Preview
1 Vikranth A. Sunderraj, Esq. (SBN 225636)
vik@tenantlawgroupsf.com
2 Ari Rief, Esq. (SBN 276013)
ari@tenantlawgroupsf.com
3 TENANT LAW GROUP, PC
4 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111-5235
5 Tel: (888) 510-7511
Fax: (888) 376-1662
6
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff LISA WORRALL
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA
10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11
LISA WORRALL, an Individual; Case No. 22CV001381
12
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MANDATORY
13 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF
14 v.
Date: April 4, 2024
15 Time: 10:30 a.m.
FAIRFIELD NAPA PHASE I LLC, a Limited Dept.: B; The Hon. Scott R.L.Young
16 Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, Action Filed: April 14, 2022
17 inclusive; Trial Date: May 13, 2024
18 Defendants. Privileged Pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §§
1152 & 115
19
20 Plaintiff Lisa Worrall submits this Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement pursuant
21 to California Evidence Code sections 1119 and 1152.
22 I. INTRODUCTION
23 Plaintiffs' This is a landlord-tenant case concerning an apartment complex, The Brayden,
24 located in Napa, California, and owned by Fairfield Napa Phase I LLC ("Defendant" or
25 "Landlord"). The tenancy spanned almost 2.5 years, from April 2020 to August 2022. Throughout
26 this period, the tenant plaintiff, Lisa Worrall, was connected with three different units. Initially,
27 Worrall was unable to move into the first unit due to ozone chemical gassing, rendering it
28 uninhabitable, particularly problematic for Worrall who has suffered from asthma since childhood.
-1-
PLAINTIFF’S MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 Subsequently, she resided in a temporary corporate staging unit for approximately six weeks
2 before relocating to the third unit, where she ultimately settled. All three units experienced various
3 levels of habitability issues, ranging from mild to severe.
4 In addition to the habitability issues premised under contract and tort law, Worrall alleges
5 misconduct on the part of the landlord. Specifically, she accuses property management of
6 harassment, retaliation, and engaging in unfair business practices.
7 Reflecting on her time spent at The Brayden fills Worrall with a mixture of emotions—
8 primarily anxiety, regret, and outrage. She made the decision to move to The Brayden based on
9 Defendants’ misinformation, only to find herself trapped in a subpar living situation for nearly two
10 and a half years. From the moment Worrall arrived at the apartment that she had initially signed
11 for in April 2020, until the abrupt termination of her lease in August 2022, she never experienced
12 quiet enjoyment of own home.
13 The choice to leave behind a rent-controlled apartment in San Francisco, a place she called
14 home since childhood and the hub of her business, was significant. It meant potentially being
15 priced out of the market and unable to return. The dishonesty of the property management
16 company, enticing her to move outside the city, coupled with their failure to uphold the
17 habitability standards inherent within the lease agreement, deprived her of the opportunity to make
18 an informed decision about relocating to Napa—a decision that could have impacted her personal,
19 financial, and health interests. The decision to relocate from the city during the pandemic was
20 monumental—driven by aspirations for a higher standard of living, financial prudence, and the
21 imperative of accommodating a disabled parent's visits during lockdown.
22 II. ANALYSIS
23 A. Substantial Habitablility Defects Not Caused by Worrall
24 The following habitability issues include, but are not limited to, the following.
25 1. The ozone-bombed apartment was unlivable.
26 In April 2020, amidst the onset of the pandemic shutdown—an unsettling period—she
27 made the decision to move. Relying solely on online images, without the opportunity for a
28
-2-
PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF
1 walkthrough, she rented the apartment. Assurances were given that the place would be vacant
2 upon her arrival.
3 However, upon reaching the apartment with a moving truck and movers in tow, she
4 discovered multiple employees or representatives of the defendant already present inside the unit.
5 A noxious odor pervaded the space, immediately triggering severe illness in Worrall, even with a
6 mask on. The employees disclosed that just moments before her arrival, they had conducted an
7 ozone bomb treatment due to unsanitary conditions left by the prior tenant, specifically animal
8 waste. This treatment, coupled with recent carpet removal and repainting, had resulted in
9 hazardous chemical off-gassing, posing significant risks to health and safety.
10 Despite the glaring danger, management pressured her that day to proceed with moving in.
11 Refusing to compromise her well-being, she declined. However, this left her without alternative
12 accommodation. Sacrificing her San Francisco apartment, she found herself unable to seek refuge
13 with her immunocompromised parents in Sacramento, or with friends adhering to lockdown
14 protocols and working from home. Moreover, securing a hotel room proved unfeasible.
15 2. Persistent pests, particularly large spiders
16 Upon moving into her permanent unit, she found herself confronted with an excessive
17 spider infestation alongside other assorted bugs. This was not an occasional inconvenience; rather,
18 it was a persistent problem characterized by the presence of large, intimidating spiders daily. In
19 her efforts to cope, the plaintiff resorted to purchasing industrial-sized bug killer and erecting
20 barriers around her bedroom to mitigate the risk of spiders entering, although they could still
21 access the room by crawling along the walls. Dealing with this issue consumed a significant
22 portion of her time and mental energy.
23 Despite notifying the landlord, the response was limited to sporadic spraying outside her
24 unit, with no meaningful treatment conducted indoors. Consequently, the problem persisted
25 unabated throughout her entire tenancy.
26 In addition to the spider infestation, she observed rats outside her unit and across the
27 premises. The dumpster area, often overflowing with excessive waste, served as a breeding ground
28 for rodent activity, further exacerbating the situation.
-3-
PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF
1 3. Lack of heat for an entire winter
2 During the winter of 2020, she endured the harsh reality of having no heat in her
3 apartment. With temperatures plummeting to as low as 30 degrees outside during Napa's chilly
4 nights, the situation became miserable at times. She resorted to layering clothing excessively.
5 Despite running the inoperable or hardly operable heater, her electric bills skyrocketed to over
6 $400, a staggering amount for a modest two-bedroom apartment. At best, intermittent heat was
7 sporadically emitted, reaching a maximum of 68 degrees on warmer days. However, during colder
8 spells, temperatures plummeted even further, exacerbating the already dire situation.
9 Repeated complaints to the property management fell on deaf ears. Although maintenance
10 personnel conducted checks, they failed to acknowledge the lack of heat as the unit appeared to be
11 operational. Frustrated by the lack of progress, the plaintiff took matters into her own hands and
12 enlisted the assistance of PG&E to investigate. Their findings revealed that the unit was
13 malfunctioning and inadequately maintained, operating in emergency mode.
14 4. Plumbing issues
15 a. Seepage of excrement and offensive smells
16 Throughout her tenancy, Worrall encountered recurring seepage of excrement into her
17 toilet—sewage intrusion that was not her own. This occurred regularly, even when she had not
18 utilized the toilet herself. Witnessing other people's waste entering her toilet became an unsettling
19 norm, albeit not in excessive volumes, yet profoundly offensive given the supposed upscale nature
20 of the unit (and rental price).
21 Furthermore, this sewage seepage extended beyond the confines of the toilet, manifesting
22 in the bathtub and bathroom sink as well, albeit in small amounts. Despite notifying the
23 management, the intermittent foul odors persisted throughout her stay, with no viable attempts
24 made to rectify the situation. What may appear insignificant in photographs became deeply
25 distressing when coupled with the noxious stench of decomposing feces, compounded by the
26 awareness that others' waste routinely infiltrated her living space.
27 This issue transcended mere plumbing malfunctions; it hinted at a systemic problem that
28 management failed to address adequately. Although plumbers were dispatched to investigate her
-4-
PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF
1 individual unit, the root cause proved elusive, necessitating a comprehensive examination of the
2 building's plumbing infrastructure—a step the landlord failed to undertake.
3 b. Insufficient hot water
4 The second plumbing issue revolved around the inadequate hot water. To be precise, the
5 water temperature fluctuated between lukewarm and tepid, falling far short of the desired heat
6 levels for both the kitchen sink and shower. Despite attempts to adjust the settings, achieving
7 sufficiently hot water temperatures remained a challenge.
8 In her efforts to clean dishes, she found that even after running the water for an extended
9 period—typically 15 to 20 minutes—the temperature would barely reach between 90 and 95
10 degrees. This fell short of the temperatures required for proper sanitation.
