Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint in Ofelia Lozano Pineda vs. Xia Huaxia, et al| Trellis.Law

On November 28, 2023 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between and for (26) Unlimited Other Real Property in the District Court of San Mateo County.

Preview
1 John R. Brydon (Bar No. 83365)
Erin S. McGahey (Bar No. 220610)
2 DEMLER, ARMSTRONG & ROWLAND, LLP
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
3 San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 949-1900
4 Facsimile: (415) 354-8380
Email: bry@darlaw.com
5 esm@darlaw.com

6 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
HUXIA XIA (erroneously named as XIA HUAXIA)
7 And YUAN FANG HU

8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10

11 OFELIA LOZANO PINEDA, an ) CASE NO. 23-CIV-05649
individual, )
12 )
Plaintiff, ) Action Filed: November 28, 2023
13 ) Trial Date: None
v. )
14 )
XIA HUAXIA, an individual, YUAN )
15 FANG HU, an individual, and JULIO )
MANCIA, an individual, and DOES )
16 1through 25 inclusive, )
)
17 Defendants.
) CROSS-COMPLAINT OF
18 HUAXIA XIA and YUAN FANG HU, ) DEFENDANTS/CROSS-
) COMPLAINANTS HUAXIA XIA AND
19 Cross-Complainants, ) YUAN FANG HU FOR INDEMNITY,
) CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT
20 v. ) OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY
) RELIEF
21 JULIO MANCIA, and ROES 1 through 10, )
inclusive, )
22 )
Cross-Defendants. )
23 )
24 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
25 Defendants/Cross-Complainants HUAXIA XIA (erroneously named as XIA
26 HUAXIA) and YUAN FANG HU hereby brings the following cross-complaint against
27 defendant JULIO MANCIA, and Roes 1 through 10 as follows:
28
1
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS HUAXIA XIA AND YUAN FANG HU
FOR INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 COMMON ALLEGATIONS

2 1. The true names of capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or

3 otherwise, of cross-defendants, ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to HUAXIA XIA

4 and YUAN FANG HU (“Cross-Complainants”) who pray leave of court to amend this cross-

5 complaint to substitute the true names and capacities of these cross-defendants when

6 ascertained. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and on that basis alleges that each

7 of the cross-defendants designated as ROE were legally responsible in some manner for the

8 injuries of which plaintiffs complain.

9 2. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe that cross-defendants were the
10 agents, employees, co-ventures, partners, or in some manner agents or principals, or both, for

11 each other and were acting within the course and scope of their agency, employment, venture

12 or partnership at the time of the matters alleged herein.

13 3. Cross-Complainants herein reference Plaintiff’s Complaint as though fully set

14 forth, for informational purposes only, and do not admit the facts alleged therein.

15 4. On or about November 28, 2023, plaintiff OFELIA LOZANO PINEDA filed a

16 Complaint against defendants HUAXIA XIA (erroneously named as XIA HUAXIA), YUAN

17 FANG HU, and JULIO MANCIA, and DOES 1 through 25, for Negligence, Breach of

18 Warranty of Habitability, Premises Liability, Constructive Eviction, and Violation of East Palo

19 Alto Code of Ordinances, regarding her tenancy at 2229 Pulgas Avenue, East Palo Alto,
20 California between approximately July 2022 and February 7, 2023. Without admitting the

21 allegations therein, and for the purpose of reference only, the allegations in Plaintiff’s

22 Complaint (attached as Exhibit 1) are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in

23 full.

24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

25 (Equitable Indemnity)

26 As a separate, distinct and alternative cause of action against cross-defendant, Cross-
27 Complainants alleges as follows:

28
2
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS HUAXIA XIA AND YUAN FANG HU
FOR INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 5. Cross-Complainants incorporate herein by reference each and every paragraph

2 of this cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein.

3 6. Cross-Complainants deny that they are in any way responsible for the events or

4 damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Cross-Complainants allege that the injuries and

5 damages alleged by Plaintiff, if any, were legally caused by the conduct of Plaintiff, and cross-

6 defendant JULIO MANCIA, and Roes 1 through 10. If Cross-Complainants are found in

7 some manner responsible to Plaintiff or to anyone else as a result of the incidents and

8 occurrences described in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Cross-Complainants are entitled to indemnity

9 from cross-defendant JULIO MANCIA, and each of them as Roes 1 through 10, for any loss
10 they may sustain in this matter, including all costs, attorney's fees and/or judgments that may

11 be rendered against Cross-Complainants. Cross-Complainant’s liability, if any, could only be

12 based on a derivative form of liability not from their conduct; therefore, Cross-Complainants

13 are entitled to complete indemnity if they were to be found at fault for the allegations in

14 Plaintiff’s Complaint. Cross-defendant JULIO MANCIA, and each of them, are bound and

15 obligated to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, Cross-Complainants from and against any

16 and all claims, losses, damages, attorney's fees, judgments and settlements incurred, or to be

17 incurred.

18 7. Cross-Complainants have incurred expenses and attorney's fees in the

19 investigation and defense of this action, and additional costs, expenses and attorney's fees will
20 be incurred in the future. Cross-Complainants pray leave to amend this cross-complaint to

21 include these costs, expenses and attorney fees when ascertained.

22 8. Cross-Complainants allege that if Plaintiff recovers a judgment against Cross-

23 Complainants, then Cross-Complainants are entitled to implied indemnity and/or comparative

24 equitable indemnity, partial or total, from cross-defendant JULIO MANCIA, herein named in

25 the principal action, and each of the ROES 1 through 10. Furthermore, such judgment should

26 be apportioned between Cross-Complainants and the cross-defendant JULIO MANCIA, and
27 each of them, on theories of comparative fault, equitable indemnity, and partial or total

28 indemnity.
3
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS HUAXIA XIA AND YUAN FANG HU
FOR INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 9. Cross-Complainants allege that the determination of a separate percentage of

2 fault, if any, on the part of Cross-Complainants and cross-defendant JULIO MANCIA is

3 necessary to protect the rights of Cross-Complainants to partial indemnity from cross-

4 defendants.

5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

6 (Contribution)

7 As a separate, distinct and alternative cause of action against cross-defendant JULIO

8 MANCIA, and each of them as ROES 1 through 10, Cross-Complainants allege as follows:

9 10. Cross-Complainants incorporate herein by reference each and every paragraph
10 of this cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein.

11 11. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by the acts of cross-defendant JULIO

12 MANCIA, and each of them as ROES 1 through 10, and as a matter of law, Cross-

13 Complainants are entitled to equitable indemnity and equitable contribution for the amount of

14 fault attributable to cross-defendants.

15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

16 (Apportionment of Fault)

17 As a separate, distinct and alternative cause of action against cross-defendant JULIO

18 MANCIA, and each of them as ROES 1 through 10, Cross-Complainants alleges as follows:

19 12. Cross-Complainants incorporate herein by reference each and every paragraph
20 of this cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein.

21 13. In the event that liability should be established on the part of Cross-

22 Complainants, Cross-Complainants may be obligated by law to pay sums representing a

23 percentage of liability not their own. Therefore, Cross-Complainants requests an adjudication

24 of the respective degrees of liability, if any, on their part and on the part of cross-defendant

25 JULIO MANCIA, and each of them as ROES 1 through 10, so as to determine that portion

26 which actually represents cross-defendant’s the proportionate degree of fault.
27

28
4
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS HUAXIA XIA AND YUAN FANG HU
FOR INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Declaratory Relief)

3 As a separate, distinct and alternative cause of action against cross-defendant JULIO

4 MANCIA, and ROES 1 through 10,

5 14. Cross-Complainants incorporate herein by reference each and every paragraph

6 of this cross-complaint as though fully set forth herein.

7 15. A determination of the proportionate degree of liability, if any, of Cross-

8 Complainants and cross-defendants is necessary to protect the rights of Cross-Complainants

9 vis-a-vis cross-defendants.
10 16. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Cross-Complainants

11 and cross-defendant JULIO MANCIA, and ROES 1 through 10, for which Cross-

12 Complainants desire a declaration of their right to indemnification. Cross-Complainants

13 contend that they are in no way legally responsible for the injuries or damages alleged in

14 Plaintiff's Complaint. Cross-Complainants further alleges that if, as a result of the matters

15 alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, Cross-Complainants are held liable for any part of the claim

16 asserted against it, then:

17 (a) The amount of fault or negligence of cross-defendants, and each of them,

18 which contributed to plaintiff's damages, if any, should be declared, and;

19 (b) Cross-defendants, and each of them, are liable to Cross-Complainants on a
20 comparative or total indemnity basis, so that the damages, if any, sustained by plaintiff may be

21 distributed in accordance with relative fault, or in total.

22 c) That Cross-Complainants are entitled to recover from cross-defendants all

23 costs of defense, including attorney fees, they incur in this action.

24 17. A judicial determination is necessary to resolve the dispute set forth herein as no

25 other adequately remedy at law exists to provide a prompt and timely resolution thereof.

26 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment against cross-defendant as
27 follows:

28
5
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS HUAXIA XIA AND YUAN FANG HU
FOR INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 1. For costs of suit herein, including but not limited to costs of investigation

2 incurred in the defense of the complaint and prosecution of this cross-complaint;

3 2. For attorney's fees incurred herein in the defense of the complaint and in the

4 prosecution of this cross-complaint;

5 3. That cross-defendants, and each of them, be required to defend, indemnify,

6 protect and hold harmless Cross-Complainants from any loss, damage, costs, judgment,

7 settlement and/or expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees and court costs related

8 to and/or in connection with the claims asserted herein by plaintiffs and/or other cross-

9 complainant and/or cross-defendants;
10 4. For a judgment entitling Cross-Complainants to total or partial indemnification

11 from all cross-defendants, and each of them, apportioned by the percentage of fault

12 attributable to each cross-defendant herein;

13 5. For such other further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

14
Dated: March 8, 2024 DEMLER, ARMSTRONG & ROWLAND, LLP
15

16 By:
John R. Brydon
17 Erin S. McGahey
Attorneys for Defendants. HUAXIA XIA
18 (erroneously named as XIA HUAXIA) and
YUAN FANG HU
19
20

26
27

28
6
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS HUAXIA XIA AND YUAN FANG HU
FOR INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
EXHIBIT 1
1 T.P. SKINNER (SBN: 297710) 11/28/2023
SKINNER LAW GROUP, APC
2 1654 The Alameda, Ste 100
San Jose, CA 95126
3 Telephone: 408-813-9240
tom@skinnerlawgroupca.com
4
Attorney for Plaintiff Ofelia Lozano Pineda
5

6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
8

9 23-CIV-05649
OFELIA LOZANO PINEDA, an individual, Case No.
10
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR:
11 (1) NEGLIGENCE;
v. (2) BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF
12 HABITABILITY;
XIA HUAXIA, an individual, YUAN FANG (3) PREMISES LIABILITY;
13 (4) CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
HU, an individual, JULIO MANCIA, an
individual, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, (5) VIOLATION OF EAST PALO ALTO CODE
14 OF ORDINANCE § 14.12
Defendants. (6) VIOLATION OF EAST PALO ALTO CODE
15 OF ORDINANCE §§ 14.04 et seq.

17 (AMOUNT DEMANDED OVER $25,000)
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
18

19
INTRODUCTION
20
Plaintiff OFELIA LOZANO PINEDA ("Plaintiff PINEDA") allege the following:
21
1. This is an action for damages relating to Plaintiffs’ tenancy at 2229 Pulgas Ave. E. Palo
22
Alto, CA 93710 (“Subject Premises”). Plaintiff PINEDA requested that the electricity in her unit be
23
inspected and repaired as she suspected that there was a defect in the wiring, for her television and
24
portal heater had burnt due to an electric shortage. Defendants failed to ameliorate the dangerous
25
condition that was brought to their attention by Plaintiff. As a result, on or around February 9, 2023,
26
a fire ignited in Plaintiff’s unit (“Subject Fire”).
27
2. Plaintiff and her children were forced to vacate their home as a result of the Subject Fire.
28

1
COMPLAINT
1 Sometime after the Subject Fire, Defendants informed Plaintiff Pineda that she would not be

2 reimbursed for her damaged property, expenses incurred from relocation, and that she would not be

3 able to move back into her home with her children.

4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants engaged in

6 wrongful conduct in the State of California, which caused harm to Plaintiff.

7 4. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants rented and managed the Subject

8 Property to Plaintiff in this county and thus a substantial portion of the occurrences related to this

9 action occurred in this county. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 395. Further, Plaintiff seeks an amount of

10 damages which exceeds the minimum jurisdiction of this court ($25,000).

11 THE PARTIES

12 5. Plaintiff OFELIA LOZANO PINEDA was at all relevant times herein over the age of

13 eighteen.

14 6. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that all times relevant, Defendants XIA

15 HUAXIA and YUAN FANG HU owned the Subject Premises.

16 7. Defendants XIA HUAXIA (“HUAXIA”) and YUAN FANG HU (“HU”) are both the

17 “landlord” of the Subject Premises as that term is defined under California common law, under

18 California Civil Code Procedure § 1161 et seq., under California Civil Code § 1980 and under East

19 Palo Alto Code of Ordinances § 14.04.040.

20 8. Plaintiff qualifies as a “person[s] who hire[] a dwelling” (i.e., a tenant) as defined by

21 California Civil Code § 1940, was at all relevant times a “tenant” at the Subject Premises pursuant to

22 under East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances § 14.04.040 and avails herself of all the rights and

23 remedies contained therein.

24 9. Upon information and belief, Defendants HUAXIA and HU failed to assist Plaintiff in

25 recuperating any of her belongings, monetary compensation, or be rehoused. Plaintiff is informed

26 and believe and hereon allege that each of the Defendants were aware of the conduct of the others,

27 and the circumstances and events surrounding that conduct, and thereon authorized and ratified the

28 conduct of the others.

2
COMPLAINT
1 10. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of

2 defendants DOE 1 through 25 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sue such Defendants by such

3 fictious names, and will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when

4 ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants

5 designated as a DOE is responsible in some manner as the proximate cause for the injuries as herein

6 alleged.

7 11. Plaintiff is informed and believe and hereon allege that at all times herein mentioned each

8 of the Defendants was the agent (including a deemed agent pursuant to California Civil Code §

9 1962(d)), employee, servant, beneficiary, partner, and / or joint ventures of each of the other

10 Defendants, and in doing or failing to do the things alleged herein, were acting within the course and

11 scope of such agency, employment, service, trust relationship, partnership, and / or joint venture.

12 Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant ratified the

13 conduct of the other Defendants with respect to Plaintiff’s tenancy at the Subject Premises.

14 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

15 12. Plaintiff PINEDA resided at the Subject Premises for approximately seven months and

16 had been paying rent in the amount of $2,300 per month after having executed a lease to reside at the

17 Subject Premises with Defendant JULIO MANCIA, who Plaintiff is informed and believes and

18 thereon alleges was at all relevant times the agent of Defendants and property manager of the

19 Subject Premises.

20 13. At all times herein, and continuing to the present, Defendants, and each of them, have

21 used, maintained, and managed the Subject Premises in a manner that has caused harm to Plaintiff.

22 Specifically, Defendants’ failure to address Plaintiff’s repeated repair requests caused the electricity

23 to ignite a fire at the Subject Premises. More generally, Defendants operated the Subject Premises in

24 a reckless manner by renting it out to too many other tenants and/or occupants, and such

25 overcrowding of the Subject Premises strained the electrical system and created an unsafe

26 environment for all the tenants.

27 14. On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff PINEDA requested that the electric wiring in her unit be

28 inspected and repaired as she suspected that there was a defect in the wiring, as a heater and a

3
COMPLAINT
1 television had burnt out prior to this date.

2 15. Defendants did nothing to attempt to ameliorate or repair the dangerous condition that

3 was brought to their attention by Plaintiff. On or around February 9, 2023, a fire ignited in a

4 different part of the Subject Premises in which neither Plaintiff nor her children resided (the “Subject

5 Fire”).

6 16. As a result of the Subject Fire, Plaintiff and her children were forced to vacate their

7 home. Plaintiff lost all of hers and her children’s personal belongings in the Subject Fire, Plaintiff

8 has been forced to incur additional expenses for hotel fees.

9 17. After the Subject Fire, Defendants informed Plaintiff that her tenancy at the Subject

10 Premises was terminated and she would not receive reimbursement for property loss nor expenses

11 incurred from vacating her home as a result of the Subject Fire. Plaintiff and her children have been

12 distraught and fearful after being forced out of their unit.

13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

14 (NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

15 18. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.

16 19. Plaintiff leased the Subject Premises from Defendants. By reason of the personal and

17 contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to

18 exercise reasonable care in the ownership, operation, management, and control of the Subject

19 Premises, which included, but not limited to the following: the duty to comply with all applicable

20 state and local laws governing Plaintiff’s rights; the duty not to interfere with Plaintiff’s quiet

21 enjoyment of the premises; the duty to repair premises; and the duty to refrain from attempting to

22 wrongfully endeavor to recover possession of Plaintiff’s rental unit.

23 20. At all relevant times, Defendants managed or owned the Subject Premises. Plaintiff

24 Pineda had requested to have the electrical wiring inspected numerous times because she was

25 concerned that it could pose a danger to her and her family.

26 21. Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to maintain the Subject Premises in a

27 reasonably prudent manner to avoid injury to others, including Plaintiff. Defendants, and each of

28 them, had a duty to make repairs within a reasonable timeframe upon being notified of a defect /

4
COMPLAINT
1 dangerous condition relating to the stove-top fan at Subject Premises.

2 22. Defendant breached that duty by failing to repair Subject Premises and / or by making

3 substandard repairs to the Subject Premises.

4 23. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. As a direct,

5 legal, and proximate cause of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has sustained significant damages, as

6 alleged herein, in an amount to be determined according to proof at the time of trial but no less than

7 $100,000.

8 24. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’

9 conduct was willful, malicious and oppressive within the meaning of Civil Code § 3294. Defendants

10 acted with reckless disregard of the probability Plaintiff would suffer harm from Defendants’ willful

11 failure to ensure the Subject Premises were safe for human occupancy. Defendants knew that

12 dangerous and unhealthy conditions existed within the Subject Premises, had the financial ability to

13 fix the conditions, but did nothing. The conduct of the Defendants alleged herein was oppressive,

14 fraudulent, malicious, and done with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’ rights, and as such,

15 Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein also justifies the imposition of punitive damages.

16 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

17 (BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

18 25. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.

19 26. Plaintiff leased the Subject Premises from Defendants.

20 27. Implied in Plaintiff’s residential lease agreement is an implied warranty of habitability,

21 wherein Defendants promised to inspect and maintain the Subject Premises in a clean, safe, and

22 habitable condition.

23 28. Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing to maintain the

24 Subject Premises in a clean, safe, and habitable condition.

25 29. Plaintiff met all her obligations under the lease.

26 30. Plaintiff Pineda notified Defendants of all repair issues at the Subject Premises. In

27 addition, the Defendants actually knew or could have known with reasonable diligence about all of

28 the repair issues at the Subject Premises.

5
COMPLAINT
1 31. Defendants ignored all of these repair issues, failed to repair these issues, or negligently

2 repaired these issues.

3 32. Defendants forced Plaintiff to live with unsafe electrical wiring that short wired, caught

4 on fire, and forced Plaintiff and her family to vacate their home.

5 33. Defendants’ acts and omissions in failing to repair were knowing, intentional, willful, and

6 done with full knowledge of the stress, discomfort, anxiety, and annoyance that such acts and

7 omissions would cause Plaintiff.

8 34. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff suffered from a lease worth

9 substantially less than rent paid, property loss, loss of use and enjoyment of her rental unit, and

10 attorney fees and costs.

11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

12 (PREMISES LIABILITY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

13 35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.

14 36. Plaintiff were harmed because of the way Defendants managed its property.

15 37. Defendants own, lease, and control the Subject Premises.

16 38. Defendants were negligent in the use, maintenance, or operation of the Subject Premises

17 because Defendants owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to Plaintiff and failed to use reasonable

18 care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. Further, Defendant failed to use reasonable

19 care to discover any unsafe condition and to give adequate warning of anything that could be

20 reasonably expected to harm others. Specifically, Defendant knew or should have known about the

21 dangerous condition posed by the stove top that caught on fire after Plaintiff Pineda requested an

22 inspection and repair of the stove top fan on numerous occasions. Defective wiring can cause serious

23 physical injury and/or death. Defendants could have prevented or mitigated the risk of serious

24 physical injury or death by carrying out repair duties in a diligent and prudent manner.

25 39. Plaintiff Pineda suffered injuries to her throat and neck from inhaling smoke.

26 40. Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.

27 41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered harm in an

28 amount according to proof at time of trial, but no less than $50,000.

6
COMPLAINT
1 42. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’ conduct

2 was willful, malicious and oppressive within the meaning of Civil Code § 3294. Defendants acted

3 with reckless disregard of the probability Plaintiff would suffer harm from Defendants’ willful failure

4 to ensure the Subject Premises were safe for human occupancy. Defendants knew that dangerous and

5 unhealthy conditions existed within the Subject Premises, had the financial ability to fix the

6 conditions, but did nothing. The conduct of the Defendants alleged herein was oppressive, fraudulent,

7 malicious, and done with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’ rights, and as such, Defendants’ conduct

8 as alleged herein also justifies the imposition of punitive damages.

9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10 (CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

11 43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.

12 44. By reason of their landlord-tenant relationship, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise

13 reasonable care in the ownership, management and control of the Subject Premises.

14 45. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her right to peaceably and quietly live at the Subject

15 Premises by the conduct alleged herein, including but not limited to negligently and carelessly

16 maintaining, operating and managing the Subject Premises, leasing the Subject Premises to an

17 excessive number of occupants/residents/tenants.

18 46. As a result of the defects and conditions complained-of herein, Plaintiff has been compelled

19 to vacate the Subject Unit at the Subject Property.

20 47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues

21 to suffer emotional, and physical distress, pain, and suffering.

22 48. As a further direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff

23 incurred moving expenses and damaged property in an amount to be determined in accordance with

24 proof at trial.

25 49. As a result of Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s rights as set forth herein, Plaintiff was

26 forced to hire licensed counsel to enforce Plaintiffs' rights.

27 50. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants’ conduct

28 was willful, malicious and oppressive within the meaning of Civil Code § 3294. Defendants acted

7
COMPLAINT
1 with reckless disregard of the probability Plaintiff would suffer harm from Defendants’ willful

2 failure to ensure the Subject Premises were safe for human occupancy. Defendants proclaimed to

3 terminate Plaintiff’s tenancy without providing written notice . The conduct of the Defendants

4 alleged herein was oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, and done with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’

5 rights, and as such, Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein also justifies the imposition of punitive

6 damages.

7 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8 (VIOLATION OF EAST PALO ALTO CODE OF ORDINANCES § 14.12 AGAINST ALL

9 DEFENDANTS)

10 51. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.

11 52. At all relevant times herein, the Subject Premises was located within East Palo Alto and

12 subject to the East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances.

13 53. The Subject Fire was a “disaster” as defined by Chapter 14.12 of Title 14 of the East Palo

14 Alto Code of Ordinances.

15 54. At no point after the Subject Fire did Defendants provide written notification to Plaintiff of

16 her right to reoccupy the Subject Premises after repairs were made to the damage caused by the

17 Subject Premises, in violation of East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances § 14.12.020.

18 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ noncompliance with Chapter 14.12 of Title

19 14 of the East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances, Plaintiff was harmed and seeks actual and punitive

20 damages as allowed by East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances § 14.12.020(D).

21 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22 (VIOLATION OF EAST PALO ALTO CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 14.04 et seq. AGAINST

23 ALL DEFENDANTS)

25 56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.

26 57. The Subject Premises were either entirely subject to the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization and

27 Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, or partially exempt as set for in East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances §

28 14.04.050(B)(1).

8
COMPLAINT
1 58. As owners of the Subject Premises, Defendants HUAXIA and HU failed to provide Plaintiff

2 with notice as required by East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances § 14.04.060.

3 59. Defendants all qualified as “landlords” of the Subject Premises and Plaintiff’s tenancy at the

4 Subject Premises pursuant to the East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances § 14.04.040. Defendants were

5 required to follow the procedures set forth in East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances § 14.04.160 in

6 order to legally terminate Plaintiff’s tenancy, but Defendants failed to follow such procedures.

7 60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of East Palo Alto Code of

8 Ordinances § 14.04.160, Plaintiff was harmed in an amount according to proof, but no less than

9 $50,000.

10 61. Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees and costs for Defendants’ violation of the East Palo Alto Rent

11 Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance pursuant to East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances §

12 14.04.180(F).

14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

15 1. For general damages, but no less than $200,000;

16 2. For special damages according to proof;

17 3. For prejudgment interest on the amount of any damages awarded;

18 4. For damages for personal injury and bodily injury, including emotional distress under

19 applicable causes of action;

20 5. For attorney fees and costs pursuant to East Palo Alto Code of Ordinances §

21 14.04.180(F), the contract lease agreement, statute or as otherwise allowed by law;

22 6. For punitive damages; and

23 7. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

25 Dated: November 28, 2023 SKINNER LAW GROUP, APC

26
By: /s/ T.P. Skinner________
27 T.P. SKINNER
Attorney for Plaintiff Ofelia Lozano Pineda
28

9
COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I 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 101 Montgomery Street,
3 Suite 1800, San Francisco, California 94104.
4 On March 8, 2024, I served the foregoing document(s) described as CROSS-
COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS HUAXIA XIA AND
5 YUAN FANG HU FOR INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT OF
FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF on the interested parties in this action addressed
6 as follows:
7
T.P. SKINNER
8 SKINNER LAW GROUP, APC
1654 The Alameda, Ste 100
9 San Jose, California 95126
Telephone: (408) 813-9240
10 Email: tom@skinnerlawgroupca.com

11 ☐ BY MAIL – I placed the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and place the
envelope for collection and mailing on the date below following the firm’s ordinary business
12 practice. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing for
mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same
13 day with postage thereon fully prepaid in San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of
business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presume invalid if postal
14 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing
in affidavit.
15
☐ BY PERSONAL SERVICE – I caused personal delivery of the document(s) listed
16 above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth above.

17 ☐ BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION – I transmitted via facsimile the document(s) listed
above to the fax number(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m.
18
☒ BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §
19 1010.6 (e), by emailing only the document(s) to counsel for the above-identified represented
parties at the e-mail address(es) for electronic service provided and confirmed by them in this
20 litigation. Unless notice to the contrary is subsequently filed, no electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after
21 the transmission.

22 ☐ BY FED EX – I placed the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope designated for
Fed Ex overnight delivery and deposited the same with fees thereupon prepaid, in a facility
23 regularly maintained by Federal Express, addressed as set forth above.

24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct. Executed on March 8, 2024, at San Francisco, California.
25

26 Francinny de Almeida

28
7
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS HUAXIA XIA AND YUAN FANG HU
FOR INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: Ofelia Lozano Pineda vs. Xia Huaxia, et al

Preview

Case Info

Parties

Complaint,Petition: Ofelia Lozano Pineda vs. Xia Huaxia, et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties