Preview
1 Daniel J. Lavi, Esq. (SBN 304172)
The Tenants Law Firm
2
9454 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite
3 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
(310) 432-3200
4 litigation@tenantslawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10 [UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE]
11
Case No.:
12
13
COMPLAINT
14 YESENIA YANEZ, an individual,
15
1. BREACH OF
Plaintiff, CONTRACT/COVENANT OF QUIET
16 vs. ENJOYMENT/WARRANTY OF
HABITABILITY
17 29SC BURLINGTON LP, a Delaware limited 2. TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE
18 partnership, MOSS MANAGEMENT IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
HABITABILITY
19 SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, and 3. NEGLIGENCE
DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, 4. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR BUSINESS
20 PRACTICES
Defendants. 5. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
21
CIVIL CODE 1942.5
22 6. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL CODE § 1950.5
23 7. CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
8. TENANT HARASSMENT
24
25
[JURY TRIAL REQUESTED]
26
27 Plaintiff, YESENIA YANEZ, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), is informed and believes, and
28 based upon such information and belief, alleges the following:
COMPLAINT
-1-
1
I. PARTIES
2
1. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant to this action was, an individual residing in the
3
County of Los Angeles, State of California.
4
2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendant 29SC BURLINGTON LP, and
5
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, (hereinafter “BURLINGTON”) is, and at all times relevant
6
to this action was, a Delaware limited partnership doing business in the County of Los
7
Angeles, State of California as owner of the Subject Property since September 12, 2019.
8
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
9
INC., and DOES 11 through 20, inclusive, (hereinafter “MOSS”) is, and at all times
10
relevant to this action was, a California corporation doing business in the County of Los
11
Angeles, State of California as property manager of the Subject Property since in or
12
around June 2020.
13
4. For purposes of this complaint Defendants BURLINGTON, MOSS, and DOES 1 through
14
30, inclusive, are collectively known as “Defendants”. Defendants have been, during all
15 relevant times, the owners and/or managers of the Subject Property.
16 5. Defendants have been, during all relevant times, the owners and/or managers of the
17 premises located at 131 S. Burlington Ave. Apt. 312, Los Angeles, CA 90057 (hereinafter
18 “Subject Property”).
19 6. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, capacities, or basis for liability of defendants DOES
20 1 through 30, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by their fictitious names.
21 Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names, capacities, or basis for
22 liability when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
23 thereon alleges that defendants DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, and each of them, are in
24 some manner liable to Plaintiff, or claim some right, title, or interest in the Subject
25 Property that is junior and inferior to that of Plaintiff, or both.
26 7. At all times relevant to this action, each defendant, including those fictitiously named, was
27 the agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, alter ego, or surety of the other
28 defendants and was acting within the scope of said agency, employment, partnership,
COMPLAINT
-2-
1
venture, or suretyship with the knowledge and consent or ratification of each of the other
2
defendants in doing the things alleged herein.
3
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Business and
5
Professions Code §§17202, 17203, 17204 and 17535, Cal. Civil Code §3479 et seq., and
6
LAMC §11.00.
7
9. This court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in this action under California
8
Constitution, article VI, §10 and C.C.P. §410.10 because Defendants reside in this County
9
and regularly conduct substantial business in Los Angeles County. Defendants have
10
purposefully availed themselves of the substantial benefits of doing business in Los
11
Angeles County; and Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s rights occurred in the County of
12 Los Angeles in whole or in part.
13 10. Venue is proper in the County under C.C.P. §§ 393, 395, and 395.5 because Defendants
14 reside in this County and regularly conduct business in Los Angeles County and
15 Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s rights occurred in Los Angeles.
16 III. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
17 11. Plaintiff entered into a written lease agreement with the prior owner of the Subject
18 Property on or around May 27, 2014, to reside at the Subject Property. Pursuant to the
19 lease, Plaintiff paid rent for the Subject Property on a monthly basis in the amount of
20 $950.00. This amount was increased to $1,045 per month, and then to $1,300 per month in
21 or around April 2018; $1,408 per month in or around April 2019; and $1,529 per month in
22 or around April 2022. In addition, Plaintiff paid Defendants $500.00 as a security deposit
23 for the Subject Property.
24 12. Ownership of the Subject Property transferred to Defendant BURLINGTON during
25 Plaintiff’s tenancy on or around September 12, 2019.
26 13. Plaintiff resided as a tenant in unit 312 of the Subject Property until she was constructively
27 evicted from the Subject Property on or around December 16, 2022.
28 14. Throughout Plaintiff’s tenancy, the Subject Property lacked basic characteristics necessary
COMPLAINT
-3-
1
for human habitation as prescribed by Cal. Civil Code §1941.1 and would be considered a
2
substandard unit as described in Health & Safety Code §17920.3.
3
15. Plaintiff constantly and consistently complained to the Defendants, and each of them,
4
about the following slum-housing and untenantable conditions:
5
a. Dampness and Mold (California Health & Safety Code §17920.3(a)(11));
6 b. Inadequate Sanitation (California Health & Safety Code §17920.3(a), Los
7 Angeles County Health Code §11.200.170);
c. Inadequate Garbage and Rubbish Removal Facilities (California Health &
8 Safety Code §17920.3(a)(16));
d. Vermin Infestation (Cal. Civil Code §1941.1(a)(6) and California Health &
9 Safety Code §17920.3(a)(12));
10 e. Lack of Access to Hot Water (Cal. Civil Code §1941.1(a)(3));
f. Lack of Heating and Ventilation (Cal. Civil Code §1941.1(a)(4) and California
11 Health & Safety Code §§17920.3(a)(6) & (7));
g. Improper Maintenance and Dilapidation (California Health and Safety Code
12 §17920.3(a)(14));
13 h. Failure to Maintain Mechanical Equipment (California Health & Safety Code
§17920 (f));
14 i. Structural Hazards (Cal Civil Code §1941.1(a)(8), California Health & Safety
Code §§17920.3(a)(14) & (b), Los Angeles County Health Code §§11.200.140(B)
15 (3) & (11));
16
j. Failure to Maintain Premises in a Good and Safe Condition (California Health
& Safety Code §17920.3(i) through (n), Los Angeles Health Code §11.20.140);
17 k. Nuisance (Health and Safety Code §17920.3(c));
l. Harassment/Landlord Retaliation (Cal. Civil Code §§1940.2, 1942.5 & 1954).
18
19 16. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the following
20 defects yet failed to take timely or reasonable steps to abate and/or remedy the defects.
21 Any repairs that were undertaken by Defendants were inadequate and/or exacerbated the
22 subject problem. Defendants failed to repair and abate the defects at the Subject Property
23 to save money and increase Defendants' cash flow and net income. Discovery of
24 Defendants' profit and loss statements will reveal that, at all relevant times, Defendants
25 failed to spend sufficient monies on repairs, maintenance, and pest control consistent with
26 the applicable standard of care.
27 17. Water Leaks and Mold: Throughout Plaintiff’s tenancy, the Subject Property had chronic
28 water leaks inside Plaintiff’s individual unit. Beginning in or around April 2020 and
COMPLAINT
-4-
1
recurring periodically, the Subject Property’s ceiling leaked water into Plaintiff’s kitchen.
2
The leaks would drench Plaintiff’s kitchen ceiling light and spread to the stove top and
3
floor, causing significant safety and habitability issues in the kitchen. Due to serious safety
4
concerns, Plaintiff would frequently not have use of her kitchen. Plaintiff endured stress
5
from the risk that the water leaking through the lights and onto the electrical appliances
6
and outlets would cause a fire or electrocution. Defendants ignored Plaintiff’s pleas for
7
remediation for an unnecessary and prolonged period. Plaintiff went without proper use of
8
her kitchen until on or around December 5, 2022. Despite the significant reduction in
9
accessibility to amenities at the Subject Property for nearly two years, Plaintiff received
10
no reduction in her rent despite a direct request for one. Additionally, due to the prolonged
11
and significant leaks that went without proper remediation, Plaintiff eventually discovered
12 black mold in the kitchen cabinets of the Subject Property. Defendants have at all times,
13 known of the chronic water leaks and mold growth at the Subject Property, yet the
14 Defendants still did nothing to legitimately abate these obvious and serious health threats.
15 Defendants have at all times, willfully and/or negligently failed to remediate the constant
16 water leaks and chronic mold, which endangered Plaintiff’s life, to save money and
17 increase their cash flow and net income from the operation and management of the Subject
