Preview
! || Susana Cortez Flores
3260 Petaluma Ave
2 || Long Beach, CA 90808
Telephone (562) 639-6022
3 || Email: 89susy@email.com
4 || Susana Cortez Flores, plaintiff.
5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
6
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
7
Roa
IN THE MATTER OF: Case No.:
9
Susana Cortez Flores, .
A 10 |
PLAINTIFE’S COMPLAINT FOR:
. Plaintiff, 1. Breach of the covenant of good faith
a
fair dealing
5 Vs. 2. Unlawful and Unfair Business
12
Practices in Violation of Cal. Bus. &
(4 Martelva Gonzalez; AND DOES | TO 25
Prof. Code § 17200
INCLUSIVE,
3. Implied warranty of habitability
14
Defendant(s). 1
UNLIMITED
IS
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16 |
19 PLAINTIFF Susana Cortez Cruz alleges the following causes of action in her complaint agains
| 20 Defendant(s), and each of them, as follows:
23 l. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Susana Cortez Flores, and thereafter
a4 |} C*Plaintif?’), was a resident of the County of Los Angeles,
Statc of California,
25 2. The defendant(s) herein, MARTELVA GONZALEZ, thereafter (“Defendant”), has a
| principal place of business and rents property in the County
of Los Angeles, State of California.
Den seis Me mbem ie bE ADL ONACA
Plaintiff Complaing * Page 1] 11
Van AAI? RFION AOA PAR ANIO ™
| 3. The proper names and capacities of the defendants named herein as Does I through 25,
2 inclusive, whether individual, corporate. associate or otherwise, are unknown to plaintiff, who therefore
3 II sues such defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474.
‘ Plaintiff is informed and believes that Doe’s defendants are California residents. The plaintiff will
: ° amend this complaint to show such true names and capacities when they have been determined.
. ° JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4, This is a proper court because the defendant now resides or does business in its
9 jurisdictional area, and the plaintiff's principal place of residence occurred in its jurisdictional area.
10 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
rT 3. On or about February 1, 2021, MARTELVA GONZALEZ (“Defendant’’) entered into a
12 || rental agreement with Susana Cortez Flores (“Plaintiff”) regarding a unit located at 13311 Fairford avel
13 || Norwalk, CA 90650 (Shed next to the pool) thereafter (“Rental Unit.”)
|
4 6. The rental unit in the garage has a living area, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, air
. '> || conditioner, refrigerator, and closet. It was rented to the Plaintiff as a dwelling for living purposes. |
. 6 7. The rental unit had been constructed without the permits of the City of Norwalk
. " Department of Building and Safety; the rented unit has not complied with the safety requirements for |
s rental unit for living purposes since the date the defendant rented the unit to the plaintiff the rental :
has safety hazards issues because lack of basic safety regulations, putting the Plaintiff at risk. Plaintiff
1 paid rent to Defendant from the months period between April 1, 2014, to August 01, 2023. |
99 8. In good faith, Plaintiff paid Defendant $900.00 from February 1, 2021, to December 1,
3 || 2023. Any and all payments were made when the rental unit was unregistered and rented without ne
' z4 || proper construction permits from the City of Norwalk.
25
| nenins Oaabana in nacanace raonPtAbntisi Complaint * Page 2111
© Il 9, Plaintiff paid Defendant's rent in the total amount of $29,900.00 for an _—
; 2 || unhabitable, dangerous rental space that did noi comply with plumbing and electrical permits as required
> |! for rental living purposes.
‘ 10. The rental property has a separate entrance, does not possess a separate mailbox, does no
° have its own address, does not have its own gas or electric meter, has a low ceiling, lacks windows, an
° has visible piping and ducting along the walls or ceiling.
7
. 11. The Rental unit does not have Proper plumbing, gas, electricity facilities, weathe
, protection of roof and outside walls and unbroken doors and windows, proper hot and cold runnin:
10 || Water, Sewage disposal system, adequate and sage heating or cooling system, does not have the correc
. tl | or permitted electrical lighting and maintenance in working order, the rental unit does not have adequate
12 || containers for trash, the unit is infested with vermin, rodents, and other pests.
| 13 12. The defendant's rental agreement to rent an illegal unit to the Plaintiff is considered void
l4 |) because the law doesn't allow parties to enter into a contract for an illegal purpose; plaintiffs aren’
'S |] obligated to perform the contract duties because there is no certificate of occupancy, and the defendan
6 isn’t entitled to collect rent from the Plaintiff.
"7 13. Generally, contracts for an illegal purpose, such as a lease agreement for an unpermitte
. unit, are unlawful and void. But this rule is not absolute. Lauren Carter v. Jerry Cohen, 188
" Cal.App.4th 1038, 1048 (2010). Although rental agreements for illegal units are unlawful, tenants ca
. 20
3 enforce the contract and sue their landlord for their damages based on the principle that when a law’
97 || Purpose in prohibiting certain conduct is to protect a class of people from the activities of another, th
93 || members of the protected class may maintain an action despite having been a party to the illegal
: 24 || transaction. Id at 1050.
25 14. The rental unit rented by the defendant as an illegal unit is a dwelling that does not hav
the required Certificate of Occupancy, which is a document that certifies that a residential buildin
(puns Paalamn IR: AREA MOE TaOn ade ween neaseea Aig! = Page 3] 11
1 || complies with all state and local building codes and is safe to live in. The rental unit is considered any
2 || unwarranted, non-conforming, or unpermitied unit for living purposes.
3 15. The unit rented by the defendant contains many habitability issues, and they rent the uni
* targeting elderly, disabled, or low-income tenants to make money quickly in an illegal way.
° 16. The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court has held that a three-day pay
° or quit notice for non-payment of rent served to a tenant living in a unit that did not have a Certificate of
7
‘ Occupancy was fatally defective. North 7th Street Associates v. Guillermo Constante, 7 Cal. App. 5th
Supp. 1 (2016). The Court reasoned that because a landlord is not entitled to collect rent for an illegal
10 unit, the landlord could not evict the tenant for nonpayment. Id.
1 17. The unit rented by the defendant to the Plaintiff still remains unpermitted or illegal
12 || because it does not meet all of the required building and zoning codes, rendering it uninhabitable. h
13 || some circumstances, a tenant may choose to move out of an uninhabitable rental unit rather than attempt
14 ll to have repairs made. Cal. Civ. Code § 1942. In this situation, the plaintiff has an affirmative case
15 against the defendant and can bring a lawsuit for a constructive eviction.
. '6 18. The property rented to the plaintiff is so defective that it is unfit to live in, and thd
- " defendant is attempting to force the plaintiff to abandon the property with several texts, comments, and
s notices; the plaintiff is allowed to file a cause of action for constructive eviction. Stoiber v. Honeychuck
" 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 921 (1980), citing Groh v. Kover’s Bull Pen, Inc., 221 Cal. App. 2d 611 (1963).
20
o 19. The rental unit currently requires a city permit for the necessary work to be performed
9» on the rental unit and the unit to become legal. The defendant will need to remove the bathroom,
23 || plumbing, and electrical that was done to the Shed without the proper permits or approvals or submit
24 || plans for the necessary permits for the work done, and the defendant, to the date of this pleading, still
25 || neglects to do so.
: Hit
| nines Pinalennn WA AGEONAOE 70m WHAT Noon ange alee “ Page 4/11
‘. 1 | FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
: 2 Breach of the covenant of good faith fair dealing
| 3 (Against All Defendants)
. 4 20. Paragraphs | through 20 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully se
| 5 || forth in this claim.
6 21, The Plaintiff, Susana Cortez Cruz, and the Defendant, MARTELVA GONZALEZ, AN
7 || DOES 1 TO 25 INCLUSIVE, entered into a rental agreement for the property address 13311 Fairfor
g || Ave, Norwalk, CA 90650 (Shed next to the pool) thereafter.
9 22. Plaintiff did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the rental contract fo
10 | the Rental Unit did, as agreed with the defendant.
i 23. Defendant and does 1 to 25 Inclusive unfairly interfered with the plaintiffs right ¢
. "? receive the benefits of the contract, and by renting an illegal unit, the defendant interfered with th
. ° plaintiff's reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit.
| " 24, The Detendant served a notice to vacate, called the plaintiff several times to tell her/hi
: to move out of the property as soon as possible, did not file a declaration of intent to evict for relocatior
: | fees, and harassed the plaintiff in different ways (cutting the internet, turning off water and electricity,
18 not allowing access to common areas of the house). Those actions indicate that the Defendant wa:
ig || performing an illegal eviction against the Plaintiff.
20 25. The Defendant was not seeking to get the Rental unit in good faith,
21 26. Non-payment of rent is not in dispute because the unit in the shed next to the pool rented
: 22 || to the plaintiff was constructed without the required permits and is not a registered unit for renta
‘ 23 || purposes.
28 27, The defendant did not provide relocation assistance to recover possession of the rental
: *s unit from demolishing or permanently removing it from rental housing per City of Norwalk §17.02.15
Home occupation Permits.
| acenimies Pantene I: AEEON AOE Pada MAT BoEA nanan! * Page SIM |
i 28. In every contract, there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by eac
2 || party not to do anything that will deprive the other parties of the benefits of the contract and a breach o
> |I this covenant by failure to deal fairly or in good faith gives rise to an action for damages. Sutherland v.
, Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., 53 Cal. App. 4th 299, 314, 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 614 (1997); Harm v.
° Frasher, 181 Cal. App. 2d 405, 415, 5 Cal. Rpir. 367, 373 (1960); Seaman's Direct Buying Serv., Inc. v.
° Standard Oil Co., 36 Cal. 3d 752, 206 Cal. Rptr. 354 (1984), overruled on other grounds, Freeman &
. Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co., 11 Cal. 4th 85, 102-03, 44 Cal. Rptr. 420 (1995); see also Witkin,
Summary of California Law, Contracts, $743.
10 | 29, California law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in all contracts betweer
11 || Parties entered into in the State of California. As a result of the actions of the defendants, and each o
12 || them, set forth hereinabove, said the defendant had violated the implied covenant of good faith and fai
13 || dealing contained in the rental agreement as against said Plaintiff herein, and as a result thereof, Plaintifi
14 Il is entitled to damages as prayed.
5 30. The Defendant's conduct harmed the plaintiff. The City of Norwalk deemed the renta
16 unit an illegal dwelling because it was built without permits. The defendant has done nothing to bring i
" into compliance with Building Codes and has not offered a relocation fee to the Plaintiff.
: 8 31. The defendant did not act in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit t
. . demolish or to remove it from rental housing use permanently.
ni 32. Defendant engaged in the foregoing conduct in bad faith for the purpose of (1) gainin
, » || unwarranted contractual and illegal rental advantages and (2) unfairly and unconscionably maximizin
33 || Tevenue from Plaintiff.
24 33. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover their damages and other appropriate relief for the
25 || breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
| | mann Panbane in aacansee ron ae Mbhht Complains * Page 6[11 |
i 34, The Plaintiff was damaged and is entitled to general damages, consequential, special,
2 || actual, and/or statutory damages, injunctive relief. for the Defendants’ violations in the amount to be
S: 3 || proven at trial.
© 4
5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
6 Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
7 (Against All Defendants)
35. Paragraphs | through 34 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully se
forth in this claim.
" 36, Business and Profession Code 17200. As used, this includes any unlawful, unfair, o
. fraudulent business act or practice, unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and any ac
" prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business an
: ° Professions Code.
© 37, The laws prohibiting unfair competition and unlawful business practices are designed t
. " promote faimess in market competition and provide consumer protection. The defendant rented a unit t
° the Plaintiff, which also prohibits unfair, deceptive, or misleading advertising.
° 38. The defendant advertised and claimed that they had a rental unit for rent; when th
~
i: plaintiff saw the unit, the defendant told the plaintiff that it was legal for rental purposes and complie
. with the proper permit for living purposes.
" 39. | The rental unit never had proper licenses for rental or construction permits, the unit never
* was sate for living purposes, and the defendant omitted this information to the plaintiff, the defendan
s having knowledge of the defect and the lack of the permit in the rental unit, rented to plaintif:
22
- committing illegal and unfair business practices.
° 40. The Defendant claimed to the Plaintiff that the rental unit was livable for rental purposes,
“ but this was not true.
» 41. The defendant renting the unit with the condition that it was legal for rental and livin
purposes was false.
| atta Danlenna Is AAEONACE TaOn HAT MRA naaRdedy ned © ~ Page TIL |
1 42. The Defendant knew that the representation that the rental unit was legal and livable fo
2 || rental purposes was false when he rented it to the plaintiff and made the rental agreement. The plaintif
3 || relied on the Defendant’s representation, and the Plaintiff was harmed by living in poor conditions in th
4 ||rental unit. The defendant’s conduct constitutes a fraudulent business act or practice and is unfair,
5 || deceptive, untrue, or misleading to the Plaintiff.
6 43. The defendant neglected the rental unit because he/she placed the Plaintiff at risk of harm
7 || to make profits from the unpermitted rented unit.
8 44, As a direct and proximate cause of the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts and practices
? || of the renting practices of Defendants, Plaintiffs as a consumer(s) have suffered. They will continue to
10 1) suffer damages for the unfairly collected rent and other improper fees and charges.
: iu 45, By reason of the foregoing, Defendants’ actions have been unjustly enriched, and they
0 should be required to disgorge their illicit profits and/or make restitution to Plaintiffs who have been
© harmed and/or be enjoined from continuing in such practices pursuant to California Business &
14
's Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17204. Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and
16 attorney’s fees as available under California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 and related
. 17 || Sections.
18 46. The Plaintiff was damaged and is entitled to general damages, consequential, special,
ig || actual, and/or statutory damages, injunctive relief, for the Defendants’ violations in the amount to be
. 29 || proven at trial.
- THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
99 Implied warranty of habitability
(Against All Defendants)
23 47. Paragraphs | through 46 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set
** || forth in this claim.
2s 48. The essential elements of a cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability
are: (1) a materially defective condition of the property affecting habitability; (2) the defective condition
: | aviminees Panlinnn IM ABEDAAOE Tron A407 WEN nanaeduines ©“ Page 8[1L |
| || was unknown to the tenant at the time of occupancy; (3) the effect on the habitability of the defective
2 || condition was not apparent on reasonabie inspection; (4) notice was given to the landlord within a
3 || reasonable time after the tenant discovered, or should have discovered the breach; and (5) damages.
© 4 |) (Quevedo v. Braga (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7-8 (Quevedo), overruled on other grounds by
' 5 || Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 46, 55 [disapproving of the element that landlord must have
6 || been allowed reasonable time to repair].)
7 49, The plaintiff claims that the Defendant did not maintain the property in a habitable
8 || condition while renting the illegal unit constructed in the garage.
9 50. The unit rented to the plaintiff by the defendant did not have effective waterproofing or
10 || weather protection on the roof.
1] 31. The defendant's rented unit to the plaintiff did not have any waterproofing or heating
12. || protection on the exterior or exterior walls. Also, the rental unit had broken windows and no workable
13 || doors.
14 52. The rental unit did not have any legal plumbing or gas facilities that complied with
| 15 || applicable law in California and Los Angeles County or the local city ordinances.
16 53. The rental unit did not have a water supply capable of producing hot and cold running
. 7 |) water furnished to appropriate fixtures.
18 54. The rented unit did not have any proper connection to a sewage disposal system.
19 55. The rented unit did not comply with the proper heating system.
20 56. ‘The rental unit's poor water and sewer system created accumulations of debris, filth,
21 |! rubbish, garbage, rodents, and vermin.
22 57. Defendant substantially failed to keep the rental unit in the garage in good living
| 23 || conditions or clean and sanitary condition as required by law.
24 58. The defendant substantially failed to install all electrical, gas, and plumbing fixtures
. 25 || properly to keep the property livable and safe.
| mienimier Analennn IM: MALONE 7aOn MAT WEA nanrerduane | ~ Page 9111
: 1 59. The rental unit is not suitable for living conditions, and it is illegal; a landlord is not
2 || entitled to collect or request rent from ihe tenant in an unpermitted unit, Gruzen v. Henry, 84 Cal. App.
3 |/3d.517, 519 (1978). The defendant is not entitled to collect rent from the plaintiff.
4 60. ‘In the rental unit, Defendant collected rent from the illegal structure as a second unit in a
5 || lot permitted for only one family in the same lot and for a rental unit without the “Certificate of
6 || Occupancy.”
7 61. This case arises from the Green v. Superior Court case, which states that before a
& || landlord may demand rent, he/she must first provide a habitable dwelling. However, the plaintiff's rente
9 |) unit was unhabitable for living purposes. When the defendant rented the unit, he warranted that the
10 || place was habitable, knowing that the rented unit had “substantial” defects for living purposes.
i 62. Ifthe defendant fails to remedy the problems within a reasonable time, the plaintiff is
os 12 || allowed to stop paying rent until repairs are made, at which point the obligation to pay the contract rent
13 |} resumes.
14 63. The defendant attempted and is attempting to evict the plaintiff in bad faith, and now the
15 || plaintiff has the right to sue for all damages caused by the defendant.
16 64. The defendants failed to correct the habitability conditions. Based on information and
17 || belief, the Defendants are aware that absent appropriate maintenance, serious habitability violations
18 || would develop that would seriously and materially affect the Plaintiff's tenancy.
19 65. A tenant may sue their landlord for violation of this section of the ordinance, L.A., Cal.
20 |) Mun. Code § 152. 07. The landlord may be liable to the tenant for actual damages, special damages not
ie 21 || exceeding the more significant of twice the amount of actual damages or $5,000, and reasonable
e 22 |) attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court. Id. Treble (triple) damages may be awarded for
23 || willful failure to comply with the payment obligations, to provide safe, decent and sanitary temporary
24 || replacement housing, or to allow a tenant to reoccupy a rental unit once the primary work is completed.
| 25 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable
The court grants the following relief:
| nena: Paabann IA: DOESANCE TaOn AAA Sven Bean
Pa La! “ Page 10/11
1 a. For the rent collected for the last four years for an unregistered unit. For the amount o
2 * re :
- 3 Twenty-Nine Thousand Nine-Hundred Dollars ($29,900)
4 b. For relocation assistance for twenty thousand eight hundred fifty dollars ($20,850.00).
. 5 c. For the plaintiffs cost of the suit, if any; And
: d. For such other and further relief as the Court may consider just and proper.
7
g || Respectfully submitted,
9
19 || Dated:__ 3112 ary
1} By:
Susapa Corte s
12 Plaintiff.
13
14 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
. 6 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for each claim herein for which she has a right to a jury.
16
Dated: o> 112 \. to Zy
7
By: on
18 Susana Cortez Flores
Plaintiff.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pmt
Plaintifl Co mplaint * Page 11]1l
Diwmbeee I. FAC AM OO FeOn AAT ATR ALM ACI OR ANNES
Preview
! || Susana Cortez Flores 3260 Petaluma Ave 2 || Long Beach, CA 90808 Telephone (562) 639-6022 3 || Email: 89susy@email.com 4 || Susana Cortez Flores, plaintiff. 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 6 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 7 Roa IN THE MATTER OF: Case No.: 9 Susana Cortez Flores, . A 10 | PLAINTIFE’S COMPLAINT FOR: . Plaintiff, 1. Breach of the covenant of good faith a fair dealing 5 Vs. 2. Unlawful and Unfair Business 12 Practices in Violation of Cal. Bus. & (4 Martelva Gonzalez; AND DOES | TO 25 Prof. Code § 17200 INCLUSIVE, 3. Implied warranty of habitability 14 Defendant(s). 1 UNLIMITED IS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 16 | 19 PLAINTIFF Susana Cortez Cruz alleges the following causes of action in her complaint agains | 20 Defendant(s), and each of them, as follows: 23 l. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Susana Cortez Flores, and thereafter a4 |} C*Plaintif?’), was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, Statc of California, 25 2. The defendant(s) herein, MARTELVA GONZALEZ, thereafter (“Defendant”), has a | principal place of business and rents property in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Den seis Me mbem ie bE ADL ONACA Plaintiff Complaing * Page 1] 11 Van AAI? RFION AOA PAR ANIO ™ | 3. The proper names and capacities of the defendants named herein as Does I through 25, 2 inclusive, whether individual, corporate. associate or otherwise, are unknown to plaintiff, who therefore 3 II sues such defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. ‘ Plaintiff is informed and believes that Doe’s defendants are California residents. The plaintiff will : ° amend this complaint to show such true names and capacities when they have been determined. . ° JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4, This is a proper court because the defendant now resides or does business in its 9 jurisdictional area, and the plaintiff's principal place of residence occurred in its jurisdictional area. 10 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS rT 3. On or about February 1, 2021, MARTELVA GONZALEZ (“Defendant’’) entered into a 12 || rental agreement with Susana Cortez Flores (“Plaintiff”) regarding a unit located at 13311 Fairford avel 13 || Norwalk, CA 90650 (Shed next to the pool) thereafter (“Rental Unit.”) | 4 6. The rental unit in the garage has a living area, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, air . '> || conditioner, refrigerator, and closet. It was rented to the Plaintiff as a dwelling for living purposes. | . 6 7. The rental unit had been constructed without the permits of the City of Norwalk . " Department of Building and Safety; the rented unit has not complied with the safety requirements for | s rental unit for living purposes since the date the defendant rented the unit to the plaintiff the rental : has safety hazards issues because lack of basic safety regulations, putting the Plaintiff at risk. Plaintiff 1 paid rent to Defendant from the months period between April 1, 2014, to August 01, 2023. | 99 8. In good faith, Plaintiff paid Defendant $900.00 from February 1, 2021, to December 1, 3 || 2023. Any and all payments were made when the rental unit was unregistered and rented without ne ' z4 || proper construction permits from the City of Norwalk. 25 | nenins Oaabana in nacanace raonPtAbntisi Complaint * Page 2111 © Il 9, Plaintiff paid Defendant's rent in the total amount of $29,900.00 for an _— ; 2 || unhabitable, dangerous rental space that did noi comply with plumbing and electrical permits as required > |! for rental living purposes. ‘ 10. The rental property has a separate entrance, does not possess a separate mailbox, does no ° have its own address, does not have its own gas or electric meter, has a low ceiling, lacks windows, an ° has visible piping and ducting along the walls or ceiling. 7 . 11. The Rental unit does not have Proper plumbing, gas, electricity facilities, weathe , protection of roof and outside walls and unbroken doors and windows, proper hot and cold runnin: 10 || Water, Sewage disposal system, adequate and sage heating or cooling system, does not have the correc . tl | or permitted electrical lighting and maintenance in working order, the rental unit does not have adequate 12 || containers for trash, the unit is infested with vermin, rodents, and other pests. | 13 12. The defendant's rental agreement to rent an illegal unit to the Plaintiff is considered void l4 |) because the law doesn't allow parties to enter into a contract for an illegal purpose; plaintiffs aren’ 'S |] obligated to perform the contract duties because there is no certificate of occupancy, and the defendan 6 isn’t entitled to collect rent from the Plaintiff. "7 13. Generally, contracts for an illegal purpose, such as a lease agreement for an unpermitte . unit, are unlawful and void. But this rule is not absolute. Lauren Carter v. Jerry Cohen, 188 " Cal.App.4th 1038, 1048 (2010). Although rental agreements for illegal units are unlawful, tenants ca . 20 3 enforce the contract and sue their landlord for their damages based on the principle that when a law’ 97 || Purpose in prohibiting certain conduct is to protect a class of people from the activities of another, th 93 || members of the protected class may maintain an action despite having been a party to the illegal : 24 || transaction. Id at 1050. 25 14. The rental unit rented by the defendant as an illegal unit is a dwelling that does not hav the required Certificate of Occupancy, which is a document that certifies that a residential buildin (puns Paalamn IR: AREA MOE TaOn ade ween neaseea Aig! = Page 3] 11 1 || complies with all state and local building codes and is safe to live in. The rental unit is considered any 2 || unwarranted, non-conforming, or unpermitied unit for living purposes. 3 15. The unit rented by the defendant contains many habitability issues, and they rent the uni * targeting elderly, disabled, or low-income tenants to make money quickly in an illegal way. ° 16. The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court has held that a three-day pay ° or quit notice for non-payment of rent served to a tenant living in a unit that did not have a Certificate of 7 ‘ Occupancy was fatally defective. North 7th Street Associates v. Guillermo Constante, 7 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 1 (2016). The Court reasoned that because a landlord is not entitled to collect rent for an illegal 10 unit, the landlord could not evict the tenant for nonpayment. Id. 1 17. The unit rented by the defendant to the Plaintiff still remains unpermitted or illegal 12 || because it does not meet all of the required building and zoning codes, rendering it uninhabitable. h 13 || some circumstances, a tenant may choose to move out of an uninhabitable rental unit rather than attempt 14 ll to have repairs made. Cal. Civ. Code § 1942. In this situation, the plaintiff has an affirmative case 15 against the defendant and can bring a lawsuit for a constructive eviction. . '6 18. The property rented to the plaintiff is so defective that it is unfit to live in, and thd - " defendant is attempting to force the plaintiff to abandon the property with several texts, comments, and s notices; the plaintiff is allowed to file a cause of action for constructive eviction. Stoiber v. Honeychuck " 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 921 (1980), citing Groh v. Kover’s Bull Pen, Inc., 221 Cal. App. 2d 611 (1963). 20 o 19. The rental unit currently requires a city permit for the necessary work to be performed 9» on the rental unit and the unit to become legal. The defendant will need to remove the bathroom, 23 || plumbing, and electrical that was done to the Shed without the proper permits or approvals or submit 24 || plans for the necessary permits for the work done, and the defendant, to the date of this pleading, still 25 || neglects to do so. : Hit | nines Pinalennn WA AGEONAOE 70m WHAT Noon ange alee “ Page 4/11 ‘. 1 | FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION : 2 Breach of the covenant of good faith fair dealing | 3 (Against All Defendants) . 4 20. Paragraphs | through 20 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully se | 5 || forth in this claim. 6 21, The Plaintiff, Susana Cortez Cruz, and the Defendant, MARTELVA GONZALEZ, AN 7 || DOES 1 TO 25 INCLUSIVE, entered into a rental agreement for the property address 13311 Fairfor g || Ave, Norwalk, CA 90650 (Shed next to the pool) thereafter. 9 22. Plaintiff did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the rental contract fo 10 | the Rental Unit did, as agreed with the defendant. i 23. Defendant and does 1 to 25 Inclusive unfairly interfered with the plaintiffs right ¢ . "? receive the benefits of the contract, and by renting an illegal unit, the defendant interfered with th . ° plaintiff's reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. | " 24, The Detendant served a notice to vacate, called the plaintiff several times to tell her/hi : to move out of the property as soon as possible, did not file a declaration of intent to evict for relocatior : | fees, and harassed the plaintiff in different ways (cutting the internet, turning off water and electricity, 18 not allowing access to common areas of the house). Those actions indicate that the Defendant wa: ig || performing an illegal eviction against the Plaintiff. 20 25. The Defendant was not seeking to get the Rental unit in good faith, 21 26. Non-payment of rent is not in dispute because the unit in the shed next to the pool rented : 22 || to the plaintiff was constructed without the required permits and is not a registered unit for renta ‘ 23 || purposes. 28 27, The defendant did not provide relocation assistance to recover possession of the rental : *s unit from demolishing or permanently removing it from rental housing per City of Norwalk §17.02.15 Home occupation Permits. | acenimies Pantene I: AEEON AOE Pada MAT BoEA nanan! * Page SIM | i 28. In every contract, there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by eac 2 || party not to do anything that will deprive the other parties of the benefits of the contract and a breach o > |I this covenant by failure to deal fairly or in good faith gives rise to an action for damages. Sutherland v. , Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., 53 Cal. App. 4th 299, 314, 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 614 (1997); Harm v. ° Frasher, 181 Cal. App. 2d 405, 415, 5 Cal. Rpir. 367, 373 (1960); Seaman's Direct Buying Serv., Inc. v. ° Standard Oil Co., 36 Cal. 3d 752, 206 Cal. Rptr. 354 (1984), overruled on other grounds, Freeman & . Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co., 11 Cal. 4th 85, 102-03, 44 Cal. Rptr. 420 (1995); see also Witkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts, $743. 10 | 29, California law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in all contracts betweer 11 || Parties entered into in the State of California. As a result of the actions of the defendants, and each o 12 || them, set forth hereinabove, said the defendant had violated the implied covenant of good faith and fai 13 || dealing contained in the rental agreement as against said Plaintiff herein, and as a result thereof, Plaintifi 14 Il is entitled to damages as prayed. 5 30. The Defendant's conduct harmed the plaintiff. The City of Norwalk deemed the renta 16 unit an illegal dwelling because it was built without permits. The defendant has done nothing to bring i " into compliance with Building Codes and has not offered a relocation fee to the Plaintiff. : 8 31. The defendant did not act in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit t . . demolish or to remove it from rental housing use permanently. ni 32. Defendant engaged in the foregoing conduct in bad faith for the purpose of (1) gainin , » || unwarranted contractual and illegal rental advantages and (2) unfairly and unconscionably maximizin 33 || Tevenue from Plaintiff. 24 33. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover their damages and other appropriate relief for the 25 || breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. | | mann Panbane in aacansee ron ae Mbhht Complains * Page 6[11 | i 34, The Plaintiff was damaged and is entitled to general damages, consequential, special, 2 || actual, and/or statutory damages, injunctive relief. for the Defendants’ violations in the amount to be S: 3 || proven at trial. © 4 5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 6 Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 7 (Against All Defendants) 35. Paragraphs | through 34 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully se forth in this claim. " 36, Business and Profession Code 17200. As used, this includes any unlawful, unfair, o . fraudulent business act or practice, unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and any ac " prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business an : ° Professions Code. © 37, The laws prohibiting unfair competition and unlawful business practices are designed t . " promote faimess in market competition and provide consumer protection. The defendant rented a unit t ° the Plaintiff, which also prohibits unfair, deceptive, or misleading advertising. ° 38. The defendant advertised and claimed that they had a rental unit for rent; when th ~ i: plaintiff saw the unit, the defendant told the plaintiff that it was legal for rental purposes and complie . with the proper permit for living purposes. " 39. | The rental unit never had proper licenses for rental or construction permits, the unit never * was sate for living purposes, and the defendant omitted this information to the plaintiff, the defendan s having knowledge of the defect and the lack of the permit in the rental unit, rented to plaintif: 22 - committing illegal and unfair business practices. ° 40. The Defendant claimed to the Plaintiff that the rental unit was livable for rental purposes, “ but this was not true. » 41. The defendant renting the unit with the condition that it was legal for rental and livin purposes was false. | atta Danlenna Is AAEONACE TaOn HAT MRA naaRdedy ned © ~ Page TIL | 1 42. The Defendant knew that the representation that the rental unit was legal and livable fo 2 || rental purposes was false when he rented it to the plaintiff and made the rental agreement. The plaintif 3 || relied on the Defendant’s representation, and the Plaintiff was harmed by living in poor conditions in th 4 ||rental unit. The defendant’s conduct constitutes a fraudulent business act or practice and is unfair, 5 || deceptive, untrue, or misleading to the Plaintiff. 6 43. The defendant neglected the rental unit because he/she placed the Plaintiff at risk of harm 7 || to make profits from the unpermitted rented unit. 8 44, As a direct and proximate cause of the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts and practices ? || of the renting practices of Defendants, Plaintiffs as a consumer(s) have suffered. They will continue to 10 1) suffer damages for the unfairly collected rent and other improper fees and charges. : iu 45, By reason of the foregoing, Defendants’ actions have been unjustly enriched, and they 0 should be required to disgorge their illicit profits and/or make restitution to Plaintiffs who have been © harmed and/or be enjoined from continuing in such practices pursuant to California Business & 14 's Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17204. Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and 16 attorney’s fees as available under California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 and related . 17 || Sections. 18 46. The Plaintiff was damaged and is entitled to general damages, consequential, special, ig || actual, and/or statutory damages, injunctive relief, for the Defendants’ violations in the amount to be . 29 || proven at trial. - THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 99 Implied warranty of habitability (Against All Defendants) 23 47. Paragraphs | through 46 above are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set ** || forth in this claim. 2s 48. The essential elements of a cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability are: (1) a materially defective condition of the property affecting habitability; (2) the defective condition : | aviminees Panlinnn IM ABEDAAOE Tron A407 WEN nanaeduines ©“ Page 8[1L | | || was unknown to the tenant at the time of occupancy; (3) the effect on the habitability of the defective 2 || condition was not apparent on reasonabie inspection; (4) notice was given to the landlord within a 3 || reasonable time after the tenant discovered, or should have discovered the breach; and (5) damages. © 4 |) (Quevedo v. Braga (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7-8 (Quevedo), overruled on other grounds by ' 5 || Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 46, 55 [disapproving of the element that landlord must have 6 || been allowed reasonable time to repair].) 7 49, The plaintiff claims that the Defendant did not maintain the property in a habitable 8 || condition while renting the illegal unit constructed in the garage. 9 50. The unit rented to the plaintiff by the defendant did not have effective waterproofing or 10 || weather protection on the roof. 1] 31. The defendant's rented unit to the plaintiff did not have any waterproofing or heating 12. || protection on the exterior or exterior walls. Also, the rental unit had broken windows and no workable 13 || doors. 14 52. The rental unit did not have any legal plumbing or gas facilities that complied with | 15 || applicable law in California and Los Angeles County or the local city ordinances. 16 53. The rental unit did not have a water supply capable of producing hot and cold running . 7 |) water furnished to appropriate fixtures. 18 54. The rented unit did not have any proper connection to a sewage disposal system. 19 55. The rented unit did not comply with the proper heating system. 20 56. ‘The rental unit's poor water and sewer system created accumulations of debris, filth, 21 |! rubbish, garbage, rodents, and vermin. 22 57. Defendant substantially failed to keep the rental unit in the garage in good living | 23 || conditions or clean and sanitary condition as required by law. 24 58. The defendant substantially failed to install all electrical, gas, and plumbing fixtures . 25 || properly to keep the property livable and safe. | mienimier Analennn IM: MALONE 7aOn MAT WEA nanrerduane | ~ Page 9111 : 1 59. The rental unit is not suitable for living conditions, and it is illegal; a landlord is not 2 || entitled to collect or request rent from ihe tenant in an unpermitted unit, Gruzen v. Henry, 84 Cal. App. 3 |/3d.517, 519 (1978). The defendant is not entitled to collect rent from the plaintiff. 4 60. ‘In the rental unit, Defendant collected rent from the illegal structure as a second unit in a 5 || lot permitted for only one family in the same lot and for a rental unit without the “Certificate of 6 || Occupancy.” 7 61. This case arises from the Green v. Superior Court case, which states that before a & || landlord may demand rent, he/she must first provide a habitable dwelling. However, the plaintiff's rente 9 |) unit was unhabitable for living purposes. When the defendant rented the unit, he warranted that the 10 || place was habitable, knowing that the rented unit had “substantial” defects for living purposes. i 62. Ifthe defendant fails to remedy the problems within a reasonable time, the plaintiff is os 12 || allowed to stop paying rent until repairs are made, at which point the obligation to pay the contract rent 13 |} resumes. 14 63. The defendant attempted and is attempting to evict the plaintiff in bad faith, and now the 15 || plaintiff has the right to sue for all damages caused by the defendant. 16 64. The defendants failed to correct the habitability conditions. Based on information and 17 || belief, the Defendants are aware that absent appropriate maintenance, serious habitability violations 18 || would develop that would seriously and materially affect the Plaintiff's tenancy. 19 65. A tenant may sue their landlord for violation of this section of the ordinance, L.A., Cal. 20 |) Mun. Code § 152. 07. The landlord may be liable to the tenant for actual damages, special damages not ie 21 || exceeding the more significant of twice the amount of actual damages or $5,000, and reasonable e 22 |) attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court. Id. Treble (triple) damages may be awarded for 23 || willful failure to comply with the payment obligations, to provide safe, decent and sanitary temporary 24 || replacement housing, or to allow a tenant to reoccupy a rental unit once the primary work is completed. | 25 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable The court grants the following relief: | nena: Paabann IA: DOESANCE TaOn AAA Sven Bean Pa La! “ Page 10/11 1 a. For the rent collected for the last four years for an unregistered unit. For the amount o 2 * re : - 3 Twenty-Nine Thousand Nine-Hundred Dollars ($29,900) 4 b. For relocation assistance for twenty thousand eight hundred fifty dollars ($20,850.00). . 5 c. For the plaintiffs cost of the suit, if any; And : d. For such other and further relief as the Court may consider just and proper. 7 g || Respectfully submitted, 9 19 || Dated:__ 3112 ary 1} By: Susapa Corte s 12 Plaintiff. 13 14 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY . 6 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for each claim herein for which she has a right to a jury. 16 Dated: o> 112 \. to Zy 7 By: on 18 Susana Cortez Flores Plaintiff. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pmt Plaintifl Co mplaint * Page 11]1l Diwmbeee I. FAC AM OO FeOn AAT ATR ALM ACI OR ANNES