, and loss of enjoyment of the rental home. 66. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’ conduct was willful, malicious, and oppressive. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 68. Defendants owned and/or managed the Subject Unit as a residential rental property. Defendants were and are in the business of landlording and in the business of property management. 69. Defendants engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices by (1) failing to offer the Subject Unit back to Plaintiff MASSOL; (2) re-renting the unit in violation of the Ellis Act restrictions; and (3) concealing the fact that the Subject Unit had been re-rented. 70. Defendants violated Rent Ordinance section 37.9 and the Ellis Act. 71. By failing to offer to re-rent the Subject Property to Plaintiff MASSOL at his rent+ controlled rate, and by instead renting it at market rate to third parties, Defendants were unjustly enriched. 72. Asaresult of the unfair business practices by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered from loss of enjoyment of the rental home for which he had a right to re-rent at his rent-controlled rate and rent differential damages. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 73. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs. (Fraudulent Concealment) 74. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff as owners and/or managers of the Subject Unit and Subject Property. 75. Plaintiff was harmed because Defendants concealed from Plaintiff the fact that they re-rented the Subject Unit. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 8SD em IN DH RB YH N 12 20 76. Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiff by actively concealing these facts. 77. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’ deceptions. 78. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants’ deception and concealment. 79. Defendants’ deception and concealment was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. As a result of Defendants’ deception and concealment, Plaintiff suffered rent differential damages, emotional distress, bodily injury, property damage, and wage loss. 80. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’ conduct was willful, malicious, and oppressive. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 81. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 82. An actual controversy now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants in that Plaintiff contends: a. Plaintiff has the right to recover possession of the Subject Unit. b. Upon Plaintiff's recovery of possession, Plaintiff's monthly rent is $1,160 per month, which is the amount it was at the time he was wrongfully evicted. 83. Defendants contend to the contrary and deny that they are obligated to fulfill those duties or that Plaintiff has these rights. 84. By virtue of the above controversy, Plaintiff seeks a declaration as to the above and to enjoin Defendants to allow Plaintiff to recover possession of the Subject Unit at the same rental amount as that which was in place at the time they vacated. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. For declaratory relief as requested above; 2. For injunctive relief ordering Defendants to re-rent the Subject Unit to Plaintiff as a rent-controlled unit at the monthly rent of $1,160; 3. For general damages; 4. For special damages according to proof; 5. For prejudgment interest on the amount of any damages awarded; SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 91 6. For damages for emotional distress under applicable causes of action; 2 7. For damages for property loss under applicable causes of action; 3 8. For damages for wage loss under applicable causes of action; 4 9. For damages for bodily injury under applicable causes of action; 5 10. For contractual damages under applicable causes of action; 6 11. For attorney fees, expert witness fees, and costs pursuant to contract and statute 7 || under applicable causes of action; 8 12. For an order requiring Defendants to disgorge any improper profits and restore 9 || Plaintiff's monetary losses resulting from Defendants’ unfair business practices; for restitution to] 10 || Plaintiff of those profits and losses; and any prejudgment interest thereon; ll 13. For statutory penalties under applicable causes of action; 12 14. For statutory damages under applicable causes of action; 13 15. For punitive damages under applicable causes of action: and 14 16. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. 15 16 || DATED: August, 2018 7 TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP 18 19 0 Joseph 8S. Tobener Attorney for Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- 10EXHIBIT A“4 City and County of San Francisco Residentiar Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board gy 3g To: Migvél PALA BON a 7 {Owner's Nama) Bom a 3 My name is AlEXxIS MASS67. : = (Print Your Name) 2 Se = nm | am/was a tenant at ZB6S Foleo Ff. Sén Kathi, o (Tenant's Address) Zor to San Francisco, California 941 10. | wish to be contacted by the owner in the event that the accommodations at this address are again offered for rent or lease within ten years from the date on which they are withdrawn from rent or lease. | can be contacted at or through the following address(es) and wish any offer to renew the tenancy be sent to me as follows: First Address Second Address 2. 2at perueien 9466! Ph : Y4igs - S77 - G08 7 Ph : Emails, 2225502. auAo 6 9 Hatl il ermal: If you wish to include additional addresses, please attach a separate sheet of paper with the address(es) legibly written under the title "NOTICE OF INTEREST IN ACCOMMODATIONS - ADDITIONAL ADDRESSES." IT IS IMPORTANT TO UPDATE THIS INFORMATION IF THE TENANT LATER CHANGES HIS/HER ADDRESS BECAUSE THE OWNER IS ONLY OBLIGATED TO ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE TENANT AT THE LAST ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE TENANT. BE SURE THESE OTHER ADDRESSES ARE FORWARDED TO BOTH THE OWNER(S) AND THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT BOARD. This notice should be given to the owner(s) no later than 30 days after the day the tenant has vacated the property to be withdrawn. This notice can also be given to the San Francisco Rent Board, 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320, San Francisco, CA 94102 at any time. 3/ tof vol 7 (Date) (Signature of Tenant) NOTE: EACH TENANT WHO IS INTERESTED IN RECEIVING NOTICE THAT THE ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS ADDRESS ARE AGAIN OFFERED FOR RENT OR LEASE MUST FILE A SEPARATE NOTICE OF INTEREST IN RENEWED ACCOMMODATIONS. 541/Ellisforms/Notice of Interest/9/28/06 FORM 6 25 Van Ness Ave., #320, San Francisco, CA 94102 415.252.4602 Fax 415.252.4699EXHIBIT BRECORDING REQUESTED at City and County of San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94102 ama MUA ae Assessor-Recorder tare lu, Assessor-Recorder (415) 252-4602 DOC- 2014-3871836-00 Acct 37-Rent Arbitration Board WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Wednesday, APR 30, 2014 10:58:44 City and County of San Francisco Tt] Pd $0. 0 Rept # 0004928374 Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board oke/KC/1-1 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 252-4602 | NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY (to be recorded by the Rent Board) Pursuant to Government Code Section 7060.2 and San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 37, Section 37.9A, the City of San Francisco has determined to apply constraints to successors in interest to an owner(s) who has withdrawn residential accommodations from rent or lease. The real property where the accommodations are located is specifically described as: Block: 6521 Lot: 31 Address: 2853-2855 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94110 Name of Owner(s): Alberto Parra Irrevocable Trust (Miguel Parra, Trustee) The date on which the accommodations are to be withdrawn from rent or lease is April 15, 2014. The constraints set forth in the following sections apply to the units until the dates indicated: + Government Code Section 7060.2(a)&(d) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(a)&(b): April 15, 2019. (Five years from date of withdrawal) * Government Code Section 7060.2(c) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(c): April 15, 2024, (Ten years from date of withdrawal) ALL OF THE TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS AS NAMED IN THIS DOCUMENT WILL TERMINATE AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF ANY RECORDED TERMINATION, AFTER APRIL 15, 2024. Dated: April 16, 2014 Lib lly Delene Wolf, Executive Director, San Francisco Rent Board tIshrd/ellis/2013ellisdocs/L132030 FORM7oC Om YD HA PROOF OF SERVICE 1 am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 21 Masonic Avenue, Suite A, San Francisco, California 94118. On today’s date, I served the following document(s) described as PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ERRATA AND AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT B TO THE DECLARATION OF BRIAN BROPHY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on all parties in this action as follows: Mr. Jeffrey V. Ta BLEDSOE, D) TEL, TREPPA & CRANE LLP 601 California Street, 16" Floor San Francisco, California 94108 Fax: (415) 981-0352 Email: jta@bledsoelaw.com _X_ By placing a true copy of the above-referenced document(s) in a sealed envelope to be sent by mail. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing of mailing. Under the practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepared at San Francisco, California in the ordinary course of business. By Fax. I forwarded the above-referenced document(s) by fax to the office of the addressee(s) at the fax number listed above. By Email. I forwarded the above-referenced document(s) by email to the office of the addressee(s) at the email address(es) listed above. X By Electronic Service. I transmitted electronically the above-referenced document(s) as set forth on the electronic service list on this date before 5:00 p.m. By Personal Service. By causing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, to be personally delivered on the date indicated below. Executed on August 22, 2018 at San Francisco, California. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. — Miovey ;