18 Property.
19 18. Vermin Infestations: The Subject Property was not cleaned or maintained so that vermin
20 were able to infest the premises. Defendants allowed the Subject Property to become
21 dilapidated, debris to be left throughout the premises, trash and unsanitary conditions to
22 exist unabated in common areas, and ignored conditions that exacerbated the building’s
23 vermin infestations. During Plaintiff’s tenancy the Subject Property was infested with
24 rodents, cockroaches and bedbugs that created an inhumane living environment. These
25 issues persisted unabated by Defendants during Plaintiff’s tenancy. These inhumane living
26 conditions not only caused Plaintiff significant distress but exposed her to contaminants
27 including vermin feces and allergens. This infestation included rats scurrying about
28 Plaintiff’s unit, including in her bedroom. Plaintiff was forced to remediate this issue
COMPLAINT
-5-
1
herself and had to purchase traps to catch and remove the rats. In addition to the rodent
2
infestation, in March and April of 2022, Plaintiff’s unit was also subjected to a bedbug
3
infestation. This infestation started after the unit next to hers became infested and the issue
4
was not properly remediated by Defendants. Again, Defendants failed to assist the
5
Plaintiff in resolving the infestation. Instead, Plaintiff had to attempt to abate the issue on
6
her own. Plaintiff attempted several remedies to abate the issue, but it persisted for several
7
months. Plaintiff taped the electrical outlets to prevent bugs from coming in from the unit
8
next door; Plaintiff bought a bed cover to kill and prevent new bedbugs from hatching;
9
and Plaintiff placed small cups of water out near the legs of her bed to attempt to resolve
10
the habitability issue but to no avail. Eventually, because of Defendants’ neglect, Plaintiff
11
had to dispose of her bed and purchase a new one. Defendants have at all times, known of
12 the vermin infestations at the Subject Property, yet the Defendants still did nothing to
13 legitimately abate these obvious and serious health threats. Defendants have at all times
14 intentionally and/or negligently failed to properly abate and eradicate the vermin
15 infestations at the Subject Property to save money and increase their cash flow and net
16 income from their operation and management of the Subject Property.
17 19. Inadequate Garbage Removal: The Subject Property suffered from inadequate sanitation
18 and garbage removal which led to the aforementioned vermin infestations. The Defendants
19 knew of this issue and were directly responsible for the failure to maintain the premises in
20 a clean and sanitary fashion. In early 2022, Defendants allowed trash and debris to
21 accumulate on the west end of the parking garage and into the street/parking lot. It became
22 such a significant habitability and safety issue that the Los Angeles Housing Department
23 (hereinafter “LAHD”) cited the Subject Property for numerous code violations, including
24 but not limited to: unsafe, or unclean building and/or premises; insect, vermin and/or
25 rodent infestations; trash, debris, and/or discarded items stored on premises; miscellaneous
26 articles stored on premises; front yard landscaping requiring maintenance; lack of
27 adequate number of receptacles for garbage and rubbish. LAHD issued Defendants a
28 “Notice to Comply”. Unfortunately, this did not deter Defendants unlawful behavior.
COMPLAINT
-6-
1
Later, in or around September 2022, Plaintiff was forced to file another complaint with
2
LAHD because Defendants again permitted garbage to pile up in the street which
3
obstructed traffic for two weeks. The unsanitary nature and inadequate garbage removal at
4
the Subject Property exacerbated the vermin infestations and caused Plaintiffs to suffer
5
emotional distress, and property damage. Defendants have at all times known of the
6
physical defects at the Subject Property, yet the Defendants still did nothing to
7
legitimately abate these obvious and serious health threats. Defendants have at all times
8
intentionally and/or negligently failed to repair and/or abate the defects at the Subject
9
Property to save money and increase their cash flow and net income from the operation
10
and management of the Subject Property.
11
20. Lack of Access to Hot Water: The Subject Property was not maintained throughout
12 Plaintiff’s tenancy and consequently, Plaintiff did not receive the full beneficial use and
13 enjoyment of the unit. Specifically, Plaintiff was denied access to hot, running water on
14 numerous occasions. Plaintiff sent several notices to the Defendants informing them that
15 she was being denied access to hot, running water, yet the issue persisted, episodically,
16 throughout Plaintiff’s tenancy. For days, or even weeks at a time during Defendant
17 BURLINGTON’s ownership, Plaintiff was left without hot or running water, including but
18 not limited to the following months: November of 2020; in January of 2021; in April of
19 2022; in August of 2022. Plaintiff was often forced to boil hot water to take showers. This
20 recurrent lack of access to hot, running water caused Plaintiff not only extreme
21 inconvenience but significant distress, especially during the COVID pandemic.
22 Defendants have at all times known of Plaintiff’s lack of accessible hot water at the
23 Subject Property, yet the Defendants still did nothing to legitimately abate these obvious
24 and serious health threats. Defendants have at all times intentionally and/or negligently
25 failed to remediate Plaintiff’s lack of accessible hot water at the Subject Property to save
26 money and increase their cash flow and net income from the operation and management of
27 the Subject Property.
28
COMPLAINT
-7-
1
21. Failure to Maintain Mechanical Equipment: Plaintiff’s air conditioner was not functioning
2
and was also left inoperable by Defendants. The lack of air conditioning continued
3
throughout Plaintiff’s tenancy of the Subject Property as evidenced by failed housing
4
inspections conducted by LAHD officials on November 25, 2019 and September 15, 2021.
5
In addition, during Plaintiff’s tenancy the elevator that provided transportation from the
6
ground floor to her third-floor unit was left broken and inoperable on several occasions.
7
This required Plaintiff to take the stairs to her apartment frequently, including during a
8
heat wave in August and September of 2020. Plaintiff had to carry all items, including
9
groceries and other necessities, up three flights of stairs to her apartment in excruciating
10
heat.
11
22. Failure to Maintain Mechanical Equipment: The Subject Property frequently lacked air
12 conditioning during Plaintiff’s tenancy. Despite many pleas from Plaintiff, the HVAC
13 system in her unit at the Subject Property frequently malfunctioned and was left
14 inoperable due to Defendants’ neglect. The lack of air conditioning continued throughout
15 Plaintiff’s tenancy of the Subject Property as evidenced by failed housing inspections
16 conducted by LAHD officials on November 25, 2019 and September 15, 2021. In
17 addition, the elevator that provided transportation from the ground floor to her third-floor
18 unit was left broken and inoperable on several occasions throughout Plaintiff’s tenancy.
19 This required Plaintiff to take the stairs to her apartment frequently, including during a
20 heat wave in August and September of 2022. Plaintiff had to carry all items, including
21 groceries and other necessities, up three flights of stairs to her apartment in excruciating
22 heat. Defendants have at all times known of the failed mechanical equipment at the
23 Subject Property, yet the Defendants still did nothing to legitimately abate these obvious
24 and serious health threats. Defendants have at all times intentionally and/or negligently
25 failed to remediate the failed the mechanical equipment at the Subject Property to save
26 money and increase their cash flow and net income from the operation and management of
27 the Subject Property.
28
COMPLAINT
-8-
1
23. Failure to Maintain Necessary Security: Without any notice to Plaintiff, Defendants
2
discontinued the security service that Plaintiff paid for as part of her monthly rent.
3
Plaintiff’s rent bill included a “building protection fee” of which she did not receive the
4
benefit. On November 24, 2022, while parked on the Subject Property, Plaintiff’s vehicle
5
was broken into and her car window smashed. Plaintiff was forced to use rideshare and
6
stay in hotels near her workplace and at her own cost just to commute to work. Even after
7
Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged, Defendants took no measures to ensure the safety or
8
security of the tenants or the Subject Property. On December 5 and 6, 2022, the Subject
9
Property’s parking gate broke and was left open for two days. This issue placed tenants,
10
including the Plaintiff’s vehicles and units, at an unnecessary risk of trespass, damage and
11
theft. Plaintiff confronted the Defendants about the failure to maintain proper security and
12 was informed that this was a result of having to choose between a safe or a clean building.
13 These incidents, which arose from Defendants’ neglect of the property, took a significant
14 emotional toll on Plaintiff. Due to the lack of security and carelessness of the Defendants,
15 Plaintiff began suffering from significant emotional distress that interfered with her daily
16 life, and which required Plaintiff to seek therapy. Defendants have at all times known of
17 the emotional distress and fear the risk of not having security at the Subject Property
18 caused Plaintiff and other tenants, yet the Defendants still did nothing to legitimately abate
19 these obvious and serious safety threats. Defendants have at all times intentionally and/or
20 negligently failed to remediate the emotional distress caused by the lack of security at the
21 Subject Property to save money and increase their cash flow and net income from the
22 operation and management of the Subject Property.
23 24. Constructive Eviction: Due to repeated failures by Defendants to maintain the security of
24 Plaintiff and her property, Plaintiff no longer felt safe storing her vehicle at the Subject
25 Property. Plaintiff began storing her vehicle at her work location and paid for Ubers to
26 take her to and from work. This attempt to protect her property quickly cost Plaintiff over
27 $1,000.00 in Uber fares. The stress from the lack of proper security continued to mount
28 and Plaintiff eventually began incurring additional costs to stay in hotel rooms in order to
COMPLAINT
-9-
1
feel safe. On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff, no longer able to endure living at the Subject
2
Property moved to terminate her lease early. Plaintiff listed the reason for terminating the
3
lease as “does not feel safe.”
4
25. Failure to Return Security Deposit: Defendants unlawfully failed to reimburse Plaintiff her
5
$500.00 security deposit for the Subject Property, despite the uninhabitable conditions of
6
Plaintiff’s unit at the Subject Property throughout her tenancy. Furthermore, on or around
7
July 3, 2022, Defendants sent Plaintiff an improper bill for outstanding rent in the amount
8
of $753.27. Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendants withheld her security deposit
9
and instead, sent her an outstanding bill nearly seven (7) months after Plaintiff ended her
10
tenancy at the Subject Property as retaliation against Plaintiff for asserting legal rights as a
11
tenant.
12 26. Reduction in Services: The Subject Property was not maintained throughout Plaintiff’s
13 tenancy and consequently Plaintiff did not receive the full beneficial use and enjoyment of
14 her unit. Defendants’ failure to maintain safe and habitable conditions at the Subject
15 Property materially reduced the contractual benefits that Plaintiff paid to receive during
16 her tenancy. Plaintiff endured constant mental and emotional distress from living in
17 contaminated, unsanitary, and undignified conditions. Plaintiff was deprived of basic
18 amenities that she was both promised and/or required by law to be provided including
19 basic security, hot, running water, mold free premise, vermin free premise, pest free
20 premise, sanitary conditions in the common areas, air conditioning and working
21 mechanical equipment.
22 27. Plaintiff complained about the above conditions to the Defendants, but the defects were
23 not remedied. Plaintiff contacted the Defendants via telephone, in writing, e-mail, and in
24 person regarding the deplorable conditions at the Subject Property, to no avail.
25 Defendants repeatedly failed to address or abate the endemic problems plaguing the
26 Subject Property.
27
28
COMPLAINT
- 10 -
1
28. Despite Plaintiff’s honest and good faith efforts to reach resolutions regarding the ongoing
2
violations, the Defendants consciously disregarded Plaintiff’s welfare and tenancy rights
3
and retaliated against Plaintiff for protesting these conditions.
4
29. The Defendants continued to demand and collect full rent from the Plaintiff despite the
5
uninhabitable condition of the Subject Property.
6
30. Despite receiving actual and constructive notice of conditions requiring repair and
7
maintenance, and the illegality of these conditions, the Defendants failed to make repairs
8
or perform ordinary maintenance at the Subject Property.
9
31. Defendants, who include a variety of property owners and managers, have been put on
10
notice for years about the violations at the Subject Property and the need to abate the
11
violations through Plaintiff and other tenant notification. Defendants’ ignorance of these
12 notices reveals a pattern and practice of ignoring habitation problems endemic to the
13 Subject Property and failing to abate known nuisances.
14 32. As experienced owners and/or managers of residential properties, Defendants were
15 aware that ongoing maintenance habitability violations could lead to conditions that
16 would seriously and materially affect Plaintiff’s tenancy and her right to quietly enjoy her
17 living space. Defendants’ conduct has been oppressive, willful, malicious, negligent and
18 was carried out with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s legal rights and safety.
19 Defendants acted purposefully in order to vex, injure and annoy Plaintiff for the purpose
20 of forcing her to abandon her legal prerogative and further to punish her for seeking
21 redress of her concerns regarding the condition of the Subject Property.
22 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT/COVENANT OF
23 QUIET ENJOYMENT & WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
24 (As to Defendant 29SC BURLINGTON LP)
25 33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, each and every allegation contained in
26 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
27
28
COMPLAINT
- 11 -
1
34. Implied in law in Plaintiff’s lease and by virtue of the landlord-tenant relationship between
2
Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants were required to repair and maintain the Subject
3
Property in compliance with the common law and statutory warranty of habitability.
4
35. Every residential agreement contains an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, which
5
obligates the landlord to provide their tenants with peaceable and quiet enjoyment of the
6
leased property. The implied covenant of quiet enjoyment is an immutable rule.
7
36. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s lease and by virtue of the landlord-tenant relationship between
8
Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants were required to repair and maintain the Subject
9
Property in compliance with the common law and statutory warranty of habitability.
10
37. Defendants breached the Plaintiff’s lease contracts through breaches of the implied
11
warranty of habitability and covenant of quiet enjoyment. The Defendants’ actions and
12 inactions caused the building to consistently be in a condition that did not meet the
13 requirements of Section 1941.1 of the California Civil Code, Section 17920.3 of the
14 California Health and Safety Code, and Sections 11.20.140 and 11.20.170 of the Los
15 Angeles County Health Code. A more complete list of these breaches are set forth in the
16 paragraphs above. The above listed codes were enacted to establish the minimum
17 standards of habitability for a residential dwelling in Los Angeles County. The
18 Defendants’ failure to ensure that the Subject Property met the minimum habitability
19 standards stated in the above stated codes during Plaintiff’s tenancy clearly shows that the
20 Defendants did not provide a habitable dwelling to Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants
21 breached the lease contracts’ implied warranties of habitability and covenants of quiet
22 enjoyment.
23 38. Plaintiff substantially performed the obligations under the lease or has otherwise been
24 excused from said performance. Plaintiff did not cause the Subject Property’s deficient
25 condition. Plaintiff notified the Defendants about the Subject Property’s deficient
26 condition. The Subject Property’s conditions were clearly observable and Defendants were
27 fully aware that the Subject Property was in a deficient condition.
28
COMPLAINT
- 12 -
1
39. The Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that Plaintiff would suffer
2
damages because of this breach. Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants’ conduct
3
and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
4
40. At all relevant times, the Subject Property was not habitable or tenantable and, therefore,
5
had a lesser rental value than that which was demanded. At all relevant times, Plaintiff
6
nonetheless paid full rent to the Defendants or was legally excused from paying any or a
7
portion of such rent due to the Subject Property’s uninhabitable condition.
8
41. As a proximate cause of the Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount
9
to be proven at trial.
10
42. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered illness,
11
physical injury, extreme mental and emotional distress, discomfort, annoyance, anxiety,
12 loss in the value of her leasehold, property damage, medical expenses, out of pocket costs,
13 all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be determined at trial, but which amount is within
14 the jurisdictional requirement of the Court.
15 43. Subject to the terms of Plaintiff’s leases and/or applicable law, Plaintiff is entitled to an
16 award of attorney's fees and costs.
17 V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE
18 IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
19 (As to Defendant 29SC BURLINGTON LP)
20 44. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, every allegation contained in the
21 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
22 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants were, at all relevant
23 times, responsible for the repair and maintenance of the Subject Property. Defendants
24 were and at all times have been under a duty to maintain the Subject Property in a
25 habitable condition throughout the term of Plaintiff’s occupancy. An apartment or other
26 dwelling unit in Los Angeles is deemed substandard and untenantable if it substantially
27 lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics described in California Civil Code
28 Section 1941.1. A dwelling in Los Angeles County is also deemed substandard and
COMPLAINT
- 13 -
1
untenantable if it meets the definition of substandard building under Health & Safety Code
2
Section 17920.3 or Los Angeles County Health Codes Sections 11.20.140 and 11.20.170.
3
46. At all relevant times herein, the Subject Property failed to comply with the warranty of
4
habitability imposed by law under the above stated California and Los Angeles County
5
codes. The materially defective, illegal, non-complying, and substandard conditions were
6
not reasonably known to Plaintiff at the time she took possession of the Subject Property.
7
The defects at the premises included, but were not limited to, leaks, mold growth, vermin
8
and pest infestation, lack of access to hot, running water and inadequate mechanical
9
equipment that was not obvious to an unsophisticated prospective tenant such as Plaintiff.
10
47. Plaintiff and other tenants repeatedly informed Defendants and their agents about the
11
defects outlined above. The Defendants received notification about the defects, observed
12 the defects, and were at all times aware of the defective, illegal, non-complying, and
13 substandard conditions plaguing the Subject Property.
14 48. Defendants knowingly and intentionally preyed on and took advantage of Plaintiff in
15 failing to repair, maintain, and remediate the habitability issues at the Subject Property.
16 Defendants were at all times aware that the failure to provide Plaintiff with a habitable
17 apartment constitutes an illegal reduction in services under applicable law. Defendants
18 were and are aware that Plaintiff was an unsophisticated tenant who had little or no
19 knowledge of the law, little or no access to legal aid, and little or no ability to protect
20 herself from the unscrupulous conduct of abusive landlords.
21 49. Notwithstanding Defendants' express and constructive knowledge of the illegal conditions
22 impacting the Subject Property and Plaintiff, Defendants repeatedly failed or delayed
23 making repairs to the Plaintiff’s units and the Subject Property. Defendants repeatedly
24 misrepresented to Plaintiff that they would make repairs and then failed to do so.
25 Defendants' conduct was intentional and designed to extract rent from Plaintiff in
26 derogation of Plaintiff’s rights under applicable law, save money, increase their cash flow
27 from the operation and management of the Subject Property.
28 50. At no time have Defendants offered to reduce or compromise Plaintiff’s obligation to pay
COMPLAINT
- 14 -
1
rent in light of the defects described herein. Defendants knew that the Subject Property
2
was not fit for human occupation, but made the conscious decision to subject Plaintiff to
3
the illegal and unacceptable living conditions present in the Subject Property solely for
4
monetary gain and without regard to Plaintiff's rights and status as a lawful occupant of
5
the Subject Property.
6
51. As the direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered bodily injury,
7
property damage, emotional distress, and other damages in an amount in excess of the
8
jurisdiction of this Court. In addition, the rental value of the Plaintiff’s unit has been
9
substantially diminished such that Defendants have been unjustly enriched by their own
10
bad faith and intentional misconduct.
11
52. Defendants' conduct described above was willful, wanton, intentional, despicable,
12 malicious, and initiated with malice and with the intent to knowingly take advantage of,
13 oppress, and injure Plaintiff. Defendants at all times acted with a willful and conscious
14 disregard of the rights of safety of Plaintiff and the building’s other tenants. Defendants
15 were at all times aware that there was a high probability that their intentional and/or
16 negligent failure to repair and maintain the Subject Property would injure Plaintiff and
17 cause her personal injury, emotional distress and property damage. Plaintiff is therefore
18 entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages under and pursuant to Civil Code,
19 Section 3294 and Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890.
20 53. Subject to the terms of Plaintiff’s lease and/or applicable law, Plaintiff is entitled to an
21 award of attorney's fees and costs.
22 VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENCE
23 (As to all Defendants)
24 54. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, every allegation contained in the
25 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
26 55. As landowners and/or managers of land, the Defendants owed a duty of care under
27 common law and Civil Code §1714 to exercise due care in management of the property so
28 as to avoid foreseeable injury to others. This duty of care required the Defendants to
COMPLAINT
- 15 -
1
comply with all building, health, fire and safety codes, ordinances, regulations and other
2
laws applying to maintenance and operation of residential rental housing. This obligation
3
of the owner also includes the obligation to properly maintain the Subject Property and to
4
timely and competently effectuate repairs when required.
5
56. The Defendants breached this common law and statutory duty of due care by failing to
6
institute a regular maintenance process; failing to correct substandard conditions
7
complained of herein; and failing to supervise their agents and employees who operated
8
and maintained the building. The Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known,
9
that Plaintiff would be injured because of this breach of common law and statutory duties
10
of due care.
11
57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent maintenance of the Subject
12 Property, the value of the leasehold held by Plaintiff was diminished. Plaintiff also
13 suffered other harms, including mental health treatment for harm caused by the
14 uninhabitable conditions of the Subject Property.
15 58. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff
16 suffered and continues to suffer injury, extreme mental and emotional distress, discomfort,
17 annoyance, anxiety, loss in the value of their leasehold, property damage, and out of
18 pocket costs, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial, but within the
19 jurisdictional requirements of this Court.
20 VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF UNFAIR BUSINESS
21 PRACTICES
22 (As to all Defendants)
23 59. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, every allegation contained in the
24 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
25 60. As described above, Defendant had actual knowledge of material deficiencies and
26 habitability issues at the Subject Property, failed to abate the issues and yet continued
27 charging Plaintiff full monthly rent.
28 61. Under and pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200, the rental of an apartment
COMPLAINT
- 16 -
1
constitutes a "business act or practice." Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
2
alleges that Defendants have engaged in the illegal and unfair business practice of owning
3
and/or renting substandard, untenantable, uninhabitable, dangerous, unhealthy, and
4
unsanitary housing. Defendants' illegal and unfair business practices include, but are not
5
limited to, Defendants' acts and omissions described herein as well as the ongoing
6
violation of the statutes, regulations and/or ordinances described in this complaint.
7
Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants' illegal and wrongful conduct as
8
described in this complaint has been adopted and implemented by Defendants as a means
9
of conducting business.
10
62. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' illegal and unfair
11
business practices have been adopted and implemented for the purpose of maximizing
12 their net income and profits from such properties. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
13 thereon alleges that Defendants regularly fail to repair and maintain the apartments they
14 own and control, engage in conduct designed to cover up and hide illegal defects.
15 63. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants are slum lords
16 whose goal is to maximize their income by preying on persons who do not have the power
17 or ability to protect their rights. Defendants have accomplished this goal by reducing
18 and/or eliminating services to the Plaintiff’s unit to such an extent that Plaintiff’s unit had
19 zero fair rental value as well as adding pretextual charges to rent with no additional
20 benefits or amenities added.
21 64. In leasing residential property that was not properly maintained, the Defendants engaged
22 in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practice. The Defendants leased the Subject
23 Property knowing that it was not fit for habitation. At all times, the Defendants demanded
24 full market value for Plaintiff’s use of the Subject Property, despite the Subject Property’s
25 general unfitness for use as contemplated by both the Lease and the intent of the parties at
26 the time of the formation of the Lease.
27 65. The Defendants violated Civil Code §§1941.1, 1942, Health and Safety Code §17920.3,
28 Business and Professions Code 17200, and local housing and building maintenance codes.
COMPLAINT
- 17 -
1
66. As a result, Plaintiff paid the Defendants more than the reasonable or fair market value of
2
the Subject Property. Because the Defendants failed to properly maintain the Subject
3
Property despite reasonable notice by Plaintiff, the Defendants unfairly and unjustly
4
collected a windfall and retained rent money in excess of the value of the Subject Property
5
given its condition.
6
67. As a result of the unfair business practices by the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered from a
7
leasehold worth substantially less than rent paid, property loss, mental and emotional
8
distress, physical injury, cost of repairs, and loss of use and enjoyment of her home.
9
VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF CAL. CIVIL CODE
10
§1942.4
11
(As to Defendant 29SC BURLINGTON LP)
12 68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, every allegation contained in the
13 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
14 69. The Defendants had a statutory duty to maintain the Subject Property, including the
15 common areas, in a good, safe, and healthful condition.
16 70. The Defendants substantially breached this statutory duty by permitting untenable
17 conditions to exist including but not limited to:
18
Inadequate Maintenance;
Inadequate Weather
19
Dampness and Mold;
Inadequate Plumbing;
20
Electrical Issues;
21
Vermin Infestations;
Inoperable Air Conditioning;
22
71. The Subject Property failed LAHD inspections on November 25, 2019, January 23, 2020,
23
March 3, 2020, September 21, 2020, November 10, 2020, March 1, 2021, August 5, 2021,
24
September 15, 2021, February 24, 2022, and November 7, 2022. Many of the cited
25
violations persisted across long periods of time and were not abated within 35 calendar
26
days after notice was given.
27
72. The Defendants demanded and collected rent thereon and continued to demand and collect
28
rent from the Plaintiff while the prohibited conditions went unabated.
COMPLAINT
- 18 -
1
73. Plaintiff was not in substantial violation of any affirmative duties as tenants that may have
2
contributed to the untenable conditions described above.
3
74. As a proximate cause of the Defendants’ failure to abide by the statutory duty to maintain
4
the Subject Property in tenantable conditions, Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount to
5
be proven at trial.
6
75. In addition, having been aware of such habitability defects and untenable conditions yet
7
nevertheless failing to repair the above dilapidated conditions in a timely manner, among
8
other reasons, signifies that the conduct of the Defendants and their agents, directors,
9
and/or officers, who knowingly permitted the above-mentioned habitability defects and
10
untenable conditions to continue existing, was willful and intentional as well as
11
undertaken with malice against Plaintiff and with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
12 rights. The Defendants’ behavior under these circumstances is despicable and warrants the
13 imposition of punitive damages in a sum appropriate to punish the Defendants and deter
14 future similar misconduct.
15 IX. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF CAL. CIVIL CODE 1950.5
16 (As to Defendant 29SC BURLINGTON LP)
17 76. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, every allegation contained in the
18 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
19 77. Under California Civil Code Section 1950.5(1) “…the bad faith claim or retention by a
20 landlord… of the security of any portion thereof in violation of this section may subject
21 the landlord …to statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security, in addition
22 to actual damages.”
23 78. The Subject Property was uninhabitable, and Plaintiff was entitled to a full refund of her
24 security deposit but Defendants wrongfully withheld Plaintiff’s security deposit in bad
25 faith and failed to provide any accounting for said withholding. Instead, Defendants sent
26 Plaintiff a bill nearly seven (7) months after Plaintiff was constructively evicted from the
27 Subject Property, entitling Plaintiff to treble damages.
28
COMPLAINT
- 19 -
1
79. Notwithstanding the expiration of the deadline set by California Civil Code Section
2
1950.5, Defendants have unlawfully, in bad faith and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
3
rights failed to return Plaintiff’s full security deposit.
4
X. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
5
(As to all Defendants)
6
80. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the
7
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
8
81. Implied in every rental agreement is a covenant of “quiet enjoyment”; The landlord
9
impliedly promises to allow the tenant possession and “quiet enjoyment” of the premises
10
Preview
1 Daniel J. Lavi, Esq. (SBN 304172) The Tenants Law Firm 2 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite 3 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (310) 432-3200 4 litigation@tenantslawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiff 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 [UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE] 11 Case No.: 12 13 COMPLAINT 14 YESENIA YANEZ, an individual, 15 1. BREACH OF Plaintiff, CONTRACT/COVENANT OF QUIET 16 vs. ENJOYMENT/WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 17 29SC BURLINGTON LP, a Delaware limited 2. TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE 18 partnership, MOSS MANAGEMENT IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 19 SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, and 3. NEGLIGENCE DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, 4. VIOLATION OF UNFAIR BUSINESS 20 PRACTICES Defendants. 5. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA 21 CIVIL CODE 1942.5 22 6. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 1950.5 23 7. CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION 8. TENANT HARASSMENT 24 25 [JURY TRIAL REQUESTED] 26 27 Plaintiff, YESENIA YANEZ, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), is informed and believes, and 28 based upon such information and belief, alleges the following: COMPLAINT -1- 1 I. PARTIES 2 1. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant to this action was, an individual residing in the 3 County of Los Angeles, State of California. 4 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendant 29SC BURLINGTON LP, and 5 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, (hereinafter “BURLINGTON”) is, and at all times relevant 6 to this action was, a Delaware limited partnership doing business in the County of Los 7 Angeles, State of California as owner of the Subject Property since September 12, 2019. 8 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 9 INC., and DOES 11 through 20, inclusive, (hereinafter “MOSS”) is, and at all times 10 relevant to this action was, a California corporation doing business in the County of Los 11 Angeles, State of California as property manager of the Subject Property since in or 12 around June 2020. 13 4. For purposes of this complaint Defendants BURLINGTON, MOSS, and DOES 1 through 14 30, inclusive, are collectively known as “Defendants”. Defendants have been, during all 15 relevant times, the owners and/or managers of the Subject Property. 16 5. Defendants have been, during all relevant times, the owners and/or managers of the 17 premises located at 131 S. Burlington Ave. Apt. 312, Los Angeles, CA 90057 (hereinafter 18 “Subject Property”). 19 6. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, capacities, or basis for liability of defendants DOES 20 1 through 30, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by their fictitious names. 21 Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names, capacities, or basis for 22 liability when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and 23 thereon alleges that defendants DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, and each of them, are in 24 some manner liable to Plaintiff, or claim some right, title, or interest in the Subject 25 Property that is junior and inferior to that of Plaintiff, or both. 26 7. At all times relevant to this action, each defendant, including those fictitiously named, was 27 the agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, alter ego, or surety of the other 28 defendants and was acting within the scope of said agency, employment, partnership, COMPLAINT -2- 1 venture, or suretyship with the knowledge and consent or ratification of each of the other 2 defendants in doing the things alleged herein. 3 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Business and 5 Professions Code §§17202, 17203, 17204 and 17535, Cal. Civil Code §3479 et seq., and 6 LAMC §11.00. 7 9. This court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in this action under California 8 Constitution, article VI, §10 and C.C.P. §410.10 because Defendants reside in this County 9 and regularly conduct substantial business in Los Angeles County. Defendants have 10 purposefully availed themselves of the substantial benefits of doing business in Los 11 Angeles County; and Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s rights occurred in the County of 12 Los Angeles in whole or in part. 13 10. Venue is proper in the County under C.C.P. §§ 393, 395, and 395.5 because Defendants 14 reside in this County and regularly conduct business in Los Angeles County and 15 Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s rights occurred in Los Angeles. 16 III. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 17 11. Plaintiff entered into a written lease agreement with the prior owner of the Subject 18 Property on or around May 27, 2014, to reside at the Subject Property. Pursuant to the 19 lease, Plaintiff paid rent for the Subject Property on a monthly basis in the amount of 20 $950.00. This amount was increased to $1,045 per month, and then to $1,300 per month in 21 or around April 2018; $1,408 per month in or around April 2019; and $1,529 per month in 22 or around April 2022. In addition, Plaintiff paid Defendants $500.00 as a security deposit 23 for the Subject Property. 24 12. Ownership of the Subject Property transferred to Defendant BURLINGTON during 25 Plaintiff’s tenancy on or around September 12, 2019. 26 13. Plaintiff resided as a tenant in unit 312 of the Subject Property until she was constructively 27 evicted from the Subject Property on or around December 16, 2022. 28 14. Throughout Plaintiff’s tenancy, the Subject Property lacked basic characteristics necessary COMPLAINT -3- 1 for human habitation as prescribed by Cal. Civil Code §1941.1 and would be considered a 2 substandard unit as described in Health & Safety Code §17920.3. 3 15. Plaintiff constantly and consistently complained to the Defendants, and each of them, 4 about the following slum-housing and untenantable conditions: 5 a. Dampness and Mold (California Health & Safety Code §17920.3(a)(11)); 6 b. Inadequate Sanitation (California Health & Safety Code §17920.3(a), Los 7 Angeles County Health Code §11.200.170); c. Inadequate Garbage and Rubbish Removal Facilities (California Health & 8 Safety Code §17920.3(a)(16)); d. Vermin Infestation (Cal. Civil Code §1941.1(a)(6) and California Health & 9 Safety Code §17920.3(a)(12)); 10 e. Lack of Access to Hot Water (Cal. Civil Code §1941.1(a)(3)); f. Lack of Heating and Ventilation (Cal. Civil Code §1941.1(a)(4) and California 11 Health & Safety Code §§17920.3(a)(6) & (7)); g. Improper Maintenance and Dilapidation (California Health and Safety Code 12 §17920.3(a)(14)); 13 h. Failure to Maintain Mechanical Equipment (California Health & Safety Code §17920 (f)); 14 i. Structural Hazards (Cal Civil Code §1941.1(a)(8), California Health & Safety Code §§17920.3(a)(14) & (b), Los Angeles County Health Code §§11.200.140(B) 15 (3) & (11)); 16 j. Failure to Maintain Premises in a Good and Safe Condition (California Health & Safety Code §17920.3(i) through (n), Los Angeles Health Code §11.20.140); 17 k. Nuisance (Health and Safety Code §17920.3(c)); l. Harassment/Landlord Retaliation (Cal. Civil Code §§1940.2, 1942.5 & 1954). 18 19 16. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the following 20 defects yet failed to take timely or reasonable steps to abate and/or remedy the defects. 21 Any repairs that were undertaken by Defendants were inadequate and/or exacerbated the 22 subject problem. Defendants failed to repair and abate the defects at the Subject Property 23 to save money and increase Defendants' cash flow and net income. Discovery of 24 Defendants' profit and loss statements will reveal that, at all relevant times, Defendants 25 failed to spend sufficient monies on repairs, maintenance, and pest control consistent with 26 the applicable standard of care. 27 17. Water Leaks and Mold: Throughout Plaintiff’s tenancy, the Subject Property had chronic 28 water leaks inside Plaintiff’s individual unit. Beginning in or around April 2020 and COMPLAINT -4- 1 recurring periodically, the Subject Property’s ceiling leaked water into Plaintiff’s kitchen. 2 The leaks would drench Plaintiff’s kitchen ceiling light and spread to the stove top and 3 floor, causing significant safety and habitability issues in the kitchen. Due to serious safety 4 concerns, Plaintiff would frequently not have use of her kitchen. Plaintiff endured stress 5 from the risk that the water leaking through the lights and onto the electrical appliances 6 and outlets would cause a fire or electrocution. Defendants ignored Plaintiff’s pleas for 7 remediation for an unnecessary and prolonged period. Plaintiff went without proper use of 8 her kitchen until on or around December 5, 2022. Despite the significant reduction in 9 accessibility to amenities at the Subject Property for nearly two years, Plaintiff received 10 no reduction in her rent despite a direct request for one. Additionally, due to the prolonged 11 and significant leaks that went without proper remediation, Plaintiff eventually discovered 12 black mold in the kitchen cabinets of the Subject Property. Defendants have at all times, 13 known of the chronic water leaks and mold growth at the Subject Property, yet the 14 Defendants still did nothing to legitimately abate these obvious and serious health threats. 15 Defendants have at all times, willfully and/or negligently failed to remediate the constant 16 water leaks and chronic mold, which endangered Plaintiff’s life, to save money and 17 increase their cash flow and net income from the operation and management of the Subject 18 Property. 19 18. Vermin Infestations: The Subject Property was not cleaned or maintained so that vermin 20 were able to infest the premises. Defendants allowed the Subject Property to become 21 dilapidated, debris to be left throughout the premises, trash and unsanitary conditions to 22 exist unabated in common areas, and ignored conditions that exacerbated the building’s 23 vermin infestations. During Plaintiff’s tenancy the Subject Property was infested with 24 rodents, cockroaches and bedbugs that created an inhumane living environment. These 25 issues persisted unabated by Defendants during Plaintiff’s tenancy. These inhumane living 26 conditions not only caused Plaintiff significant distress but exposed her to contaminants 27 including vermin feces and allergens. This infestation included rats scurrying about 28 Plaintiff’s unit, including in her bedroom. Plaintiff was forced to remediate this issue COMPLAINT -5- 1 herself and had to purchase traps to catch and remove the rats. In addition to the rodent 2 infestation, in March and April of 2022, Plaintiff’s unit was also subjected to a bedbug 3 infestation. This infestation started after the unit next to hers became infested and the issue 4 was not properly remediated by Defendants. Again, Defendants failed to assist the 5 Plaintiff in resolving the infestation. Instead, Plaintiff had to attempt to abate the issue on 6 her own. Plaintiff attempted several remedies to abate the issue, but it persisted for several 7 months. Plaintiff taped the electrical outlets to prevent bugs from coming in from the unit 8 next door; Plaintiff bought a bed cover to kill and prevent new bedbugs from hatching; 9 and Plaintiff placed small cups of water out near the legs of her bed to attempt to resolve 10 the habitability issue but to no avail. Eventually, because of Defendants’ neglect, Plaintiff 11 had to dispose of her bed and purchase a new one. Defendants have at all times, known of 12 the vermin infestations at the Subject Property, yet the Defendants still did nothing to 13 legitimately abate these obvious and serious health threats. Defendants have at all times 14 intentionally and/or negligently failed to properly abate and eradicate the vermin 15 infestations at the Subject Property to save money and increase their cash flow and net 16 income from their operation and management of the Subject Property. 17 19. Inadequate Garbage Removal: The Subject Property suffered from inadequate sanitation 18 and garbage removal which led to the aforementioned vermin infestations. The Defendants 19 knew of this issue and were directly responsible for the failure to maintain the premises in 20 a clean and sanitary fashion. In early 2022, Defendants allowed trash and debris to 21 accumulate on the west end of the parking garage and into the street/parking lot. It became 22 such a significant habitability and safety issue that the Los Angeles Housing Department 23 (hereinafter “LAHD”) cited the Subject Property for numerous code violations, including 24 but not limited to: unsafe, or unclean building and/or premises; insect, vermin and/or 25 rodent infestations; trash, debris, and/or discarded items stored on premises; miscellaneous 26 articles stored on premises; front yard landscaping requiring maintenance; lack of 27 adequate number of receptacles for garbage and rubbish. LAHD issued Defendants a 28 “Notice to Comply”. Unfortunately, this did not deter Defendants unlawful behavior. COMPLAINT -6- 1 Later, in or around September 2022, Plaintiff was forced to file another complaint with 2 LAHD because Defendants again permitted garbage to pile up in the street which 3 obstructed traffic for two weeks. The unsanitary nature and inadequate garbage removal at 4 the Subject Property exacerbated the vermin infestations and caused Plaintiffs to suffer 5 emotional distress, and property damage. Defendants have at all times known of the 6 physical defects at the Subject Property, yet the Defendants still did nothing to 7 legitimately abate these obvious and serious health threats. Defendants have at all times 8 intentionally and/or negligently failed to repair and/or abate the defects at the Subject 9 Property to save money and increase their cash flow and net income from the operation 10 and management of the Subject Property. 11 20. Lack of Access to Hot Water: The Subject Property was not maintained throughout 12 Plaintiff’s tenancy and consequently, Plaintiff did not receive the full beneficial use and 13 enjoyment of the unit. Specifically, Plaintiff was denied access to hot, running water on 14 numerous occasions. Plaintiff sent several notices to the Defendants informing them that 15 she was being denied access to hot, running water, yet the issue persisted, episodically, 16 throughout Plaintiff’s tenancy. For days, or even weeks at a time during Defendant 17 BURLINGTON’s ownership, Plaintiff was left without hot or running water, including but 18 not limited to the following months: November of 2020; in January of 2021; in April of 19 2022; in August of 2022. Plaintiff was often forced to boil hot water to take showers. This 20 recurrent lack of access to hot, running water caused Plaintiff not only extreme 21 inconvenience but significant distress, especially during the COVID pandemic. 22 Defendants have at all times known of Plaintiff’s lack of accessible hot water at the 23 Subject Property, yet the Defendants still did nothing to legitimately abate these obvious 24 and serious health threats. Defendants have at all times intentionally and/or negligently 25 failed to remediate Plaintiff’s lack of accessible hot water at the Subject Property to save 26 money and increase their cash flow and net income from the operation and management of 27 the Subject Property. 28 COMPLAINT -7- 1 21. Failure to Maintain Mechanical Equipment: Plaintiff’s air conditioner was not functioning 2 and was also left inoperable by Defendants. The lack of air conditioning continued 3 throughout Plaintiff’s tenancy of the Subject Property as evidenced by failed housing 4 inspections conducted by LAHD officials on November 25, 2019 and September 15, 2021. 5 In addition, during Plaintiff’s tenancy the elevator that provided transportation from the 6 ground floor to her third-floor unit was left broken and inoperable on several occasions. 7 This required Plaintiff to take the stairs to her apartment frequently, including during a 8 heat wave in August and September of 2020. Plaintiff had to carry all items, including 9 groceries and other necessities, up three flights of stairs to her apartment in excruciating 10 heat. 11 22. Failure to Maintain Mechanical Equipment: The Subject Property frequently lacked air 12 conditioning during Plaintiff’s tenancy. Despite many pleas from Plaintiff, the HVAC 13 system in her unit at the Subject Property frequently malfunctioned and was left 14 inoperable due to Defendants’ neglect. The lack of air conditioning continued throughout 15 Plaintiff’s tenancy of the Subject Property as evidenced by failed housing inspections 16 conducted by LAHD officials on November 25, 2019 and September 15, 2021. In 17 addition, the elevator that provided transportation from the ground floor to her third-floor 18 unit was left broken and inoperable on several occasions throughout Plaintiff’s tenancy. 19 This required Plaintiff to take the stairs to her apartment frequently, including during a 20 heat wave in August and September of 2022. Plaintiff had to carry all items, including 21 groceries and other necessities, up three flights of stairs to her apartment in excruciating 22 heat. Defendants have at all times known of the failed mechanical equipment at the 23 Subject Property, yet the Defendants still did nothing to legitimately abate these obvious 24 and serious health threats. Defendants have at all times intentionally and/or negligently 25 failed to remediate the failed the mechanical equipment at the Subject Property to save 26 money and increase their cash flow and net income from the operation and management of 27 the Subject Property. 28 COMPLAINT -8- 1 23. Failure to Maintain Necessary Security: Without any notice to Plaintiff, Defendants 2 discontinued the security service that Plaintiff paid for as part of her monthly rent. 3 Plaintiff’s rent bill included a “building protection fee” of which she did not receive the 4 benefit. On November 24, 2022, while parked on the Subject Property, Plaintiff’s vehicle 5 was broken into and her car window smashed. Plaintiff was forced to use rideshare and 6 stay in hotels near her workplace and at her own cost just to commute to work. Even after 7 Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged, Defendants took no measures to ensure the safety or 8 security of the tenants or the Subject Property. On December 5 and 6, 2022, the Subject 9 Property’s parking gate broke and was left open for two days. This issue placed tenants, 10 including the Plaintiff’s vehicles and units, at an unnecessary risk of trespass, damage and 11 theft. Plaintiff confronted the Defendants about the failure to maintain proper security and 12 was informed that this was a result of having to choose between a safe or a clean building. 13 These incidents, which arose from Defendants’ neglect of the property, took a significant 14 emotional toll on Plaintiff. Due to the lack of security and carelessness of the Defendants, 15 Plaintiff began suffering from significant emotional distress that interfered with her daily 16 life, and which required Plaintiff to seek therapy. Defendants have at all times known of 17 the emotional distress and fear the risk of not having security at the Subject Property 18 caused Plaintiff and other tenants, yet the Defendants still did nothing to legitimately abate 19 these obvious and serious safety threats. Defendants have at all times intentionally and/or 20 negligently failed to remediate the emotional distress caused by the lack of security at the 21 Subject Property to save money and increase their cash flow and net income from the 22 operation and management of the Subject Property. 23 24. Constructive Eviction: Due to repeated failures by Defendants to maintain the security of 24 Plaintiff and her property, Plaintiff no longer felt safe storing her vehicle at the Subject 25 Property. Plaintiff began storing her vehicle at her work location and paid for Ubers to 26 take her to and from work. This attempt to protect her property quickly cost Plaintiff over 27 $1,000.00 in Uber fares. The stress from the lack of proper security continued to mount 28 and Plaintiff eventually began incurring additional costs to stay in hotel rooms in order to COMPLAINT -9- 1 feel safe. On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff, no longer able to endure living at the Subject 2 Property moved to terminate her lease early. Plaintiff listed the reason for terminating the 3 lease as “does not feel safe.” 4 25. Failure to Return Security Deposit: Defendants unlawfully failed to reimburse Plaintiff her 5 $500.00 security deposit for the Subject Property, despite the uninhabitable conditions of 6 Plaintiff’s unit at the Subject Property throughout her tenancy. Furthermore, on or around 7 July 3, 2022, Defendants sent Plaintiff an improper bill for outstanding rent in the amount 8 of $753.27. Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendants withheld her security deposit 9 and instead, sent her an outstanding bill nearly seven (7) months after Plaintiff ended her 10 tenancy at the Subject Property as retaliation against Plaintiff for asserting legal rights as a 11 tenant. 12 26. Reduction in Services: The Subject Property was not maintained throughout Plaintiff’s 13 tenancy and consequently Plaintiff did not receive the full beneficial use and enjoyment of 14 her unit. Defendants’ failure to maintain safe and habitable conditions at the Subject 15 Property materially reduced the contractual benefits that Plaintiff paid to receive during 16 her tenancy. Plaintiff endured constant mental and emotional distress from living in 17 contaminated, unsanitary, and undignified conditions. Plaintiff was deprived of basic 18 amenities that she was both promised and/or required by law to be provided including 19 basic security, hot, running water, mold free premise, vermin free premise, pest free 20 premise, sanitary conditions in the common areas, air conditioning and working 21 mechanical equipment. 22 27. Plaintiff complained about the above conditions to the Defendants, but the defects were 23 not remedied. Plaintiff contacted the Defendants via telephone, in writing, e-mail, and in 24 person regarding the deplorable conditions at the Subject Property, to no avail. 25 Defendants repeatedly failed to address or abate the endemic problems plaguing the 26 Subject Property. 27 28 COMPLAINT - 10 - 1 28. Despite Plaintiff’s honest and good faith efforts to reach resolutions regarding the ongoing 2 violations, the Defendants consciously disregarded Plaintiff’s welfare and tenancy rights 3 and retaliated against Plaintiff for protesting these conditions. 4 29. The Defendants continued to demand and collect full rent from the Plaintiff despite the 5 uninhabitable condition of the Subject Property. 6 30. Despite receiving actual and constructive notice of conditions requiring repair and 7 maintenance, and the illegality of these conditions, the Defendants failed to make repairs 8 or perform ordinary maintenance at the Subject Property. 9 31. Defendants, who include a variety of property owners and managers, have been put on 10 notice for years about the violations at the Subject Property and the need to abate the 11 violations through Plaintiff and other tenant notification. Defendants’ ignorance of these 12 notices reveals a pattern and practice of ignoring habitation problems endemic to the 13 Subject Property and failing to abate known nuisances. 14 32. As experienced owners and/or managers of residential properties, Defendants were 15 aware that ongoing maintenance habitability violations could lead to conditions that 16 would seriously and materially affect Plaintiff’s tenancy and her right to quietly enjoy her 17 living space. Defendants’ conduct has been oppressive, willful, malicious, negligent and 18 was carried out with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s legal rights and safety. 19 Defendants acted purposefully in order to vex, injure and annoy Plaintiff for the purpose 20 of forcing her to abandon her legal prerogative and further to punish her for seeking 21 redress of her concerns regarding the condition of the Subject Property. 22 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT/COVENANT OF 23 QUIET ENJOYMENT & WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 24 (As to Defendant 29SC BURLINGTON LP) 25 33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, each and every allegation contained in 26 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 27 28 COMPLAINT - 11 - 1 34. Implied in law in Plaintiff’s lease and by virtue of the landlord-tenant relationship between 2 Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants were required to repair and maintain the Subject 3 Property in compliance with the common law and statutory warranty of habitability. 4 35. Every residential agreement contains an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, which 5 obligates the landlord to provide their tenants with peaceable and quiet enjoyment of the 6 leased property. The implied covenant of quiet enjoyment is an immutable rule. 7 36. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s lease and by virtue of the landlord-tenant relationship between 8 Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants were required to repair and maintain the Subject 9 Property in compliance with the common law and statutory warranty of habitability. 10 37. Defendants breached the Plaintiff’s lease contracts through breaches of the implied 11 warranty of habitability and covenant of quiet enjoyment. The Defendants’ actions and 12 inactions caused the building to consistently be in a condition that did not meet the 13 requirements of Section 1941.1 of the California Civil Code, Section 17920.3 of the 14 California Health and Safety Code, and Sections 11.20.140 and 11.20.170 of the Los 15 Angeles County Health Code. A more complete list of these breaches are set forth in the 16 paragraphs above. The above listed codes were enacted to establish the minimum 17 standards of habitability for a residential dwelling in Los Angeles County. The 18 Defendants’ failure to ensure that the Subject Property met the minimum habitability 19 standards stated in the above stated codes during Plaintiff’s tenancy clearly shows that the 20 Defendants did not provide a habitable dwelling to Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants 21 breached the lease contracts’ implied warranties of habitability and covenants of quiet 22 enjoyment. 23 38. Plaintiff substantially performed the obligations under the lease or has otherwise been 24 excused from said performance. Plaintiff did not cause the Subject Property’s deficient 25 condition. Plaintiff notified the Defendants about the Subject Property’s deficient 26 condition. The Subject Property’s conditions were clearly observable and Defendants were 27 fully aware that the Subject Property was in a deficient condition. 28 COMPLAINT - 12 - 1 39. The Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that Plaintiff would suffer 2 damages because of this breach. Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendants’ conduct 3 and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 4 40. At all relevant times, the Subject Property was not habitable or tenantable and, therefore, 5 had a lesser rental value than that which was demanded. At all relevant times, Plaintiff 6 nonetheless paid full rent to the Defendants or was legally excused from paying any or a 7 portion of such rent due to the Subject Property’s uninhabitable condition. 8 41. As a proximate cause of the Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount 9 to be proven at trial. 10 42. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered illness, 11 physical injury, extreme mental and emotional distress, discomfort, annoyance, anxiety, 12 loss in the value of her leasehold, property damage, medical expenses, out of pocket costs, 13 all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be determined at trial, but which amount is within 14 the jurisdictional requirement of the Court. 15 43. Subject to the terms of Plaintiff’s leases and/or applicable law, Plaintiff is entitled to an 16 award of attorney's fees and costs. 17 V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE 18 IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 19 (As to Defendant 29SC BURLINGTON LP) 20 44. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, every allegation contained in the 21 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 22 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants were, at all relevant 23 times, responsible for the repair and maintenance of the Subject Property. Defendants 24 were and at all times have been under a duty to maintain the Subject Property in a 25 habitable condition throughout the term of Plaintiff’s occupancy. An apartment or other 26 dwelling unit in Los Angeles is deemed substandard and untenantable if it substantially 27 lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics described in California Civil Code 28 Section 1941.1. A dwelling in Los Angeles County is also deemed substandard and COMPLAINT - 13 - 1 untenantable if it meets the definition of substandard building under Health & Safety Code 2 Section 17920.3 or Los Angeles County Health Codes Sections 11.20.140 and 11.20.170. 3 46. At all relevant times herein, the Subject Property failed to comply with the warranty of 4 habitability imposed by law under the above stated California and Los Angeles County 5 codes. The materially defective, illegal, non-complying, and substandard conditions were 6 not reasonably known to Plaintiff at the time she took possession of the Subject Property. 7 The defects at the premises included, but were not limited to, leaks, mold growth, vermin 8 and pest infestation, lack of access to hot, running water and inadequate mechanical 9 equipment that was not obvious to an unsophisticated prospective tenant such as Plaintiff. 10 47. Plaintiff and other tenants repeatedly informed Defendants and their agents about the 11 defects outlined above. The Defendants received notification about the defects, observed 12 the defects, and were at all times aware of the defective, illegal, non-complying, and 13 substandard conditions plaguing the Subject Property. 14 48. Defendants knowingly and intentionally preyed on and took advantage of Plaintiff in 15 failing to repair, maintain, and remediate the habitability issues at the Subject Property. 16 Defendants were at all times aware that the failure to provide Plaintiff with a habitable 17 apartment constitutes an illegal reduction in services under applicable law. Defendants 18 were and are aware that Plaintiff was an unsophisticated tenant who had little or no 19 knowledge of the law, little or no access to legal aid, and little or no ability to protect 20 herself from the unscrupulous conduct of abusive landlords. 21 49. Notwithstanding Defendants' express and constructive knowledge of the illegal conditions 22 impacting the Subject Property and Plaintiff, Defendants repeatedly failed or delayed 23 making repairs to the Plaintiff’s units and the Subject Property. Defendants repeatedly 24 misrepresented to Plaintiff that they would make repairs and then failed to do so. 25 Defendants' conduct was intentional and designed to extract rent from Plaintiff in 26 derogation of Plaintiff’s rights under applicable law, save money, increase their cash flow 27 from the operation and management of the Subject Property. 28 50. At no time have Defendants offered to reduce or compromise Plaintiff’s obligation to pay COMPLAINT - 14 - 1 rent in light of the defects described herein. Defendants knew that the Subject Property 2 was not fit for human occupation, but made the conscious decision to subject Plaintiff to 3 the illegal and unacceptable living conditions present in the Subject Property solely for 4 monetary gain and without regard to Plaintiff's rights and status as a lawful occupant of 5 the Subject Property. 6 51. As the direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered bodily injury, 7 property damage, emotional distress, and other damages in an amount in excess of the 8 jurisdiction of this Court. In addition, the rental value of the Plaintiff’s unit has been 9 substantially diminished such that Defendants have been unjustly enriched by their own 10 bad faith and intentional misconduct. 11 52. Defendants' conduct described above was willful, wanton, intentional, despicable, 12 malicious, and initiated with malice and with the intent to knowingly take advantage of, 13 oppress, and injure Plaintiff. Defendants at all times acted with a willful and conscious 14 disregard of the rights of safety of Plaintiff and the building’s other tenants. Defendants 15 were at all times aware that there was a high probability that their intentional and/or 16 negligent failure to repair and maintain the Subject Property would injure Plaintiff and 17 cause her personal injury, emotional distress and property damage. Plaintiff is therefore 18 entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages under and pursuant to Civil Code, 19 Section 3294 and Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890. 20 53. Subject to the terms of Plaintiff’s lease and/or applicable law, Plaintiff is entitled to an 21 award of attorney's fees and costs. 22 VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENCE 23 (As to all Defendants) 24 54. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, every allegation contained in the 25 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 26 55. As landowners and/or managers of land, the Defendants owed a duty of care under 27 common law and Civil Code §1714 to exercise due care in management of the property so 28 as to avoid foreseeable injury to others. This duty of care required the Defendants to COMPLAINT - 15 - 1 comply with all building, health, fire and safety codes, ordinances, regulations and other 2 laws applying to maintenance and operation of residential rental housing. This obligation 3 of the owner also includes the obligation to properly maintain the Subject Property and to 4 timely and competently effectuate repairs when required. 5 56. The Defendants breached this common law and statutory duty of due care by failing to 6 institute a regular maintenance process; failing to correct substandard conditions 7 complained of herein; and failing to supervise their agents and employees who operated 8 and maintained the building. The Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, 9 that Plaintiff would be injured because of this breach of common law and statutory duties 10 of due care. 11 57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent maintenance of the Subject 12 Property, the value of the leasehold held by Plaintiff was diminished. Plaintiff also 13 suffered other harms, including mental health treatment for harm caused by the 14 uninhabitable conditions of the Subject Property. 15 58. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff 16 suffered and continues to suffer injury, extreme mental and emotional distress, discomfort, 17 annoyance, anxiety, loss in the value of their leasehold, property damage, and out of 18 pocket costs, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial, but within the 19 jurisdictional requirements of this Court. 20 VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF UNFAIR BUSINESS 21 PRACTICES 22 (As to all Defendants) 23 59. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, every allegation contained in the 24 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 25 60. As described above, Defendant had actual knowledge of material deficiencies and 26 habitability issues at the Subject Property, failed to abate the issues and yet continued 27 charging Plaintiff full monthly rent. 28 61. Under and pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200, the rental of an apartment COMPLAINT - 16 - 1 constitutes a "business act or practice." Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 2 alleges that Defendants have engaged in the illegal and unfair business practice of owning 3 and/or renting substandard, untenantable, uninhabitable, dangerous, unhealthy, and 4 unsanitary housing. Defendants' illegal and unfair business practices include, but are not 5 limited to, Defendants' acts and omissions described herein as well as the ongoing 6 violation of the statutes, regulations and/or ordinances described in this complaint. 7 Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants' illegal and wrongful conduct as 8 described in this complaint has been adopted and implemented by Defendants as a means 9 of conducting business. 10 62. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' illegal and unfair 11 business practices have been adopted and implemented for the purpose of maximizing 12 their net income and profits from such properties. Plaintiff is informed and believes and 13 thereon alleges that Defendants regularly fail to repair and maintain the apartments they 14 own and control, engage in conduct designed to cover up and hide illegal defects. 15 63. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants are slum lords 16 whose goal is to maximize their income by preying on persons who do not have the power 17 or ability to protect their rights. Defendants have accomplished this goal by reducing 18 and/or eliminating services to the Plaintiff’s unit to such an extent that Plaintiff’s unit had 19 zero fair rental value as well as adding pretextual charges to rent with no additional 20 benefits or amenities added. 21 64. In leasing residential property that was not properly maintained, the Defendants engaged 22 in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practice. The Defendants leased the Subject 23 Property knowing that it was not fit for habitation. At all times, the Defendants demanded 24 full market value for Plaintiff’s use of the Subject Property, despite the Subject Property’s 25 general unfitness for use as contemplated by both the Lease and the intent of the parties at 26 the time of the formation of the Lease. 27 65. The Defendants violated Civil Code §§1941.1, 1942, Health and Safety Code §17920.3, 28 Business and Professions Code 17200, and local housing and building maintenance codes. COMPLAINT - 17 - 1 66. As a result, Plaintiff paid the Defendants more than the reasonable or fair market value of 2 the Subject Property. Because the Defendants failed to properly maintain the Subject 3 Property despite reasonable notice by Plaintiff, the Defendants unfairly and unjustly 4 collected a windfall and retained rent money in excess of the value of the Subject Property 5 given its condition. 6 67. As a result of the unfair business practices by the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered from a 7 leasehold worth substantially less than rent paid, property loss, mental and emotional 8 distress, physical injury, cost of repairs, and loss of use and enjoyment of her home. 9 VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF CAL. CIVIL CODE 10 §1942.4 11 (As to Defendant 29SC BURLINGTON LP) 12 68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, every allegation contained in the 13 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 14 69. The Defendants had a statutory duty to maintain the Subject Property, including the 15 common areas, in a good, safe, and healthful condition. 16 70. The Defendants substantially breached this statutory duty by permitting untenable 17 conditions to exist including but not limited to: 18 Inadequate Maintenance; Inadequate Weather 19 Dampness and Mold; Inadequate Plumbing; 20 Electrical Issues; 21 Vermin Infestations; Inoperable Air Conditioning; 22 71. The Subject Property failed LAHD inspections on November 25, 2019, January 23, 2020, 23 March 3, 2020, September 21, 2020, November 10, 2020, March 1, 2021, August 5, 2021, 24 September 15, 2021, February 24, 2022, and November 7, 2022. Many of the cited 25 violations persisted across long periods of time and were not abated within 35 calendar 26 days after notice was given. 27 72. The Defendants demanded and collected rent thereon and continued to demand and collect 28 rent from the Plaintiff while the prohibited conditions went unabated. COMPLAINT - 18 - 1 73. Plaintiff was not in substantial violation of any affirmative duties as tenants that may have 2 contributed to the untenable conditions described above. 3 74. As a proximate cause of the Defendants’ failure to abide by the statutory duty to maintain 4 the Subject Property in tenantable conditions, Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount to 5 be proven at trial. 6 75. In addition, having been aware of such habitability defects and untenable conditions yet 7 nevertheless failing to repair the above dilapidated conditions in a timely manner, among 8 other reasons, signifies that the conduct of the Defendants and their agents, directors, 9 and/or officers, who knowingly permitted the above-mentioned habitability defects and 10 untenable conditions to continue existing, was willful and intentional as well as 11 undertaken with malice against Plaintiff and with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 12 rights. The Defendants’ behavior under these circumstances is despicable and warrants the 13 imposition of punitive damages in a sum appropriate to punish the Defendants and deter 14 future similar misconduct. 15 IX. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF CAL. CIVIL CODE 1950.5 16 (As to Defendant 29SC BURLINGTON LP) 17 76. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference, every allegation contained in the 18 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 19 77. Under California Civil Code Section 1950.5(1) “…the bad faith claim or retention by a 20 landlord… of the security of any portion thereof in violation of this section may subject 21 the landlord …to statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security, in addition 22 to actual damages.” 23 78. The Subject Property was uninhabitable, and Plaintiff was entitled to a full refund of her 24 security deposit but Defendants wrongfully withheld Plaintiff’s security deposit in bad 25 faith and failed to provide any accounting for said withholding. Instead, Defendants sent 26 Plaintiff a bill nearly seven (7) months after Plaintiff was constructively evicted from the 27 Subject Property, entitling Plaintiff to treble damages. 28 COMPLAINT - 19 - 1 79. Notwithstanding the expiration of the deadline set by California Civil Code Section 2 1950.5, Defendants have unlawfully, in bad faith and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 3 rights failed to return Plaintiff’s full security deposit. 4 X. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION 5 (As to all Defendants) 6 80. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the 7 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 8 81. Implied in every rental agreement is a covenant of “quiet enjoyment”; The landlord 9 impliedly promises to allow the tenant possession and “quiet enjoyment” of the premises 10