11 For over six months, she endured either cold showers or, at best, lukewarm showers.
12 Despite lodging repeated complaints, the landlords exhibited a sluggish response, attributing the
13 issue to the water heater's distance from her unit, rendering it unable to adequately heat the water.
14 5. Defective Oven
15 Despite the oven's temperature gauge displaying readings exceeding 400 degrees, it was, in
16 fact, dysfunctional. At its best performance, it could only reach temperatures between 300 and 350
17 degrees. This malfunction severely hindered her ability to cook effectively.
18 During the pandemic lockdown, Worrall heavily relied on her cooking and baking skills. It
19 was an activity she derived great pleasure from and an important aspect of her daily routine.
20 However, the inability to use the oven throughout the entire tenancy significantly impeded her
21 culinary endeavors.
22 6. Excessively noisy neighbors significantly impacted Worrall’s quiet enjoyment
23 Throughout a significant portion of her tenancy, Worrall endured intolerable levels of
24 noise emanating from her upstairs neighbors. Initially, she attempted to address the issue amicably
25 with the first set of neighbors, even offering a gesture of goodwill in the form of a bottle of wine.
26 However, despite their short-lived stay—due to their construction project in Napa—they
27 frequently disrupted the peace with loud disturbances at odd hours, creating a challenging living
28 environment.
-5-
PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF
1 The situation escalated with the arrival of a new family above her. They subjected Worrall
2 to relentless noise disturbances and further aggravated the situation by discarding trash from their
3 balcony onto hers. Additionally, their pet birds routinely defecated excessively on her patio
4 furniture. Their intimidating demeanor, coupled with the presence of pit bulls, made them
5 unapproachable.
6 Despite lodging complaints with the management and following their instructions to report
7 instances of excessive noise, no effective action was taken to address the issue. Instead, the
8 management inexplicably shifted blame onto Worrall, accusing her of being an excessive
9 complainer—a narrative that contradicts her history of being a responsible tenant prior to residing
10 in the complex.
11 The incessant noise disrupted her sleep patterns and posed significant challenges in
12 running her business effectively.
13 B. Landlord Misconduct Issues
14 The following very briefly summarizes the contentions of various forms of harassment.
15 1. They pressured her to move into a toxic unit.
16 As noted above, when Worrall first attempted to move in, the noxious gases made it
17 readily apparent that moving into that unit was not an option. Over the next weeks while she lived
18 out of the corporate staging unit, a corporate representative of Defendant, Claire Shaw, expressly,
19 or at least impliedly, threatened immediate eviction if Worrall did not move into the original unit
20 even though management had taken no steps to remediate the unit and ensure Worrall that it was
21 safe for living. That became clear when, weeks later, Worrall entered the unit a second time and
22 within seconds or minutes, became immediately ill again. Indeed, Worrall developed a deeply
23 uncomfortable skin rash to her face and respiratory distress and had to follow up with urgent care
24 as well as a doctor at her primary care office. If that was not bad enough, Worrall was essentially
25 mocked by management for her sensitive asthmatic condition.
26 2. Illegal entry into Worrall’s unit.
27 On one occasion, when Worrall was in the bathroom in a towel, three maintenance men
28 from management barged into her unit and deeply frightened Worrall. Defendant failed to provide
-6-
PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF
1 adequate 24 hours’ notice, as required by law.
2 3. Retaliatory eviction
3 Despite Worrall’s valid concerns and complaints amounting to a lawful exercise of her
4 rights, management had had enough of her. They issued a 60-day notice on her door, but did so
5 invalidly, with less than 60 days before the date told to vacate. The claim is not alleged, though
6 could conform to proof at trial. Nevertheless, it remains a piece of the overall picture of how she
7 was poorly treated.
8 C. Damages
9 Landlord-tenant cases permit recovery in both contract and tort. The following are the
10 main economic and non-economic damages available—at least reasonable estimates of
11 exposure—if Plaintiff prevails at trial.
12 1. Rent Refund
13 Damages for a contractual breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment include a refund of
14 rent paid. There is no statutory measure for this purpose; rather, the amount of “reasonable rent”
15 due depends upon the damages caused by the breach. (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d
16 616, 638–639.) Here, the value of Plaintiff’s tenancy was reduced based on stressful living
17 conditions. There is no hard-and-set rule as to what percentage of rent is considered reasonable to
18 deduct, but if nine out of twelve jurors agree with Plaintiff’s some or all of contentions above, then
19 it is not farfetched to imagine a refund of 75 percent or more. Looking only at the window of
20 tenancy between May 2020 to August 2022, a rent refund at 75 percent would total $67,074.00.
21 2. Non-Economic Damages
22 There is no set guidance on how much a jury would award if they were convinced
23 Plaintiff’s emotional pain was very real and indeed caused by Defendant. How much money
24 damages, for example, is awardable for each sleepless night from stress? Although calculating
25 non-economic damages is generally an amorphous concept and speculative exercise, it is not
26 inconceivable that a jury awards $75,000.00 in emotional injury. Moreover, Worrall has proof of
27 therapy sessions during this stressful tenancy to support her claims of excessive anxiety
28 exacerbated by the conditions of her unit.
-7-
PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF
1 3. Statutory Penalties
2 a. Tenant Harassment by Landlord (Civ. Code § 1940.2)
3 A tenant who prevails in a civil action to enforce his or her rights under this Section
4 is entitled to a civil penalty of up to $2,000.00 for each violation. (Civ. Code § 1940.2(b).)
5 Here, we have at least one instance of an unlawful entry.
6 a. Retaliatory acts by Landlord (Civ. Code § 1942.5)
7 Although not alleged, it is worth noting that Defendant’s act to issue a notice of non-
8 renewal after Worrall’s repeated complaints can be viewed as retaliatory to her lawful exercising
9 of tenants’ rights. It is further worth noting that fraudulent posting of a “60-day” notice when it
10 was less than 60 days, which goes if nothing else to an unlawful business practice.
11 4. Trebling
12 Civil Code § 3345(b) provides, in sum, the basis for treble damages when (1)
13 landlord knew or should have known that his or her conduct impacted a disabled person; (2)
14 the conduct caused the disabled person to suffer loss or encumbrance of a primary residence;
15 and (3) the disabled person is substantially more vulnerable than other members of the public;
16 and (4) the disabled person actually suffered substantial physical, emotional, or economic
17 damage resulting from the defendant’s conduct. A “disabled person” is a person with a
18 physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. (See
19 Civil Code §§ 3345(a) & 1761(g).)
20 Here, Worral may meet those elements based on her pre-existing asthma condition
21 that the Defendant knew about. Accordingly, the potential liability for treble damages exists.
22 5. Attorney’s fees and costs
23 For the sake of this MSC brief, Plaintiff submits a conservative estimate of $160,000.00.
24 6. Punitive damages
25 It is worth noting that possibility of a further award for punitive damages. For the sake of
26 this MSC brief, however, Plaintiff will not include an amount for punitive damages when arriving
27 a final number of very realistic exposure for Defendant.
28
-8-
PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF
1 7. Summary of Damages
2
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES TOTAL
3
Lost Value of Rent-Controlled Apartment in San Francisco $60,000.00
4
Refund of Rent Paid $67,074.00
5 Out-of-Pocket Expenses $600.00
Lost Wages $50,000.00
6
Economic Damages Subtotal $177,074.00
7 Bodily Injury $5,000.00
Mental and Emotional Injury $150,000.00
8 Noneconomic Damages Subtotal $155,000.00
9 Violation of California Civil Code § 1940.2 $2,000.00
Violation of California Civil Code § 1950.5 $1,200.00
10 Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 $177,000.00
11 Statutory Damages Subtotal $180,200.00
Total Economic, Noneconomic & Statutory Damages $512,274.00
12
Trebling of Total Economic, Noneconomic & Statutory Damages 1,536,822.00
13 Attorney’s Fees & Costs Through Trial $160,000.00
Punitive Damages Not included
14
TOTAL EXPOSURE $1,696,822.00
15
16 A. Prior Settlement Negotiations
17 On August 18, 2023, the parties participated in private mediation, which was unsuccessful.
18 However, the session was a brief complimentary session prior to Worrall’s deposition and further
19 discovery.
20 B. MSC Demand
21 Plaintiff submits a demand of $350,000.00.
22
23 DATED: March 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
24
TENANT LAW GROUP, PC
25
26
27 By
Ari Rief, Esq.
28
Attorney for Plaintiffs
-9-
PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF
Preview
1 Vikranth A. Sunderraj, Esq. (SBN 225636) vik@tenantlawgroupsf.com 2 Ari Rief, Esq. (SBN 276013) ari@tenantlawgroupsf.com 3 TENANT LAW GROUP, PC 4 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111-5235 5 Tel: (888) 510-7511 Fax: (888) 376-1662 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff LISA WORRALL 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 LISA WORRALL, an Individual; Case No. 22CV001381 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MANDATORY 13 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF 14 v. Date: April 4, 2024 15 Time: 10:30 a.m. FAIRFIELD NAPA PHASE I LLC, a Limited Dept.: B; The Hon. Scott R.L.Young 16 Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, Action Filed: April 14, 2022 17 inclusive; Trial Date: May 13, 2024 18 Defendants. Privileged Pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1152 & 115 19 20 Plaintiff Lisa Worrall submits this Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement pursuant 21 to California Evidence Code sections 1119 and 1152. 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 Plaintiffs' This is a landlord-tenant case concerning an apartment complex, The Brayden, 24 located in Napa, California, and owned by Fairfield Napa Phase I LLC ("Defendant" or 25 "Landlord"). The tenancy spanned almost 2.5 years, from April 2020 to August 2022. Throughout 26 this period, the tenant plaintiff, Lisa Worrall, was connected with three different units. Initially, 27 Worrall was unable to move into the first unit due to ozone chemical gassing, rendering it 28 uninhabitable, particularly problematic for Worrall who has suffered from asthma since childhood. -1- PLAINTIFF’S MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 Subsequently, she resided in a temporary corporate staging unit for approximately six weeks 2 before relocating to the third unit, where she ultimately settled. All three units experienced various 3 levels of habitability issues, ranging from mild to severe. 4 In addition to the habitability issues premised under contract and tort law, Worrall alleges 5 misconduct on the part of the landlord. Specifically, she accuses property management of 6 harassment, retaliation, and engaging in unfair business practices. 7 Reflecting on her time spent at The Brayden fills Worrall with a mixture of emotions— 8 primarily anxiety, regret, and outrage. She made the decision to move to The Brayden based on 9 Defendants’ misinformation, only to find herself trapped in a subpar living situation for nearly two 10 and a half years. From the moment Worrall arrived at the apartment that she had initially signed 11 for in April 2020, until the abrupt termination of her lease in August 2022, she never experienced 12 quiet enjoyment of own home. 13 The choice to leave behind a rent-controlled apartment in San Francisco, a place she called 14 home since childhood and the hub of her business, was significant. It meant potentially being 15 priced out of the market and unable to return. The dishonesty of the property management 16 company, enticing her to move outside the city, coupled with their failure to uphold the 17 habitability standards inherent within the lease agreement, deprived her of the opportunity to make 18 an informed decision about relocating to Napa—a decision that could have impacted her personal, 19 financial, and health interests. The decision to relocate from the city during the pandemic was 20 monumental—driven by aspirations for a higher standard of living, financial prudence, and the 21 imperative of accommodating a disabled parent's visits during lockdown. 22 II. ANALYSIS 23 A. Substantial Habitablility Defects Not Caused by Worrall 24 The following habitability issues include, but are not limited to, the following. 25 1. The ozone-bombed apartment was unlivable. 26 In April 2020, amidst the onset of the pandemic shutdown—an unsettling period—she 27 made the decision to move. Relying solely on online images, without the opportunity for a 28 -2- PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF 1 walkthrough, she rented the apartment. Assurances were given that the place would be vacant 2 upon her arrival. 3 However, upon reaching the apartment with a moving truck and movers in tow, she 4 discovered multiple employees or representatives of the defendant already present inside the unit. 5 A noxious odor pervaded the space, immediately triggering severe illness in Worrall, even with a 6 mask on. The employees disclosed that just moments before her arrival, they had conducted an 7 ozone bomb treatment due to unsanitary conditions left by the prior tenant, specifically animal 8 waste. This treatment, coupled with recent carpet removal and repainting, had resulted in 9 hazardous chemical off-gassing, posing significant risks to health and safety. 10 Despite the glaring danger, management pressured her that day to proceed with moving in. 11 Refusing to compromise her well-being, she declined. However, this left her without alternative 12 accommodation. Sacrificing her San Francisco apartment, she found herself unable to seek refuge 13 with her immunocompromised parents in Sacramento, or with friends adhering to lockdown 14 protocols and working from home. Moreover, securing a hotel room proved unfeasible. 15 2. Persistent pests, particularly large spiders 16 Upon moving into her permanent unit, she found herself confronted with an excessive 17 spider infestation alongside other assorted bugs. This was not an occasional inconvenience; rather, 18 it was a persistent problem characterized by the presence of large, intimidating spiders daily. In 19 her efforts to cope, the plaintiff resorted to purchasing industrial-sized bug killer and erecting 20 barriers around her bedroom to mitigate the risk of spiders entering, although they could still 21 access the room by crawling along the walls. Dealing with this issue consumed a significant 22 portion of her time and mental energy. 23 Despite notifying the landlord, the response was limited to sporadic spraying outside her 24 unit, with no meaningful treatment conducted indoors. Consequently, the problem persisted 25 unabated throughout her entire tenancy. 26 In addition to the spider infestation, she observed rats outside her unit and across the 27 premises. The dumpster area, often overflowing with excessive waste, served as a breeding ground 28 for rodent activity, further exacerbating the situation. -3- PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF 1 3. Lack of heat for an entire winter 2 During the winter of 2020, she endured the harsh reality of having no heat in her 3 apartment. With temperatures plummeting to as low as 30 degrees outside during Napa's chilly 4 nights, the situation became miserable at times. She resorted to layering clothing excessively. 5 Despite running the inoperable or hardly operable heater, her electric bills skyrocketed to over 6 $400, a staggering amount for a modest two-bedroom apartment. At best, intermittent heat was 7 sporadically emitted, reaching a maximum of 68 degrees on warmer days. However, during colder 8 spells, temperatures plummeted even further, exacerbating the already dire situation. 9 Repeated complaints to the property management fell on deaf ears. Although maintenance 10 personnel conducted checks, they failed to acknowledge the lack of heat as the unit appeared to be 11 operational. Frustrated by the lack of progress, the plaintiff took matters into her own hands and 12 enlisted the assistance of PG&E to investigate. Their findings revealed that the unit was 13 malfunctioning and inadequately maintained, operating in emergency mode. 14 4. Plumbing issues 15 a. Seepage of excrement and offensive smells 16 Throughout her tenancy, Worrall encountered recurring seepage of excrement into her 17 toilet—sewage intrusion that was not her own. This occurred regularly, even when she had not 18 utilized the toilet herself. Witnessing other people's waste entering her toilet became an unsettling 19 norm, albeit not in excessive volumes, yet profoundly offensive given the supposed upscale nature 20 of the unit (and rental price). 21 Furthermore, this sewage seepage extended beyond the confines of the toilet, manifesting 22 in the bathtub and bathroom sink as well, albeit in small amounts. Despite notifying the 23 management, the intermittent foul odors persisted throughout her stay, with no viable attempts 24 made to rectify the situation. What may appear insignificant in photographs became deeply 25 distressing when coupled with the noxious stench of decomposing feces, compounded by the 26 awareness that others' waste routinely infiltrated her living space. 27 This issue transcended mere plumbing malfunctions; it hinted at a systemic problem that 28 management failed to address adequately. Although plumbers were dispatched to investigate her -4- PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF 1 individual unit, the root cause proved elusive, necessitating a comprehensive examination of the 2 building's plumbing infrastructure—a step the landlord failed to undertake. 3 b. Insufficient hot water 4 The second plumbing issue revolved around the inadequate hot water. To be precise, the 5 water temperature fluctuated between lukewarm and tepid, falling far short of the desired heat 6 levels for both the kitchen sink and shower. Despite attempts to adjust the settings, achieving 7 sufficiently hot water temperatures remained a challenge. 8 In her efforts to clean dishes, she found that even after running the water for an extended 9 period—typically 15 to 20 minutes—the temperature would barely reach between 90 and 95 10 degrees. This fell short of the temperatures required for proper sanitation. 11 For over six months, she endured either cold showers or, at best, lukewarm showers. 12 Despite lodging repeated complaints, the landlords exhibited a sluggish response, attributing the 13 issue to the water heater's distance from her unit, rendering it unable to adequately heat the water. 14 5. Defective Oven 15 Despite the oven's temperature gauge displaying readings exceeding 400 degrees, it was, in 16 fact, dysfunctional. At its best performance, it could only reach temperatures between 300 and 350 17 degrees. This malfunction severely hindered her ability to cook effectively. 18 During the pandemic lockdown, Worrall heavily relied on her cooking and baking skills. It 19 was an activity she derived great pleasure from and an important aspect of her daily routine. 20 However, the inability to use the oven throughout the entire tenancy significantly impeded her 21 culinary endeavors. 22 6. Excessively noisy neighbors significantly impacted Worrall’s quiet enjoyment 23 Throughout a significant portion of her tenancy, Worrall endured intolerable levels of 24 noise emanating from her upstairs neighbors. Initially, she attempted to address the issue amicably 25 with the first set of neighbors, even offering a gesture of goodwill in the form of a bottle of wine. 26 However, despite their short-lived stay—due to their construction project in Napa—they 27 frequently disrupted the peace with loud disturbances at odd hours, creating a challenging living 28 environment. -5- PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF 1 The situation escalated with the arrival of a new family above her. They subjected Worrall 2 to relentless noise disturbances and further aggravated the situation by discarding trash from their 3 balcony onto hers. Additionally, their pet birds routinely defecated excessively on her patio 4 furniture. Their intimidating demeanor, coupled with the presence of pit bulls, made them 5 unapproachable. 6 Despite lodging complaints with the management and following their instructions to report 7 instances of excessive noise, no effective action was taken to address the issue. Instead, the 8 management inexplicably shifted blame onto Worrall, accusing her of being an excessive 9 complainer—a narrative that contradicts her history of being a responsible tenant prior to residing 10 in the complex. 11 The incessant noise disrupted her sleep patterns and posed significant challenges in 12 running her business effectively. 13 B. Landlord Misconduct Issues 14 The following very briefly summarizes the contentions of various forms of harassment. 15 1. They pressured her to move into a toxic unit. 16 As noted above, when Worrall first attempted to move in, the noxious gases made it 17 readily apparent that moving into that unit was not an option. Over the next weeks while she lived 18 out of the corporate staging unit, a corporate representative of Defendant, Claire Shaw, expressly, 19 or at least impliedly, threatened immediate eviction if Worrall did not move into the original unit 20 even though management had taken no steps to remediate the unit and ensure Worrall that it was 21 safe for living. That became clear when, weeks later, Worrall entered the unit a second time and 22 within seconds or minutes, became immediately ill again. Indeed, Worrall developed a deeply 23 uncomfortable skin rash to her face and respiratory distress and had to follow up with urgent care 24 as well as a doctor at her primary care office. If that was not bad enough, Worrall was essentially 25 mocked by management for her sensitive asthmatic condition. 26 2. Illegal entry into Worrall’s unit. 27 On one occasion, when Worrall was in the bathroom in a towel, three maintenance men 28 from management barged into her unit and deeply frightened Worrall. Defendant failed to provide -6- PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF 1 adequate 24 hours’ notice, as required by law. 2 3. Retaliatory eviction 3 Despite Worrall’s valid concerns and complaints amounting to a lawful exercise of her 4 rights, management had had enough of her. They issued a 60-day notice on her door, but did so 5 invalidly, with less than 60 days before the date told to vacate. The claim is not alleged, though 6 could conform to proof at trial. Nevertheless, it remains a piece of the overall picture of how she 7 was poorly treated. 8 C. Damages 9 Landlord-tenant cases permit recovery in both contract and tort. The following are the 10 main economic and non-economic damages available—at least reasonable estimates of 11 exposure—if Plaintiff prevails at trial. 12 1. Rent Refund 13 Damages for a contractual breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment include a refund of 14 rent paid. There is no statutory measure for this purpose; rather, the amount of “reasonable rent” 15 due depends upon the damages caused by the breach. (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 16 616, 638–639.) Here, the value of Plaintiff’s tenancy was reduced based on stressful living 17 conditions. There is no hard-and-set rule as to what percentage of rent is considered reasonable to 18 deduct, but if nine out of twelve jurors agree with Plaintiff’s some or all of contentions above, then 19 it is not farfetched to imagine a refund of 75 percent or more. Looking only at the window of 20 tenancy between May 2020 to August 2022, a rent refund at 75 percent would total $67,074.00. 21 2. Non-Economic Damages 22 There is no set guidance on how much a jury would award if they were convinced 23 Plaintiff’s emotional pain was very real and indeed caused by Defendant. How much money 24 damages, for example, is awardable for each sleepless night from stress? Although calculating 25 non-economic damages is generally an amorphous concept and speculative exercise, it is not 26 inconceivable that a jury awards $75,000.00 in emotional injury. Moreover, Worrall has proof of 27 therapy sessions during this stressful tenancy to support her claims of excessive anxiety 28 exacerbated by the conditions of her unit. -7- PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF 1 3. Statutory Penalties 2 a. Tenant Harassment by Landlord (Civ. Code § 1940.2) 3 A tenant who prevails in a civil action to enforce his or her rights under this Section 4 is entitled to a civil penalty of up to $2,000.00 for each violation. (Civ. Code § 1940.2(b).) 5 Here, we have at least one instance of an unlawful entry. 6 a. Retaliatory acts by Landlord (Civ. Code § 1942.5) 7 Although not alleged, it is worth noting that Defendant’s act to issue a notice of non- 8 renewal after Worrall’s repeated complaints can be viewed as retaliatory to her lawful exercising 9 of tenants’ rights. It is further worth noting that fraudulent posting of a “60-day” notice when it 10 was less than 60 days, which goes if nothing else to an unlawful business practice. 11 4. Trebling 12 Civil Code § 3345(b) provides, in sum, the basis for treble damages when (1) 13 landlord knew or should have known that his or her conduct impacted a disabled person; (2) 14 the conduct caused the disabled person to suffer loss or encumbrance of a primary residence; 15 and (3) the disabled person is substantially more vulnerable than other members of the public; 16 and (4) the disabled person actually suffered substantial physical, emotional, or economic 17 damage resulting from the defendant’s conduct. A “disabled person” is a person with a 18 physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. (See 19 Civil Code §§ 3345(a) & 1761(g).) 20 Here, Worral may meet those elements based on her pre-existing asthma condition 21 that the Defendant knew about. Accordingly, the potential liability for treble damages exists. 22 5. Attorney’s fees and costs 23 For the sake of this MSC brief, Plaintiff submits a conservative estimate of $160,000.00. 24 6. Punitive damages 25 It is worth noting that possibility of a further award for punitive damages. For the sake of 26 this MSC brief, however, Plaintiff will not include an amount for punitive damages when arriving 27 a final number of very realistic exposure for Defendant. 28 -8- PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF 1 7. Summary of Damages 2 SUMMARY OF DAMAGES TOTAL 3 Lost Value of Rent-Controlled Apartment in San Francisco $60,000.00 4 Refund of Rent Paid $67,074.00 5 Out-of-Pocket Expenses $600.00 Lost Wages $50,000.00 6 Economic Damages Subtotal $177,074.00 7 Bodily Injury $5,000.00 Mental and Emotional Injury $150,000.00 8 Noneconomic Damages Subtotal $155,000.00 9 Violation of California Civil Code § 1940.2 $2,000.00 Violation of California Civil Code § 1950.5 $1,200.00 10 Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 $177,000.00 11 Statutory Damages Subtotal $180,200.00 Total Economic, Noneconomic & Statutory Damages $512,274.00 12 Trebling of Total Economic, Noneconomic & Statutory Damages 1,536,822.00 13 Attorney’s Fees & Costs Through Trial $160,000.00 Punitive Damages Not included 14 TOTAL EXPOSURE $1,696,822.00 15 16 A. Prior Settlement Negotiations 17 On August 18, 2023, the parties participated in private mediation, which was unsuccessful. 18 However, the session was a brief complimentary session prior to Worrall’s deposition and further 19 discovery. 20 B. MSC Demand 21 Plaintiff submits a demand of $350,000.00. 22 23 DATED: March 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 24 TENANT LAW GROUP, PC 25 26 27 By Ari Rief, Esq. 28 Attorney for Plaintiffs -9- PLAINTIFFS’ MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF