Legal Document: NESTOR QUEZADA, et al vs. JING YUAN, et al

On February 03, 2023 a 94164DEFEN01d040 was filed involving a dispute between Quezada, Leonidas, Quezada, Nestor, and California Property Management Group, Inc., Diez, Max, Does One Through Fifty, Inclusive, Voss, Eric, Yuan, Jing, for (33) Unlimited Wrongful Eviction in the District Court of San Mateo County.

Preview
DARRELL V. NGUYEN, ESQ. (SB# 228959)
Dnguyen@tysonmendes.com
LIAM R. SIDEBOTTOM, ESQ. (SB# 347631)
Lsidebottom@tysonmendes.com
TYSON & MENDES LLP
371 Bel Marin Keys Blvd., Suite 100
Novato, CA 94949
Telephone: (628) 253-5070
Facsimile: (628) 299-7764
Attorneys for Defendants,
JING YUAN, ERIC VOSS and MAX DIEZ, AND CALIFORNIA PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11

12 NESTOR QUEZADA, LEONIDAS QUEZADA Case No.: 23-CIV-00536

13 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS JING YUAN AND
ERIC VOSS’ OPPOSITION TO
14 Vv. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE AND FURTHER
15 JING YUAN, ERIC VOSS, MAX DIEZ, RESPONSE TO NESTOR
CALIFORNIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT QUEZADA’S REQUESTS FOR
16 GROUP, INC., and Does One through Fifty, PRODUCTION, SET TWO
Inclusive
17 DATE: March 29, 2024
Defendants. TIME: 9:00 a.m.
18 DEPT: 24 (Courtroom 2F)

19 Case Filed: February 3, 2023
Trial Date: Not Set
20
Defendants JING YUAN (hereinafter “Yuan”) and ERIC VOSS (hereinafter “Voss”) by
21
and through their counsel ofrecord hereby files their opposition to Plaintiffs NESTOR QUEZADA
22
and LEONIDAS QUEZADA’s Motion to Compel Response and Further Response to Plaintiff
23
NESTOR QUEZADA’s Request for Production, Set Two.
24
This Opposition is based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities, all
25
pleadings on file, and any oral argument as permitted or requested by the Court.
26
Mil
27

28
1
DEFENDANTS JING YUAN AND ERIC VOSS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE AND FURTHER RESPONSE TO NESTOR QUEZADA’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET
TWO
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiffs moved this Court to compel further responses to Leonidas Quezada’s Second Set

of Special Interrogatories, propounded on August 1, 2023, when Yuan was represented by former

counsel. Yuan has served amended responses to those Interrogatories and has since sought leave

from this Court to permit the objections interposed in response to those Interrogatories to remain

in place. As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion is either moot or unripe and, as such, should not be granted.

IL. STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on February 3, 2023, seeking damages on eight causes of
10
action. (Nguyen Dec. at | 2.)At the time, Defendants were represented by attorney Marc D. Bender.
11
Defendants, through Mr. Bender, filed their Answer on March 6, 2023. ([bid.)
12
On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff Nestor Quezada served on Defendants Yuan and Voss his
13
second set of Requests for Production. (Nguyen Dec. at P 3.) Yuan and Voss, through Mr. Bender,
14
failed to serve any responses. Counsel of record substituted in Defendants’ representation through
15
a substitution of attorney executed on October 2, 2023. (Jbid.)
16
Plaintiff subsequently sought relief through an Informal Discovery Conference, which
17
instructed Yuan and Voss to serve responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production. (Nguyen Dec.
18
at P 5.) On January 10, 2024, Yuan and Voss served responses to the Requests for Production.
19
(Nguyen Dec. at |P 6.) As Plaintiffs note in their Motion, only Yuan signed the verification and
20
objections were interposed to the Requests. (/bid.) Voss subsequently served a signed verification
21
on March 7, 2024. (Ibid.)
22
On March 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion seeking leave to serve objections for excusable
23
neglect due to former counsel’s failure to serve responses to the Requests for Production. (Nguyen
24
Dec. at P 7.)
25
ARGUMENT
26
Plaintiff seeks to compel a second set of amended responses to Nestor Quezada’s Second
27
Set of Requests for Production. As stated above, Yuan and Voss served responses to Plaintiff's
28
2
DEFENDANTS JING YUAN AND ERIC VOSS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE AND FURTHER RESPONSE TO NESTOR QUEZADA’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET
TWO
Requests for Production on January 10, 2024. Yuan served her verification on January 10, 2024,

alongside those responses and Voss served his signed verification on March 5, 2024. On March 5,

2024, Yuan and Voss sought leave from this Court to serve the challenged objections for excusable

neglect.
I Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is Unripe with Respect to Their Arguments About
Waived Objections.

Plaintiffs initially seek to compel further responses without objections from Yuan because

those objections were served outside the thirty-day window provided in the Code of Civil

Procedure. This request is unripe and, therefore, premature. Voss and Yuan filed a Motion with

this Court seeking leave to permit service of objections to the Requests for Production for the
10
excusable neglect exception to waiver of objections contained in section 2031.300 of the Code of
11
Civil Procedure on March 5, 2024. The hearing on that Motion is set to occur on May 10, 2024. As
12
the Court has not yet ruled on that Motion, Plaintiffs’ request to compel responses without objection
13
is not yet ripe and should be either denied or continued until the Court rules on that Motion.
14
IL. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses from Voss is Moot.
15
Voss served the requested verification to his responses to Nestor Quezada’s Second Set of
16
Requests for Production on March 7, 2024. As that verification was served prior to the March 29,
17
2024, hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, there is no need for the Court to exercise its power
18
to compel the requested verification and, thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is moot. (See, e.g.,
19
Perez v. Backflip Software, Inc. (2014) 2014 WL 2858530, *1 [trial court found Motion to Compel
20
moot because responses were provided between time of motion and hearing on the motion]; Morad
21
Const. & Inv., Inc. v. Gedalia (2006) 2006 WL 1360947, *4 [same]; Wims v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
22
(2002) 2002 WL 31898303, *7 [same].) Plaintiff has obtained the verfication he seeks to compel
23
and, thus, has been afforded the relief requested prior to the Court having to order it. The Motion
24
is moot and should be denied.
25
Ti. Plaintiffs Have not Shown Entitlement to Further Responses.
26
Finally, Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to Nestor Quezada’s Requests for
27
Production because he believes that Yuan and Voss’ statements of compliance are incomplete, their
28
3
DEFENDANTS JING YUAN AND ERIC VOSS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE AND FURTHER RESPONSE TO NESTOR QUEZADA’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET
TWO
responses are incomplete and evasive, and because he does not believe that the documents provided

constituted a complete production of the documents in Yuan and Voss’ possession.

Initially, Plaintiff provides no basis for his belief that Yuan and Voss failed to produce all

documents in their possession responsive to the identified Requests. Voss and Yuan verified the

responses and documents produced and Plaintiffs conclusion that responsive documents other than

those produced were “lost, misplaced, or no longer in the possession, custody or control” of

Defendants is “noncredible” is hardly a basis for granting relief absent evidence that such

documents are currently in Defendants’ possession.

Additionally, Yuan and Voss’ responses to Requests for Production Nos. 37, 38, and 40 are
10
not incomplete or evasive. Voss and Yuan stated that they were complying with the requests and
11
identified the documents they were producing in furtherance of such compliance. This is not
12
“evasive”; rather, it is a specification of the documents that were being provided in response to the
13
Requests. There is no basis for granting the requested reliefon Plaintiffs argument here.
14
Further, Yuan and Voss’ statements of compliance are sufficient in that they track the
15
permissible responses provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if, however, the Court
16
believes that Defendants’ responses were inadequate, it would be far more appropriate to permit
17
Yuan and Voss to provide amended responses rather than imposing monetary sanctions. Such relief
18
is not proportionate to the alleged wrongs committed and, thus, should not be afforded.
19
Finally, Plaintiffs did not meet and confer with Yuan regarding the allegedly incomplete
20
and inadequate responses to their Requests for Production. The extent of Plaintiffs’ meet and confer
21
efforts with respect to the Requests for Production encompassed only the initial non-responses of
22
Marc Bender and Plaintiffs’ subsequent efforts to obtain responses through the meet-and-confer
23
process and then through the Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). Yuan served responses to
24
Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production after the IDC and Plaintiffs did not raise issues with the
25
substance of Yuan’s responses after they were served, raising them for the first time in their Motion
26
to Compel. Instead of seeking to obtain further responses informally or to explain why they felt
27
Yuan’s responses were inadequate, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion seeking to compel further
28
4
DEFENDANTS JING YUAN AND ERIC VOSS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE AND FURTHER RESPONSE TO NESTOR QUEZADA’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET
TWO
responses and impose monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel should be denied for several reasons. Initially, the request to

provide further responses without objection is premature in light of Yuan and Voss’ pending

Motion for Leave to serve objections to Plaintiff's Request for Production. Next, Plaintiff's request

to compel a verification from Voss is moot as Voss has since provided the requested verification.

Finally, Yuan and Voss have not provided incomplete and evasive responses. Even assuming the

Court agrees with Plaintiff's characterization of the challenged responses, however, monetary

sanctions are a disproportionate form of relief
and Defendants should instead be allowed to served
10
amended responses.
11
Respectfully submitted,
12
Dated: March 18, 2024 TYSON & MENDES LLP
13

14 By
DARRELL V. NGUYEN
15 LIAM R. SIDEBOTTOM
Attorneys for Defendants,
16 JING YUAN, ERIC VOSS, MAX DIEZ. >
AND CALIFORNIA PROPERTY
17 MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

28
5
DEFENDANTS JING YUAN AND ERIC VOSS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE AND FURTHER RESPONSE TO NESTOR QUEZADA’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET
TWO
DECLARATION OF LIAM R. SIDEBOTTOM

I, Liam R. Sidebottom, declare:

1 I am an attorney, licensed to practice law in the State of California, and a member of the

law firm Tyson & Mendes, LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants Jing Yuan, Eric Voss,

Max Diez, and California Property Management Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on February 3, 2023. Defendants, then represented by

attorney Marc D. Bender, filed an Answer on March 6, 2023. (A true and correct copy of

the Complaint is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”). (A true and correct copy of the Answer

is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”).
10
Plaintiff Nestor Quezada served Defendant Jing Yuan with Requests for Production, Set
11
Two, on August 1, 2023. (A true and correct copy ofthe Requests for Production is attached
12
hereto as “Exhibit C”). Voss and Yuan, through Mr. Bender, failed to respond.
13
On October 5, 2023, the Parties agreed to extend the time allowed for Plaintiffs to bring a
14
motion to compel responses in exchange for providing responses to Nestor Quezada’s
15
Requests for Production. (A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter to counsel
16
of record is attached hereto as “Exhibit D”).
17
Plaintiff sought relief through an Informal Discovery Conference, which instructed Yuan
18
and Voss to serve responses to Nestor Quezada’s Requests for Production. (A true and
19
correct copy of the Informal Discovery Conference’s opinion is attached hereto as “Exhibit
20 E”).

21
Yuan and Voss served responses to the Requests for Production on January 10, 2024. (A
22
true and correct copy of the responses is attached hereto as “Exhibit F”). Yuan provided a
23
signed verification that same day; Voss provided a signed verification on March 7, 2023.
24
(A true and correct copy of Voss’ verification is attached hereto as “Exhibit G”).
25
Plaintiffs did not endeavor to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel regarding any
26
perceived substantive inadequacy in Defendants Yuan and Voss’ responses to the Requests
27
for Production.
28
6
DEFENDANTS JING YUAN AND ERIC VOSS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE AND FURTHER RESPONSE TO NESTOR QUEZADA’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET
TWO
8. Voss and Yuan filed a Motion for Leave to serve objections to Nestor Quezada’s Requests

for Production, Set Two, on March 5, 2024. (A true and correct copy of the Motion for

Leave is attached hereto as “Exhibit H’”’). The hearing date for that Motion is May 10, 2024.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the facts

referenced in the foregoing are true and correct, and that this Declaration is executed on March 18,

2024, in Mountain View, California.

Liam Sidebottom
10

28
7
DEFENDANTS JING YUAN AND ERIC VOSS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE AND FURTHER RESPONSE TO NESTOR QUEZADA’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET
TWO
EXHIBIT A
a
HOWIE & SMITH, L.L.P
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Electronically
1777 BOREL PLACE, SUITE 1000 by Superior ¢ out of Califors inty of San Matex
SAN MATEO, CA 94402-3509 ON 2/3/2023
TEL: (650) 685-9300 By s/ Salote Alipate
FAX: (650) 685-3967 Deputy Clerk
ROBERT G. HOWIE, SBN 057361
AUDREY SMITH, SBN 180836
ATTORNEYS FOR NESTOR QUEZADA, LEONIDAS QUEZADA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
11 NESTOR QUEZADA, LEONIDAS 23-CIV-00536
Case Ni
QUEZADA
12 COMPLAINT
. Wrongful and Fraudulent Eviction;
13 Plaintiffs. Retaliatory Eviction;
Negligent Misrepresentation:
14 Vv. Intentional Misrepresentation:
Negligence and Negligence Per Se:
15 JING YUAN, ERIC VOSS, MAX DIEZ, Breach of Contract:
CALIFORNIA PROPERTY Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
16 MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. Unfair Competition (B&P Code §17200).
and DOES One through Fifty, Inclusive.
17
18
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
19 Defendants. Judge Assigned.
Filing Date:
20
Plaintiffs NESTOR QUEZADA, LEONIDAS QUEZADA allege as follows
21
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
22
i At all times herein mentioned Plaintiffs NESTOR QUEZADA and LEONIDAS
23
QUEZADA were an individuals residing in the State of California. From 2007 to September 2022 they
lawfully occupied residential rental property at 611 S. Eldorado Street, Unit 1, in San Mateo, California
[the “PROPERTY.”]
2. The PROPERTY is aresidential rental property apartment building located in San Mateo.
27
1
28 COMPLAINT
California.
3 Defendants are and/or were the owners, managers, landlords, sellers and buyers of the

PROPERTY at 611 S. Eldorado Street, Unit 1, in San Mateo, California. Defendants JING YUAN,
ERIC VOSS are residents of the State of California and the owners of the PROPERTY. Defendant
CALIFORNIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. was and is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of San Mateo in the
State of California, and is the property management company for the PROPERTY and/or agent of

Defendants YUAN and VOSS. Defendant MAX DIEZ is a resident of the State of California and the
principal of CALIFORNIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
10 4 The true names, capacities or involvement, whether individual, corporate, governmental

11 or associate, of the Defendants named herein as DOE are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue said

12 Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs prays leave to amend this Complaint to show their true
13 names and capacities when the same have been finally determined.
14 5 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that each
15 of the Defendants designated herein as DOE is negligently or otherwise legally responsible in some
16 manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently or otherwise caused injury and
V7, damages proximately thereby to Plaintiffs, as is hereinafter alleged.

18 6 At all times herein mentioned, each and every of the Defendants herein was the agent,

19 servant and employee, each of the other and each was acting within the course and scope of his, her, or
20 its agency, service and employment, with the permission, consent and ratification, each of the other.
21 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
22 7 The acts and conduct complained of herein occurred in the County of San Mateo in the
23 State of California. The PROPERTY is located in the County of San Mateo in the State of California.

24 8 Plaintiffs were tenants at the PROPERTY from April 2007 until September 30, 2022.
25 9 On or about April 2007, Plaintiffs entered into a written residential lease agreement
26 (LEASE) with the prior property owners and by the terms of which Defendants rented residential
27
28 COMPLAINT
property to Plaintiff's. A true and correct copy of the LEASE is attached to this complaint as Exhibit A

and made a part of this complaint.
10. Plaintiffs complied with and performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required

by the LEASE or was excused, prevented or delayed from performing their obligations under the
LEASE by the acts or omissions of Defendants.

11. On or about April 15, 2022, defendants JING YUAN and ERIC VOSS purchased the

PROPERTY.

12. On April 15, 2022, Defendants notified the Plaintiffs that their rent would increase from

$1,650.00 per month to $2,750.00 per month, an increase in rent of nearly 67 percent, as of June 15,

10 2022.

11 13, This rent increase was in clear violation of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. (Civ. Code

12 §1947.12.) Civil Code section 1947.12 limits annual rent increases on existing tenancies to 5 percent,
13 plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower. (Civ. Code

14 §1947.12.)
15 14. Defendants also notified the Plaintiffs verbally that they would be responsible for new
16 utility charges, for water and garbage, as of June 15, 2022. Plaintiff's were informed that the new utility
17 charges would be divided equally between the four units of the PROPERTY regardless of the number
18 of occupants or rate of consumption, in violation of Civil Code section 1954.205.
19 15. Plaintiffs continued paying rent at the contractually designated rate and paying utilities
20 as designated in the LEASE. On June 10, 2022, Plaintiffs notified Defendants in writing of objections
21 to the rental rate increase and new utilities charges.

22 16. On June 16, 2022, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a “Notice to Pay Rent or Quit” based
23 on the illegal rent increase, Attached as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference, is a true and

24 correct copy of the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit.

25 17. On August 2, 2022, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a Sixty-Day Notice to Terminate

26 Tenancy. The reason stated for eviction was “Withdrawal from the rental market.” Attached as Exhibit
27
3
28 COMPLAINT
C, and incorporated herein by reference, is a true and correct copy of the Sixty-Day Notice to Terminate
Tenancy.

18. Defendants did not notify Plaintiffs of their right to an early inspection and walk through
two weeks prior to move out in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5(f). Defendants did not notify
Plaintiffs of their right to relocation fees nor did they provide Plaintiffs with relocation fees in violation
of Civil Code section 1946.2(d).

19. Plaintiffs moved out of the PROPERTY on September 30, 2022. Plaintiffs sustained
injuries and associated damages as a result of the move and due to dangerous and defective conditions
at the PROPERTY, including but not limited to the Plaintiff NESTOR QUEZADA’s personal injury

10 resulting from the defective condition and inadequate lighting of the concrete walkway providing ingress
i and egress to the trash disposal area. Plaintiffs also accrued relocation costs and now pay an increased

12 rental rate.

13 20. The PROPERTY was advertised for rental and re-rented by Defendants in November
14 2022 at $2,900.00 per month.
15 21. Plaintiffs requested the return of their security deposit. On October 10,2022, Defendants
16 apprised Plaintiffs by certified mail of deductions the security deposit totaling $1,070.28. The claimed
17 deductions included: (1) Defendants’ own bank fees resulting from Defendants’ requirement that

18 Plaintiffs to pay rent electronically (in violation of Civil Code section 1947.3) ($75.00); (2) a late fee
19 charge ($100) from May 2022 which arose due to confusion about how to pay rent and whom to pay it
20 to after the ownership change and which was excused by Defendants at that time; (3) utility bills
21 ($395.28) for invalid water and other utility charges not included in the lease; and (4) a “Cleaning
22 Service Fee” ($500.00) without any receipt from a cleaning service or notice of what required “cleaning”
23 in excess of ordinary wear and tear.
24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL AND FRAUDULENT EVICTION
25
22. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate by reference, every allegation contained in the
26
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
27
4
28 COMPLAINT
23. Defendants wrongfully, illegally and fraudulently terminated the TENANCY at the
PROPERTY without actual just cause, including but not limited to, in order to facilitate the re-rental

of the PROPERTY at a higher rental rate. Re-rental of the property at a higher rental rate is not a
just cause for eviction pursuant to the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 and is a violation of
California Civil Code section 1946.2. The notice of the termination of the LEASE was defective in
violation of California Civil Code sections 1946.2 and 1947.10 and was obtained by fraud. The
PROPERTY was not removed from the rental market.

24. Defendants interfered with the Plaintiffs’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises by
wrongfully, illegally, and fraudulently terminating the TENANCY.
10 25. As a result of Defendants’ interference and illegal, fraudulent and wrongful

11 termination of the TENANCY, Plaintiffs vacated the PROPERTY on September 30, 2022.

12 26. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ wrongful eviction and interference

13 with the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and the implied

14 covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur substantial
15 economic and noneconomic damages including overpayment of rent, out of pocket expenses,
16 personal injuries and associated damages, physical and mental discomfort, anxiety, emotional and
17 mental stress and distress, inconvenience, frustration, fear, and other damages in an amount to be

18 determined at trial.
19 27: Defendants’ termination of the TENANCY was oppressive and malicious within the
20 meaning of Civil Code Section 3294 in that it subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in
21 willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and the safety of the Plaintiffs, thereby entitling
22 Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.
23 28. Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur attorneys fees and costs in this
24 litigation and is entitled to recover such fees and costs from Defendants under the provisions of the
25 LEASE and Civil Code section 1947.10.

26 29. Wherefore Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set
27
5
28 COMPLAINT
forth below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATORY EVICTION
30. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate by reference, every allegation contained in the

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
Sie Defendants’ eviction of Plaintiff was done in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ lawful and
peaceable exercise of their rights under the law to object to and refuse to comply with an illegal rent
increase which was in violation of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 and utilities charges which

violated Civil Code section 1954.205. On information and belief, tenants who did not object to the

illegal rent increase and changes to utilities charges were not evicted.
10
32. In committing the actions and conduct described above, Defendants acted with
11
recklessness, oppression, fraud, malice, and a complete lack of common decency. Plaintiffs
12
therefore seek an award of exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1942.5 and
13
Civil Code Section §3294. Defendants’ conduct was not in good faith or in compliance with the
14
LEASE. Defendants’ conduct was done for the unlawful purpose of retaliating against Plaintiff and
15
not for the proper purpose of public participation in protected and/or privileged constitutional
16
activity.
17
33. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has incurred and
18
will continue to incur substantial economic and noneconomic damages including overpayment of
19
rent, out of pocket expenses, personal injuries and associated damages, physical and mental
20
discomfort, anxiety, emotional and mental stress and distress, inconvenience, frustration, fear, and
21
other damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
22
34. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys fees and costs in this
23
litigation and is entitled to recover such fees and costs from Defendants under the provisions of Civil
24
Code section 1942.5 and the Lease.
25
35. Wherefore Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set
26
forth below.
27
28 COMPLAINT
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
36. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate by reference, every allegation contained in the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
37. Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they intended to remove the PROPERTY
from the rental market.
38. This representation was, in fact, false. The PROPERTY was not removed from the

rental market. Instead, the PROPERTY was rapidly re-rented at a greatly increased rental rate.
39. When the Defendants made this representation, they knew it to be false and/or had no
reasonable ground for believing it to be true.
10
40. Plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied upon the misrepresentation and moved out as
11
of the PROPERTY. Had the Plaintiffs known the actual facts, they would not have taken such
12
action. The Plaintiffs’ reliance on the defendant’s representations was justified as it was the official
13
reason provided for the termination of their tenancy, and they had no basis to believe otherwise and
14
assumed that the reason for the termination of their tenancy was valid and legal.
15
41. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ misrepresentations and interference
16
with Plaintiffs’ tenancy, including the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and the implied covenant
17
of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur substantial
18
economic and noneconomic damages including overpayment of rent, out of pocket expenses,
19
personal injuries and associated damages, physical and mental discomfort, anxiety, emotional and
20
mental stress and distress, inconvenience, frustration, fear, and other damages in an amount to be
21
determined at trial.
22
42. Wherefore Plaintiffs prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set
23
forth below.
24
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
26 43. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate by reference, every allegation contained in the
27
1
28 COMPLAINT
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
44, Defendants’ misrepresentations were intended to deceive the PlaintiffS into thinking

that there was a legitimate reason for the termination of their tenancy, and were oppressive and
malicious within the meaning of Civil Code Section 3294 in that they subjected Plaintiffs to cruel
and unjust hardship in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and safety of the Plaintiffs,

thereby entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.
45. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have incurred and
will continue to incur substantial economic and noneconomic damages including overpayment of

rent, out of pocket expenses, personal injuries and associated damages, physical and mental

10 discomfort, anxiety, emotional and mental stress and distress, inconvenience, frustration, fear, and

11 other damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
12 46. Wherefore Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set
13 forth below.

14 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE
15
47. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate by reference, every allegation contained in the
16
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
17
48. At all times mentioned in this complaint Defendants owned, operated, maintained,
18
managed controlled, sold and purchased the PROPERTY.
19
49. At all times mentioned in this complaint Plaintiffs were paying tenants of Defendants.
20
50. As the owners and managers in control of the PROPERTY, Defendants had a legal
21
duty to use due care in the ownership, management and operation of the PROPERTY, including in
22
the management of the TENANCY.
23
Sl. Defendants’ termination of the TENANCY at the PROPERTY was based upon
24
misrepresentations made to the Plaintiffs in order to facilitate and allow Defendants’ rental rate
25
increase in violation of Defendants’ contractual and other duties to Plaintiffs as landlords and
26
property managers.
27
g
28 COMPLAINT
52. Defendants’ termination of the TENANCY at the PROPERTY violated California’s
Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Civil Code section 1946.2) which requires just cause for termination

of a lease, and because Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs’ relocation expenses and

misrepresented the just cause for the eviction.
53. Defendants’ termination of the TENANCY at the PROPERTY violated California
Civil Code section 1927.
54, Defendants’ proposed changes to Plaintiffs’ rent violated California’s Tenant
Protection Act of 2019 (Civil Code section 1947.12) and Penal Code section 396 (price gouging).
55. Defendants proposed changes to Plaintiffs’ utilities charges, and deduction of utilities
10 charges from Plaintiffs’ security deposit, violated Civil Code section 1954.205.
11 56. Defendants’ requirement that rent be paid electronically, and charges against the

12 security deposit for their own electronic bank fees, violated Civil Code section 1947.3.
13 37. Defendants violated California Civil Code section 1950.5(f) by failing to notify
14 Plaintiffs of their right to an initial inspection prior to moving out of the PROPERTY.
15 58. Defendants violated California Civil Code section 1950.5(g) by failing to return
16 Plaintiffs’ security deposit on time or in full, and failing to accurately and reasonably itemize and
17 document reasonable repair and other lawful deductions, and wrongfully and in bad faith and/or for
18 retaliatory purpose, withheld amounts that were either paid in full, exempted from payment, or were

19 not due, in violation of various provisions California Civil Code section 1950.5.

20 59. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the ownership and management of the

21 PROPERTY by failing to follow the law with respect to the management of the TENANCY and

22 termination of the TENANCY even with express knowledge and actual notice of the requirements of
23 the Tenant Protection Act and other California laws. Defendants had actual and constructive
24 knowledge of the law, including the requirements of the Tenant Protection Act (Civil Code
25 §§1946.2, 1947.12), Civil Code section 1927, Civil Code section 1950.5, Civil Code section
26 1954.205, Penal Code section 396, Civil Code section 1947.3, and Civil Code section 1714, and still

27
9
28 COMPLAINT
failed to follow the law.

60. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the ownership and management of the
PROPERTY by failing to maintain the PROPERTY in a safe and habitable condition, including but

not limited to the defective condition and inadequate lighting of the concrete walkway providing
ingress and egress to the trash disposal area, resulting in injury to plaintiff NESTOR QUEZADA.
61. Asa direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct Plaintiffs have incurred and
will continue to incur substantial economic and noneconomic damages including overpayment of
rent, out of pocket expenses, personal injuries and associated damages, physical and mental

discomfort, anxiety, emotional and mental stress and distress, inconvenience, frustration, fear, and

10 other damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

11 62. Wherefore Plaintiffs prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set
12 forth below.

13 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
14
63. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate by reference, every allegation contained in the
15
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
16
64, Defendants were obligated to perform under the terms of the written LEASE. A
17
covenant of good faith and fair dealing is contained in every residential rental lease and/or agreement
18
in the State of California pursuant to state statute and common law. A covenant of quiet enjoyment
19
providing for tenant possession and quiet enjoyment of the premises without disturbance of the
20
tenant's possession and beneficial enjoyment of the premises for the purposes is contained in every
21
residential rental lease and/or agreement in the State of California. Defendants breached these
22
covenants by fraudulently terminating Plaintiffs’ tenancy in violation of the laws of the State of
23
California and the United States, by withholding Plaintiffs’ security deposit in bad faith or otherwise,
24
and by failing to maintain the premises in a nondefective and habitable condition.
25
65. Paragraph 4 of the LEASE provides that “Tenant will be responsible for the payment
26
of all utilities and services except water and garbage, which will be paid by the Owner.” Defendants
27
10
28 COMPLAINT
breached Paragraph 4 of the LEASE. Paragraph 17 of the LEASE provides that “[t]he security
deposit will secure the performance of Tenant’s obligations.” Defendants breached Paragraph 17 of

the LEASE by withholding over a thousand dollars of the security deposit for items which were not

the Plaintiff's obligations.
66. Plaintiffs have complied with and performed all conditions, covenants, and promises
required on their part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the LEASE,
including the payment or attempted payment of all rents due and maintenance of THE PROPERTY,

or were excused from performing their obligations under the LEASE.

67. As a direct and proximate cause of these breaches of the LEASE, including the
10 implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
11 Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur substantial economic and noneconomic damages
12 including overpayment of rent, out of pocket expenses, personal injuries and associated damages,
13 physical and mental discomfort, anxiety, emotional and mental stress and distress, inconvenience,
14 frustration, fear, and other damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

15 68. Wherefore Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as set
16 forth below.
17 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
18
69. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate by reference, every allegation contained in the
19
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
20
70. That at all times herein mentioned, the Defendants, and each of them, had actual and
21
constructive knowledge of the aforesaid harmful, offensive and unwelcome conduct of Defendants,
22
and each of them, and that said Defendants, and each of them, with knowledge of the aforesaid
23
conduct participated in, authorized, ratified and/or otherwise permitted the aforementioned conduct
24
to continue.
25
dle That said Defendants, and each of them, had knowledge that participating in,
26
authorizing, ratifying and/or otherwise permitting said conduct to continue would lead to a high
27
u
28 COMPLAINT
probability that Plaintiff would be harmed and injured as a result of the harmful, offensive and

unwelcome conduct of Defendants and each of them. The aforementioned participation,
authorization and/or ratification was wilful, wanton and malicious, constituting a conscious disregard

for the safety and rights of Plaintiffs thereby constituting oppression. Plaintiffs further allege that
such despicable conduct in intolerable in a civilized society, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive
and exemplary damages against Defendants, and each of them, according to proof.

72. In so acting and/or failing to act, the Defendants, and each of them, pursued an

outrageous course of conduct, intentionally, and/or recklessly, thereby proximately causing Plaintiff
severe emotional distress, shock, grief, anxiety, worry, and other highly unpleasant emotions.

10 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §§17200, et seq.
11
723. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate by reference, every allegation contained in the
12
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
13
74. Plaintiffs brings this cause of action on Plaintiffs’ own behalves, on behalf of all
14
persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the People of the State of California.
15
75. By reason of Defendants’ failure to comply with federal, state and local law in the
16
ownership and management of real property, Defendants’ conduct constitute unfair business
17
practices under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. and Business and
18
Professions Code section 17500. In promoting, advertising, selling and contracting with a residential
19
tenant, Defendants violated the law in terminating that lease after attempting to illegally raise the
20
rents and disregarded the rights of a tenant, including Plaintiffs, other tenants at the PROPERTY,
21
and other members of the general public, violated the Tenant Protection Act and other laws, and
22
misrepresented facts in order to convince Plaintiffs to vacate the PROPERTY. To the extent the
23
residential housing and housing management does not reach reasonable consumer expectations, the
24
acts and omission of Defendants constitute fraudulent and unfair business practices and are
25
prohibited by California Business and Professionist Code § 17200. To the extent the acts and
26
omissions of Defendants set forth in this complaint have caused damages to Plaintiffs and other
27
12
28 COMPLAINT
members of the general public, these acts and omissions constitute violations of California Business

and Professionist Code § 17200 and will continue to the damage of the general public on the part of

the Defendants until prohibited by order of this court.
76. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that it is the regular practice of

Defendants to intentionally disregard the rights of tenants and violate applicable laws relating to
tenancies at their property(ies) in ways that include, but are not limited to, price gouging and

unlawful rent increases in violation of Penal Code section 396 and the Tenant Protection Act,

illegally and fraudulently terminating tenancies in order to avoid the requirements of the Tenant
Protection Act, charging for utilities in violation of Civil Code section.1954.205, requiring electronic

10 payment of rent in violation of Civil Code section 1947.3, and various violations of Civil Code
11 section 1950.5 including failing to advise tenants of their right to an initial inspection before moving
12 out and unreasonable and unsupported deductions/bad faith withholding of tenants’ security deposits.

13 77. At all times herein relevant, Defendants were conducting business under the laws of

14 the United States, the State of California, the County of San Mateo, and the City of San Mateo and

15 were obligated to comply with those laws.

16 78.

Case Info

Judge

Finigan, Jeffrey R. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 19, 2024

Case Filing Date

February 03, 2023

County

Parties

BENDER, MARC D. Attorney for the Defendant
CALIFORNIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. Defendant
DIEZ, MAX Defendant
DOES ONE THROUGH FIFTY, INCLUSIVE Defendant
NGUYEN, DARRELL V. Attorney for the Defendant
QUEZADA, LEONIDAS Plaintiff
QUEZADA, NESTOR Plaintiff
SMITH, AUDREY A. Attorney for the Plaintiff
VOSS, ERIC Defendant
YUAN, JING Defendant
Robert Howie Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Liam Sidebottom Attorneys for Defendants

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

Document for NESTOR QUEZADA, et al vs. JING YUAN, et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties