Preview
ELECTRONICALLY
Daniel Yockey # 310162
1 3630 High St #19066 FILED
Oakland CA 94619 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
2 danielyockeylaw@gmail.com
510-868-8040 03/14/2024
3 Clerk of the Court
BY: DAEJA ROGERS
Deputy Clerk
4 Attorney for Plaintiff JOE JACKS
5
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
7
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
8 CGC-24-613115
9 ) Case No.:
JOE JACKS, an individual )
10 ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR:
Plaintiff, )
11 ) (1) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVL
vs. ) CODE §789.3
12 )
) (2) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL
13 DAN IRISH, an individual, 17031 LLC., a ) CODE §1954
California Limited Liability Company, and ) (3) BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
14 (4) TRESPASS
Does 1-20,
15 (5) CONVERSION
Defendants (6) NEGLIGENCE
16 (7) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
17
(8) TRESPASS TO CHATTEL
18 (9) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL
CODE 1159
19 (10) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL
CODE 1160
20
(11) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL
21 CODE 1950.5
(12) VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §1950.5
22 (13) VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §1940.2
23
24 Plaintiff JOE JACKS, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) files this Complaint against Defendants
25 DAN IRISH and 17031 LLC and does 1 through 20 inclusive, as follows:
26
27
28
COMPLAINT - 1
1 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
2 1. Plaintiff is informed and believes that 17031 LLC, is a limited liability company
3 organized under the laws of the state of California with its principal address located in Truckee,
4 California.
5 2. Defendant Dan Irish is an individual. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Dan Irish’s
6 current place of residence is San Francisco, California. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and at
7 all times relevant herein, Defendant Dan Irish is the manager and sole member of 17031 LLC.
8 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, thereon alleges, at all times material herein that
9 Defendant 17031 LLC. is the owner of record of the real property located at 17031 Austin Way,
10 Truckee, CA, 96161( the “SUBJECT PREMISES”)
11 4. On or around March 2021, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a lease agreement to rent
12 the Subject Premises.
13 5. At all times material herein, Plaintiff resided at the Subject Premises as his full-time
14 residence.
15 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Dan Irish is the founder of 17031 LLC.
16 Plaintiff is informed and believes that during all times relevant to this complaint, he exercised
17 complete control over 17031 LLC and failed to observe corporate formalities or treat 17031 LLC
18 as an entity other than himself, instead using his limited liability form to remain immune to his
19 wrongdoing towards Plaintiff and others under a respondeat superior doctrine. Adherence to the
20 fiction of the separate existence of 17031 LLC. as an entity distinct from its controlling owner
21 and/or other members would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege, sanction fraud, and
22 promote injustice, and therefore Plaintiff brings this action against Dan Irish in his individual
23 capacity, under the alter ego doctrine. “The essence of the alter ego doctrine is that justice be
24 done.” Messler v Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.2d 290 at 301.
25 7. Plaintiff does not know the true names, capacities, or basis for liability of Defendants
26 sued as Doe 1 through Doe 20. Each fictitiously named defendant is in some manner liable to
27 Plaintiff or claims some right, title, or interest in the subject property, or both.
28
COMPLAINT - 2
1 8. Each of the Defendants named herein is believed to and is alleged to have been acting in
2 concert with, as employee, agent, co-conspirator, or member of a joint venture of, each of the
3 other Defendants, and are therefore alleged to be jointly and severally liable for the claims set
4 forth herein, except as otherwise alleged.
5 9. Jurisdiction of this court is proper because Defendant Dan Irish lives in the City of San
6 Francisco, County of San Francisco, which is within this Judicial District.
7 10. Venue in San Francisco County is appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure
8 395(a) “…the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the
9 commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action.” As described above,
10 Defendant Dan Irish resides in the city of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, which is
11 within this judicial district.
12
13 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
14 11. The total rent for the Subject Premises initially was $2000/month. Mr. Jacks split
15 the rent with a roommate. His total portion of the rent came out to $1000 per month with utilities
16 included in the rent.
17 12. Throughout the tenancy, the Subject Premises was basically an active
18 construction zone. This noise and mess greatly interfered with the quiet enjoyment of the Subject
19 Premises. This was not disclosed during the lease signing and no notice was given for much of
20 this work. Defendants never offered any reduction in rent for this interference.
21 13. Dan Irish attempted to pass on construction and other costs to Plaintiff by
22 unilaterally changing the terms of the lease agreement. Despite the lease agreement explicitly
23 stating “Landlord shall pay all utilities associated with the use of the premises.” In the Summer
24 of 2021, Defendants attempted to charge Plaintiff for extra fees including but not limited to,
25 HOA Fees, Cleaning fees, Hot Tub maintenance, Pool Cleaning, and Snow Plowing. None of
26 these extra fees were included or mentioned in the lease agreement. Mr. Jacks agreed to some of
27 these fees but not all, angering Mr. Irish
28
COMPLAINT - 3
1 14. On or around December 2021, Dan Irish informed Plaintiff that his rent would be
2 doubled to $4000 per month. Mr. Jacks refused to pay this unlawful rent increase. This refusal
3 made Mr. Irish angry.
4 15. After refusing to pay the unlawful rent increase, Dan Irish sent an email to
5 Plaintiff with an attachment letter titled “Notice to Terminate Tenancy.” This letter stated: “As
6 we discussed, the current terms of the Tenancy Agreement are no longer tenable given the
7 changes and improvements to the property, the costs involved with the utilities and the required
8 renovations planned in 2023. Therefore, this is notice that the tenancy agreement, dated March
9 1, 2021 terminated effective 60 days from today, February 1, 2023.”
10 16. On December 15, 2022, DEFENDANT placed a “Three Day Notice to Quit” on
11 door of the Subject Premises.
12 17. On December 19, 2022, Mr. Jacks’ roommate returned to the Subject Premises
13 only to find Mr. Irish had locked them out by changing the code on the numeric door lock. When
14 the roommate attempted to enter the unit, an employee of Defendants named Alexi was in the
15 house. This employee called the police and said Mr. Jacks and his roommate had been evicted
16 and were not allowed to be on the property. This was not true. At this time Mr. Jacks and his
17 roommate still had legal possession of the property.
18 18. Mr. Jacks’ roommate returned to the Subject Premises several days later and
19 found the code had been changed back to the original code and was able to enter. He found much
20 of his and Mr. Jacks’ property had been moved.
21 19. Defendants filed an Unlawful Detainer on December 21, 2022, against Mr. Jacks
22 and his roommate.
23 20. Rather than continue to suffer the daily harassment from Dan Irish, Mr. Jacks
24 decided to vacate the Subject Premises in February 2023. To date, Defendants have not returned
25 any of Mr. Jacks security deposit.
26 21. Since moving out, Mr. Jacks went months without permanent housing. He
27 incurred great expense in hotel rooms, food, travel, and other costs.
28
COMPLAINT - 4
1
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Violation of California Civil Code §789.3)
(As to all Defendants)
3
22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
4
through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
5
23. Civil Code §789.3 states, in relevant part, “A landlord shall not…prevent the
6
tenant from gaining reasonable access to the property by changing the locks.
7
24. As described above, Defendants locked Plaintiff out of his home.
8
25. By locking Plaintiff out of his home Defendants acted unreasonably.
9
26. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs suffered,
10
and continue to suffer, among other things, pain, anxiety, annoyance, inconvenience, distress,
11
economic loss, loss of use, and property damage, all to his detriment in amounts to be
12
determined at trial.
13
27. The conduct of the Defendants alleged above was willful and malicious.
14
Defendants acted or failed to act deliberately and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety
15
of Plaintiff. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be
16
determined at trial.
17
28. Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees as allowed by statute.
18
19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Common Law Retaliation)
20
(As to all Defendants)
21 29. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
22 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
23 30. California common law provides an independent basis prohibiting retaliatory
24 evictions in residential tenancies. Barela v Superior Court (1981) 30 C3d 244.
25 31. The landlord’s retaliatory conduct must cause the tenant to involuntarily vacate
26 the premises in order to raise the claim Banuelos v La Inv. (2013) 219 CA4th 323.
27 32. The common law doctrine comes into play after a landlord’s retaliation for the
28 tenant’s exercise of a statutory or common law right.
COMPLAINT - 5
1 33. As described above Defendant attempted to impose an unlawful rent increase
2 upon Plaintiff.
3 34. Plaintiff exercised his right to refuse this unlawful increase.
4 35. After the rejection of the unlawful rent increase, Defendant began eviction
5 proceedings, resulting in both illegally locking out the Plaintiff and ultimately resulting in the
6 Plaintiff involuntarily vacating the premises.
7 36. As a proximate result of the retaliation by Defendant, Plaintiff suffered, and
8 continues to suffer pain, anxiety, annoyance, inconvenience, distress, economic loss, loss of use
9 and property damage, all to their detriment in amount to be determined at trial.
10
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
11
(Breach of Quiet Enjoyment)
12 (As to all Defendants)
13
37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
14
paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
15
38. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants interfered with,
16
interrupted and deprived Plaintiff of the full and beneficial use of the Subject Premises and
17
disturbed Plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the property.
18
39. These acts of interference, interruption, deprivation, and disturbance by the
19
Defendants amount to a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment implied in all rental
20
agreements and codified in California Civil Procedure section 1927.
40. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to
21
22
suffer, pain, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, anxiety, economic loss, loss of use, and
mental anguish, all to their detriment in amount to be determined at trial.
23
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
28
COMPLAINT - 6
1
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
(Trespass)
3 (As to all Defendants)
4 41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
5
paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
6
42. At all times Plaintiff leased and controlled the Premises. As described above,
7
Defendants or Defendants’ agents intentionally and recklessly entered Plaintiff’s home without
8
Plaintiff’s knowledge or permission. Plaintiff was harmed by being locked out solely due to
9
Defendants’ illegal trespass.
10
43. As a proximate and direct result of the failure of Defendants, Plaintiff has
11
suffered, and continues to suffer, pain, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, anxiety, economic
12
loss, loss of use, and mental anguish, all to their detriment in amount to be determined at trial.
13
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14 (Conversion)
(As to all Defendants)
15
44. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
16
paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
17
45. As described above, Defendants intentionally and substantially interfered with
18
Plaintiff’s right of possession of Plaintiff’s personal property by preventing him from accessing
19
his home to retrieve his property. The plaintiff did not consent to this and has suffered damages
20
due to Defendants’ refusal to allow him access to the unit.
21
46. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for any possessions lost or damaged due to
22
Defendants’ actions and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
23
24
25 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
26 (As to all Defendants)
27 47. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
28 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
COMPLAINT - 7
1 48. By reason of the landlord-tenant relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff,
2 and by reason of the residential leases between the Parties, Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to
3 exercise reasonable care in the ownership, management, and control of Plaintiff’s unit, the
4 Subject Premises. Moreover, Defendants had a duty to Plaintiff to provide habitable dwellings.
5 49. The duty to exercise reasonable care owed by Defendants to Plaintiff included,
6 but was not limited to, the following duties, the duty to refrain from interference with Plaintiff’s
7 full use and quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises; the duty to comply with all applicable State
8 and local laws governing Plaintiff’s rights as a tenant; and the duty to refrain from intentionally
9 causing discomfort and annoyance to Plaintiff.
10 50. Defendants, by their conduct as alleged herein, negligently and carelessly
11 operated and managed the Premises, and thereby breached the duties enumerated herein.
12 51. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendant, Plaintiff
13 suffered actual, general, and special damages as listed herein.
14
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
16 (As to all Defendants)
17
52. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
18
paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
19
53. The actions of Defendants, as heretofore alleged, were extreme and outrageous
20
and done with conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional
distress as a result of the Defendants’ knowing, intentional, and willful attempts to intimidate and
21
22
harass Plaintiff into vacating the premises. Defendant knew that Plaintiff was susceptible to
additional discomfort as a result of the conduct described and their physical and mental health,
23
knew that their conduct adversely affected Plaintiff, and had the wherewithal to avoid the
24
conduct, yet consciously failed and refused to do so.
25
54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered,
26
and continues to suffer, severe mental, emotional, and physical distress, pain and suffering, all to
27
Plaintiff’s general and punitive damages, in an amount according to proof.
28
COMPLAINT - 8
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
(Trespass to Chattel)
2 (As to all Defendants)
3 55. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
4 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
5
56. As described above, Defendant locked Plaintiff out of his home and prevented
6
him from accessing his property.
7
57. Plaintiff did not consent to this intentional interference.
8
58. Plaintiff has suffered economic harm and harm to his emotional health.
9
59. This harm is solely due to Defendants’ actions.
10
60. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered,
11
and continue to suffer, among other things, pain, anxiety, annoyance, inconvenience, distress,
12
economic loss, loss of use and property damage, all to their detriment in amounts to be
13
determined at trial.
14
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 (Forcible Entry-Violation of California Code of Civil Procedure 1159)
(As to all Defendants)
16
61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
17
paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
18
62. As described above, Defendants’ or their agents entered the Plaintiff’s premises
19
and forcibly turned-out Plaintiff.
20
63. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered and
21
continues to suffer, severe mental, emotional, and physical distress, pain, and suffering, all to the
22
Plaintiff’s general and punitive damages in an amount according to proof.
23
24
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 (Forcible Detainer-Violation of California Code of Civil Procedure §1160)
(As to all Defendants)
26
64. Paragraphs re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
27
paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
28
COMPLAINT - 9
1 65. As described above, when Plaintiff left the Premises, Defendants or their agents
2 entered the premises and prevented Plaintiff from entering.
3 66. Plaintiff made a demand for surrender of the premises to Plaintiff’s possession,
4 but Defendant either ignored these requests or refused this demand.
5 67. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered,
6 and continues to suffer, severe mental, emotional and physical distress, pain and suffering, all to
7 the Plaintiff’s general and punitive damages in an amount according to proof.
8
9 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Constructive/Wrongful Eviction)
10
(As to all Defendants)
11 68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
12 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
13 69. A constructive eviction is Any interference by the landlord by which the tenant is
14 deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises amounts to a constructive eviction if the
15 tenant so elects and surrenders possession [Kulawitz v. Pacific Woodenware & Paper Co. (1944)
16 25 Cal. 2d 664, 670, 155 P.2d 24]. Thus, a constructive eviction occurs when the acts or
17 omissions of a landlord, or any disturbance or interference with the tenant’s possession by the
18 landlord, renders the premises, or a substantial portion of the premises, unfit for the purposes for
19 which they were leased, or has the effect of depriving the tenant for a substantial period of time
20 of the beneficial enjoyment or use of the premises. Abandonment of the premises within a
21 reasonable time after the landlord’s wrongful act of is essential to enable the tenant to claim a
22 constructive eviction [Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 925–926, 162 Cal.
23 Rptr. 194].
24 70. A tenant who is wrongfully evicted by his or her landlord may recover damages
25 for the eviction, regardless of whether the eviction is actual or constructive. Saferian v Baer
26 (1930) 105 Cal.App 238, 243, 287 P. 142.
27 71. As described above, Defendants and Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement to
28 rent the Subject Premises
COMPLAINT - 10
1 72. As described above, Defendants wrongfully and constructively evicted Plaintiff
2 by unlawfully attempting a “lease cancellation,” locking Plaintiff out of the Subject Premises and
3 filing an unlawful detainer after Plaintiff exercised his rights and refused an unlawful rent
4 increase.
5 73. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff vacated the Subject Premises.
6 74. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful eviction of Plaintiff from the
7 Subject Premises, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish and economic loss, all to their general
8 damage in an amount to be determined at trial.
9 75. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful eviction of Plaintiff from the
10 premises, Plaintiff suffered special, and compensatory damages in an amount according to proof.
11 76. As a further proximate result of Defendant’s conduct alleged in this complaint,
12 Plaintiff was required and did incur moving expenses and hotel and other living expenses.
13
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
(Violation of California Civil Code 1950.5)
15 (As to all Defendants)
16
77. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
17
paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
18
78. Defendants breached California Civil Code §1950.5 by unlawfully retaining parts
19
of Plaintiff’s security deposit Defendants were not entitled to.
20
79. Defendants charged for damages that were non-existent or were in an area
Plaintiff did not have access to.
21
22
80. Defendants have acted in bad faith as they have ignored all requests to discuss the
incorrect retention.
23
81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants failing to follow statute, Plaintiff
24
suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
25
82. Plaintiff seeks a return of the full amount unlawfully kept by Defendant along
26
with additional bad faith damages as allowed by Civil Code §1950.5.
27
28
COMPLAINT - 11
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
(Violation of Civil Code 1940.2)
2 (As to all Defendants)
3 83. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in
4 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
5
84. California Civil Code §1940.2 states: “It is unlawful for a landlord to do any of
6
the following for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling: (3) use, or threaten to
7
use force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a course of conduct that interferes
8
with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of Section 1927 that would create
9
an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person.
10
85. As described above, Defendants forcibly locked Plaintiff out of the Subject
11
Premises and called the police when he attempted to enter the Subject Premises.
12
86. Plaintiff did in fact experience fear upon finding a stranger in his home calling the
13
police to have him arrested.
14
87. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered general, special and punitive
15
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
16
CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
17
88. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
18
paragraphs 1 through 87, as if the same were set forth at length herein.
19
89. Defendant willfully locked Plaintiff out of his home, called the police when
20
Plaintiff demanded to be allowed in, and refused to communicate with Plaintiff despite many
attempts by Plaintiff to reach Defendant.
21
22
90. Defendant attempted to unlawfully evict Plaintiff when Plaintiff refused an
unlawful rent increase and unlawful utility and other charges.
23
91. Defendant's actions were willful and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
24
rights. Such willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights justifies an award of punitive
25
damages as such conduct was oppressive and malicious as defined by Civil Code section 3294.
26
92. Defendants’ actions constitute despicable conduct as Defendants’ carried out such
27
actions in willful and conscious disregard of the safety and rights of tenants, including plaintiff.
28
COMPLAINT - 12
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2
3 WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
4
5 1. Compensatory damages according to proof;
6 2. Special damages in an amount according to proof on all causes of action.
7 3. Punitive damages according to statute and proof and for all applicable causes of
8 action.
9 4. Statutory damages according to damages and proof.
10 5. General damages, including damages for emotional distress and mental anguish,
11 according to proof for all applicable causes of action.
12 6. For damages to, destruction of, and loss of use of personal properties, according to
13 proof;
14 7. For consequential and incidental damages, according to proof
15 8. For reasonable attorney’s fees as allowed by statute;
16 9. For costs of suit as allowed by statute;
17 10. For interest, including prejudgment interest at the legal rate, on all causes of action;
18 and for such other and further relief as this Court MAY deem just and proper.
19
20
Dated this March 14, 2024
21
22 Respectfully submitted
23
24 ____________________________
Daniel Yockey
25 Attorney for Plaintiff
26
27
28
COMPLAINT - 13
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY Daniel Yockey # 310162 1 3630 High St #19066 FILED Oakland CA 94619 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 2 danielyockeylaw@gmail.com 510-868-8040 03/14/2024 3 Clerk of the Court BY: DAEJA ROGERS Deputy Clerk 4 Attorney for Plaintiff JOE JACKS 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 6 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 7 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 8 CGC-24-613115 9 ) Case No.: JOE JACKS, an individual ) 10 ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR: Plaintiff, ) 11 ) (1) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVL vs. ) CODE §789.3 12 ) ) (2) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL 13 DAN IRISH, an individual, 17031 LLC., a ) CODE §1954 California Limited Liability Company, and ) (3) BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT 14 (4) TRESPASS Does 1-20, 15 (5) CONVERSION Defendants (6) NEGLIGENCE 16 (7) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 17 (8) TRESPASS TO CHATTEL 18 (9) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1159 19 (10) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1160 20 (11) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL 21 CODE 1950.5 (12) VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §1950.5 22 (13) VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §1940.2 23 24 Plaintiff JOE JACKS, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) files this Complaint against Defendants 25 DAN IRISH and 17031 LLC and does 1 through 20 inclusive, as follows: 26 27 28 COMPLAINT - 1 1 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 2 1. Plaintiff is informed and believes that 17031 LLC, is a limited liability company 3 organized under the laws of the state of California with its principal address located in Truckee, 4 California. 5 2. Defendant Dan Irish is an individual. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Dan Irish’s 6 current place of residence is San Francisco, California. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and at 7 all times relevant herein, Defendant Dan Irish is the manager and sole member of 17031 LLC. 8 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, thereon alleges, at all times material herein that 9 Defendant 17031 LLC. is the owner of record of the real property located at 17031 Austin Way, 10 Truckee, CA, 96161( the “SUBJECT PREMISES”) 11 4. On or around March 2021, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a lease agreement to rent 12 the Subject Premises. 13 5. At all times material herein, Plaintiff resided at the Subject Premises as his full-time 14 residence. 15 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Dan Irish is the founder of 17031 LLC. 16 Plaintiff is informed and believes that during all times relevant to this complaint, he exercised 17 complete control over 17031 LLC and failed to observe corporate formalities or treat 17031 LLC 18 as an entity other than himself, instead using his limited liability form to remain immune to his 19 wrongdoing towards Plaintiff and others under a respondeat superior doctrine. Adherence to the 20 fiction of the separate existence of 17031 LLC. as an entity distinct from its controlling owner 21 and/or other members would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege, sanction fraud, and 22 promote injustice, and therefore Plaintiff brings this action against Dan Irish in his individual 23 capacity, under the alter ego doctrine. “The essence of the alter ego doctrine is that justice be 24 done.” Messler v Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.2d 290 at 301. 25 7. Plaintiff does not know the true names, capacities, or basis for liability of Defendants 26 sued as Doe 1 through Doe 20. Each fictitiously named defendant is in some manner liable to 27 Plaintiff or claims some right, title, or interest in the subject property, or both. 28 COMPLAINT - 2 1 8. Each of the Defendants named herein is believed to and is alleged to have been acting in 2 concert with, as employee, agent, co-conspirator, or member of a joint venture of, each of the 3 other Defendants, and are therefore alleged to be jointly and severally liable for the claims set 4 forth herein, except as otherwise alleged. 5 9. Jurisdiction of this court is proper because Defendant Dan Irish lives in the City of San 6 Francisco, County of San Francisco, which is within this Judicial District. 7 10. Venue in San Francisco County is appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure 8 395(a) “…the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the 9 commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action.” As described above, 10 Defendant Dan Irish resides in the city of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, which is 11 within this judicial district. 12 13 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 14 11. The total rent for the Subject Premises initially was $2000/month. Mr. Jacks split 15 the rent with a roommate. His total portion of the rent came out to $1000 per month with utilities 16 included in the rent. 17 12. Throughout the tenancy, the Subject Premises was basically an active 18 construction zone. This noise and mess greatly interfered with the quiet enjoyment of the Subject 19 Premises. This was not disclosed during the lease signing and no notice was given for much of 20 this work. Defendants never offered any reduction in rent for this interference. 21 13. Dan Irish attempted to pass on construction and other costs to Plaintiff by 22 unilaterally changing the terms of the lease agreement. Despite the lease agreement explicitly 23 stating “Landlord shall pay all utilities associated with the use of the premises.” In the Summer 24 of 2021, Defendants attempted to charge Plaintiff for extra fees including but not limited to, 25 HOA Fees, Cleaning fees, Hot Tub maintenance, Pool Cleaning, and Snow Plowing. None of 26 these extra fees were included or mentioned in the lease agreement. Mr. Jacks agreed to some of 27 these fees but not all, angering Mr. Irish 28 COMPLAINT - 3 1 14. On or around December 2021, Dan Irish informed Plaintiff that his rent would be 2 doubled to $4000 per month. Mr. Jacks refused to pay this unlawful rent increase. This refusal 3 made Mr. Irish angry. 4 15. After refusing to pay the unlawful rent increase, Dan Irish sent an email to 5 Plaintiff with an attachment letter titled “Notice to Terminate Tenancy.” This letter stated: “As 6 we discussed, the current terms of the Tenancy Agreement are no longer tenable given the 7 changes and improvements to the property, the costs involved with the utilities and the required 8 renovations planned in 2023. Therefore, this is notice that the tenancy agreement, dated March 9 1, 2021 terminated effective 60 days from today, February 1, 2023.” 10 16. On December 15, 2022, DEFENDANT placed a “Three Day Notice to Quit” on 11 door of the Subject Premises. 12 17. On December 19, 2022, Mr. Jacks’ roommate returned to the Subject Premises 13 only to find Mr. Irish had locked them out by changing the code on the numeric door lock. When 14 the roommate attempted to enter the unit, an employee of Defendants named Alexi was in the 15 house. This employee called the police and said Mr. Jacks and his roommate had been evicted 16 and were not allowed to be on the property. This was not true. At this time Mr. Jacks and his 17 roommate still had legal possession of the property. 18 18. Mr. Jacks’ roommate returned to the Subject Premises several days later and 19 found the code had been changed back to the original code and was able to enter. He found much 20 of his and Mr. Jacks’ property had been moved. 21 19. Defendants filed an Unlawful Detainer on December 21, 2022, against Mr. Jacks 22 and his roommate. 23 20. Rather than continue to suffer the daily harassment from Dan Irish, Mr. Jacks 24 decided to vacate the Subject Premises in February 2023. To date, Defendants have not returned 25 any of Mr. Jacks security deposit. 26 21. Since moving out, Mr. Jacks went months without permanent housing. He 27 incurred great expense in hotel rooms, food, travel, and other costs. 28 COMPLAINT - 4 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Violation of California Civil Code §789.3) (As to all Defendants) 3 22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 4 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 5 23. Civil Code §789.3 states, in relevant part, “A landlord shall not…prevent the 6 tenant from gaining reasonable access to the property by changing the locks. 7 24. As described above, Defendants locked Plaintiff out of his home. 8 25. By locking Plaintiff out of his home Defendants acted unreasonably. 9 26. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs suffered, 10 and continue to suffer, among other things, pain, anxiety, annoyance, inconvenience, distress, 11 economic loss, loss of use, and property damage, all to his detriment in amounts to be 12 determined at trial. 13 27. The conduct of the Defendants alleged above was willful and malicious. 14 Defendants acted or failed to act deliberately and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety 15 of Plaintiff. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be 16 determined at trial. 17 28. Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees as allowed by statute. 18 19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Retaliation) 20 (As to all Defendants) 21 29. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 22 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 23 30. California common law provides an independent basis prohibiting retaliatory 24 evictions in residential tenancies. Barela v Superior Court (1981) 30 C3d 244. 25 31. The landlord’s retaliatory conduct must cause the tenant to involuntarily vacate 26 the premises in order to raise the claim Banuelos v La Inv. (2013) 219 CA4th 323. 27 32. The common law doctrine comes into play after a landlord’s retaliation for the 28 tenant’s exercise of a statutory or common law right. COMPLAINT - 5 1 33. As described above Defendant attempted to impose an unlawful rent increase 2 upon Plaintiff. 3 34. Plaintiff exercised his right to refuse this unlawful increase. 4 35. After the rejection of the unlawful rent increase, Defendant began eviction 5 proceedings, resulting in both illegally locking out the Plaintiff and ultimately resulting in the 6 Plaintiff involuntarily vacating the premises. 7 36. As a proximate result of the retaliation by Defendant, Plaintiff suffered, and 8 continues to suffer pain, anxiety, annoyance, inconvenience, distress, economic loss, loss of use 9 and property damage, all to their detriment in amount to be determined at trial. 10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (Breach of Quiet Enjoyment) 12 (As to all Defendants) 13 37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 14 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 15 38. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants interfered with, 16 interrupted and deprived Plaintiff of the full and beneficial use of the Subject Premises and 17 disturbed Plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the property. 18 39. These acts of interference, interruption, deprivation, and disturbance by the 19 Defendants amount to a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment implied in all rental 20 agreements and codified in California Civil Procedure section 1927. 40. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to 21 22 suffer, pain, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, anxiety, economic loss, loss of use, and mental anguish, all to their detriment in amount to be determined at trial. 23 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 28 COMPLAINT - 6 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Trespass) 3 (As to all Defendants) 4 41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 5 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 6 42. At all times Plaintiff leased and controlled the Premises. As described above, 7 Defendants or Defendants’ agents intentionally and recklessly entered Plaintiff’s home without 8 Plaintiff’s knowledge or permission. Plaintiff was harmed by being locked out solely due to 9 Defendants’ illegal trespass. 10 43. As a proximate and direct result of the failure of Defendants, Plaintiff has 11 suffered, and continues to suffer, pain, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, anxiety, economic 12 loss, loss of use, and mental anguish, all to their detriment in amount to be determined at trial. 13 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 (Conversion) (As to all Defendants) 15 44. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 16 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 17 45. As described above, Defendants intentionally and substantially interfered with 18 Plaintiff’s right of possession of Plaintiff’s personal property by preventing him from accessing 19 his home to retrieve his property. The plaintiff did not consent to this and has suffered damages 20 due to Defendants’ refusal to allow him access to the unit. 21 46. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for any possessions lost or damaged due to 22 Defendants’ actions and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 23 24 25 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence) 26 (As to all Defendants) 27 47. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 28 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. COMPLAINT - 7 1 48. By reason of the landlord-tenant relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff, 2 and by reason of the residential leases between the Parties, Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to 3 exercise reasonable care in the ownership, management, and control of Plaintiff’s unit, the 4 Subject Premises. Moreover, Defendants had a duty to Plaintiff to provide habitable dwellings. 5 49. The duty to exercise reasonable care owed by Defendants to Plaintiff included, 6 but was not limited to, the following duties, the duty to refrain from interference with Plaintiff’s 7 full use and quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises; the duty to comply with all applicable State 8 and local laws governing Plaintiff’s rights as a tenant; and the duty to refrain from intentionally 9 causing discomfort and annoyance to Plaintiff. 10 50. Defendants, by their conduct as alleged herein, negligently and carelessly 11 operated and managed the Premises, and thereby breached the duties enumerated herein. 12 51. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendant, Plaintiff 13 suffered actual, general, and special damages as listed herein. 14 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 16 (As to all Defendants) 17 52. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 18 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 19 53. The actions of Defendants, as heretofore alleged, were extreme and outrageous 20 and done with conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of the Defendants’ knowing, intentional, and willful attempts to intimidate and 21 22 harass Plaintiff into vacating the premises. Defendant knew that Plaintiff was susceptible to additional discomfort as a result of the conduct described and their physical and mental health, 23 knew that their conduct adversely affected Plaintiff, and had the wherewithal to avoid the 24 conduct, yet consciously failed and refused to do so. 25 54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, 26 and continues to suffer, severe mental, emotional, and physical distress, pain and suffering, all to 27 Plaintiff’s general and punitive damages, in an amount according to proof. 28 COMPLAINT - 8 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1 (Trespass to Chattel) 2 (As to all Defendants) 3 55. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 4 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 5 56. As described above, Defendant locked Plaintiff out of his home and prevented 6 him from accessing his property. 7 57. Plaintiff did not consent to this intentional interference. 8 58. Plaintiff has suffered economic harm and harm to his emotional health. 9 59. This harm is solely due to Defendants’ actions. 10 60. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered, 11 and continue to suffer, among other things, pain, anxiety, annoyance, inconvenience, distress, 12 economic loss, loss of use and property damage, all to their detriment in amounts to be 13 determined at trial. 14 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (Forcible Entry-Violation of California Code of Civil Procedure 1159) (As to all Defendants) 16 61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 17 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 18 62. As described above, Defendants’ or their agents entered the Plaintiff’s premises 19 and forcibly turned-out Plaintiff. 20 63. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered and 21 continues to suffer, severe mental, emotional, and physical distress, pain, and suffering, all to the 22 Plaintiff’s general and punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 23 24 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 (Forcible Detainer-Violation of California Code of Civil Procedure §1160) (As to all Defendants) 26 64. Paragraphs re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 27 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 28 COMPLAINT - 9 1 65. As described above, when Plaintiff left the Premises, Defendants or their agents 2 entered the premises and prevented Plaintiff from entering. 3 66. Plaintiff made a demand for surrender of the premises to Plaintiff’s possession, 4 but Defendant either ignored these requests or refused this demand. 5 67. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered, 6 and continues to suffer, severe mental, emotional and physical distress, pain and suffering, all to 7 the Plaintiff’s general and punitive damages in an amount according to proof. 8 9 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Constructive/Wrongful Eviction) 10 (As to all Defendants) 11 68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 12 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 13 69. A constructive eviction is Any interference by the landlord by which the tenant is 14 deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises amounts to a constructive eviction if the 15 tenant so elects and surrenders possession [Kulawitz v. Pacific Woodenware & Paper Co. (1944) 16 25 Cal. 2d 664, 670, 155 P.2d 24]. Thus, a constructive eviction occurs when the acts or 17 omissions of a landlord, or any disturbance or interference with the tenant’s possession by the 18 landlord, renders the premises, or a substantial portion of the premises, unfit for the purposes for 19 which they were leased, or has the effect of depriving the tenant for a substantial period of time 20 of the beneficial enjoyment or use of the premises. Abandonment of the premises within a 21 reasonable time after the landlord’s wrongful act of is essential to enable the tenant to claim a 22 constructive eviction [Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 925–926, 162 Cal. 23 Rptr. 194]. 24 70. A tenant who is wrongfully evicted by his or her landlord may recover damages 25 for the eviction, regardless of whether the eviction is actual or constructive. Saferian v Baer 26 (1930) 105 Cal.App 238, 243, 287 P. 142. 27 71. As described above, Defendants and Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement to 28 rent the Subject Premises COMPLAINT - 10 1 72. As described above, Defendants wrongfully and constructively evicted Plaintiff 2 by unlawfully attempting a “lease cancellation,” locking Plaintiff out of the Subject Premises and 3 filing an unlawful detainer after Plaintiff exercised his rights and refused an unlawful rent 4 increase. 5 73. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff vacated the Subject Premises. 6 74. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful eviction of Plaintiff from the 7 Subject Premises, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish and economic loss, all to their general 8 damage in an amount to be determined at trial. 9 75. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful eviction of Plaintiff from the 10 premises, Plaintiff suffered special, and compensatory damages in an amount according to proof. 11 76. As a further proximate result of Defendant’s conduct alleged in this complaint, 12 Plaintiff was required and did incur moving expenses and hotel and other living expenses. 13 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 (Violation of California Civil Code 1950.5) 15 (As to all Defendants) 16 77. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 17 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 18 78. Defendants breached California Civil Code §1950.5 by unlawfully retaining parts 19 of Plaintiff’s security deposit Defendants were not entitled to. 20 79. Defendants charged for damages that were non-existent or were in an area Plaintiff did not have access to. 21 22 80. Defendants have acted in bad faith as they have ignored all requests to discuss the incorrect retention. 23 81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants failing to follow statute, Plaintiff 24 suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 25 82. Plaintiff seeks a return of the full amount unlawfully kept by Defendant along 26 with additional bad faith damages as allowed by Civil Code §1950.5. 27 28 COMPLAINT - 11 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1 (Violation of Civil Code 1940.2) 2 (As to all Defendants) 3 83. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in 4 paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 5 84. California Civil Code §1940.2 states: “It is unlawful for a landlord to do any of 6 the following for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling: (3) use, or threaten to 7 use force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a course of conduct that interferes 8 with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of Section 1927 that would create 9 an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person. 10 85. As described above, Defendants forcibly locked Plaintiff out of the Subject 11 Premises and called the police when he attempted to enter the Subject Premises. 12 86. Plaintiff did in fact experience fear upon finding a stranger in his home calling the 13 police to have him arrested. 14 87. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered general, special and punitive 15 damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 16 CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 17 88. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 18 paragraphs 1 through 87, as if the same were set forth at length herein. 19 89. Defendant willfully locked Plaintiff out of his home, called the police when 20 Plaintiff demanded to be allowed in, and refused to communicate with Plaintiff despite many attempts by Plaintiff to reach Defendant. 21 22 90. Defendant attempted to unlawfully evict Plaintiff when Plaintiff refused an unlawful rent increase and unlawful utility and other charges. 23 91. Defendant's actions were willful and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 24 rights. Such willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights justifies an award of punitive 25 damages as such conduct was oppressive and malicious as defined by Civil Code section 3294. 26 92. Defendants’ actions constitute despicable conduct as Defendants’ carried out such 27 actions in willful and conscious disregard of the safety and rights of tenants, including plaintiff. 28 COMPLAINT - 12 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 3 WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment as follows: 4 5 1. Compensatory damages according to proof; 6 2. Special damages in an amount according to proof on all causes of action. 7 3. Punitive damages according to statute and proof and for all applicable causes of 8 action. 9 4. Statutory damages according to damages and proof. 10 5. General damages, including damages for emotional distress and mental anguish, 11 according to proof for all applicable causes of action. 12 6. For damages to, destruction of, and loss of use of personal properties, according to 13 proof; 14 7. For consequential and incidental damages, according to proof 15 8. For reasonable attorney’s fees as allowed by statute; 16 9. For costs of suit as allowed by statute; 17 10. For interest, including prejudgment interest at the legal rate, on all causes of action; 18 and for such other and further relief as this Court MAY deem just and proper. 19 20 Dated this March 14, 2024 21 22 Respectfully submitted 23 24 ____________________________ Daniel Yockey 25 Attorney for Plaintiff 26 27 28 COMPLAINT - 13