Preview
1 Daniel L. Lapin, Esq. – SBN: 169361
Saman Taherian, Esq. – SBN: 170953
2 Law Office of Lapin & Taherian
910 Pleasant Grove Blvd., Suite 120
3 Roseville, CA 95678-6188
4 Telephone: (408) 271-9270
Facsimile: (408) 271-9288
5
6 E-Mail: sam@ltlawgroup.com
daniel@ltlawgroup.com
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF PLACER
10
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120
11
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188
12
CASE No.
LAPIN & TAHERIAN
13 CAROLINE KOBERLE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 Plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
FOR PREMISES LIABILITY
15 Vs.
16 JAMES N. HARDWICK
and
17 Does 1 to 100,
18 Defendants
19
20
21
22 COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
23 Comes now CAROLINE KOBERLE (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and complains against
24 JAMES N. HARDWICK (hereinafter “Defendant”) as follows:
25 1. Plaintiff is an individual over the age of 18 years and a resident of the State of
26
California County of Placer.
27
2. Defendant is an individual over the age of 18 years old, and on information and
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 belief, a resident of Placer County.
2 3. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
3
otherwise of Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time.
4
Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and
5
believes and thereupon allege that each of the Defendants fictitiously named herein as DOE is
6
7 legally responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings
8 hereinafter referred to, and proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as hereinafter
9 alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to insert the names and/or
10 capacities of such fictitiously named defendants when the same have been ascertained.
910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120
11
4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188
12
mentioned herein, defendants, and each of them, including DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and
LAPIN & TAHERIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
each of them, were either agents, employees, and/or representatives of their codefendants, and
14
15 were, as such, acting within the course, scope, and authority of said agency, employment and/or
16 representation, and that each and every defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was
17 negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other defendant as an agent, employee
18 and/or representative.
19
5. This court is the proper court because the contract that is subject of the litigation
20
was entered into in this court’s jurisdictional area, and/or because the property that is the subject
21
of this litigation is located in this court’s jurisdictional area and/or a defendant lives in this
22
23 jurisdiction.
24 6. The property that is the subject matter of this litigation is a single-family home
25 commonly known as 183 College Way, Auburn, California, 95603, and, on information and belief,
26
has assessor parcel number 004-072-018 (hereinafter “Property”).
27
7. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a tenant in Property, pursuant to a lawfully
28
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 executed rental agreement executed on or about September 2017.
2 8. A true and correct copy of the rental agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3
9. On or about November 6, 2023, the City of Auburn issued a citation against
4
Defendant regarding various habitability defects and code violations in Property, including,
5
without limitation, material deferred maintenance, a wasp nest, unpermitted deck repair with non-
6
7 code compliant framing, electrical system issues, improper rain gutter downspout termination
8 points, non-operable thermostat, evidence of repeated water intrusion, leak in waste pipe, window
9 installations without permit resulting in poorly functioning windows, improperly installed
10 dishwasher, partially non-functional range.
910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120
11
10. A true and correct copy of the citation is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188
12
11. Moreover, and during various periods of Plaintiff’s residency, there existed
LAPIN & TAHERIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
numerous other habitability issues, including, without limitation, major rodent infestation, roof
14
15 leaks, periods with no hot water, periods with no heat, and repeated electrical failures due to faulty
16 wiring.
17 12. Plaintiff herein has endured non-habitable conditions related to items above.
18 13. On the evening November 9, 2023, shortly after receipt of notice of citation issued
19
by the City of Auburn against the subject premises, Defendant sent Plaintiff an accusatory and
20
retaliatory text message requesting Plaintiff vacate the subject premises threatening to serve the
21
following day [in context] either a three (3) day notice, thirty (30) day notice or sixty (60) day
22
23 notice.
24 14. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s text message to Plaintiff is attached hereto
25 as Exhibit C.
26
15. Plaintiff vacated the premises on or about November 19, 2023.
27
28
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FIRST COUNT
2 (Premises liability due to breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability)
3 16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
4 17. At all relevant times, California Civil Code §1941.1 was in full force and effect and
5
was binding on Defendants. Under this law, landlords have the obligation, and the legal duty to
6
use due care, to provide and maintain leased premises in a habitable condition.
7
18. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff as a result of its relationship as a landlord and
8
9 tenant under a valid, written rental agreement.
10 19. Defendant breached this duty by renting out and then refusing to repair a unit that
910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120
11 Defendant knew had substantial defects, as alleged hereinabove.
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188
12 20. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of duty, as alleged
LAPIN & TAHERIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
hereinabove, Plaintiff was damaged because, inter alia, she paid excessive rent, suffered out of
14
pocket expenses, suffered damage to personal property, suffered loss of use of personal property,
15
suffered loss of use of real property, suffered emotional injury, and/or suffered injury to her health,
16
17 all according to proof at time of trial.
18 21. Plaintiff’s damages are provided for under law, including, without limitation, Cal.
19 Civ. Code §§3281, 3300.
20 22. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and exemplary damages as a result of
21
Defendant’s breach of duty.
22
23. Defendants’ failure to put the premise into a condition fit for human occupation at
23
the time of renting it to Plaintiff, and Defendants’ failure to repair the defective and dangerous
24
25 conditions or to have them repaired within a reasonable time after notification, as alleged above,
26 were oppressive and malicious within the meaning of Cal. Civil Code §3294 in that they subjected
27 Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and
28
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 safety, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.
2 SECOND COUNT
3
(Contractual Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability)
4
24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
5
6 25. Under California law, every lease for residential property contains an implied
7 warranty of habitability.
8 26. Defendants breached this duty by renting out and then refusing to repair a unit that
9
defendants knew had defects, as alleged hereinabove.
10
27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the rental agreement,
910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120
11
Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages as described hereinabove.
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188
12
LAPIN & TAHERIAN
28. Defendants therefore have become liable to Plaintiff, as alleged hereinabove, and
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
14 according to proof at time of trial.
15
16 THIRD COUNT
17 (Premises liability - Negligence, Cal. Civ. Code §1714[a],3333)
18 29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
19 30. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants owed a duty of ordinary and reasonable
20
care to Plaintiff to maintain the premises in good repair and condition.
21
31. Defendants failed to exercise their duty of ordinary care in the management of the
22
above-mentioned unit, as set forth in further detail hereinabove.
23
24 32. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ breach of duties, Plaintiff has
25 suffered damages as described hereinabove.
26 33. As a result, Defendants are therefore liable to Plaintiff, as alleged hereinabove, and
27
according to proof at time of trial.
28
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3 FOURTH COUNT
4 (Negligent Maintenance of Premises, Cal. Civ. Code §1714, 1941)
5 34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
6 35. Pursuant to Cal. Civil Code §1941, Defendants were required to put the premises in
7
a condition for human occupation before and while renting it out and to repair all subsequent
8
dilapidations, other than those caused by the tenant’s want of ordinary care, which rendered the
9
premises un-tenantable.
10
910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120
36. At the time Defendants rented the premises to Plaintiff, Defendants so negligently
11
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188
12 owned, maintained, and repaired the premises as to cause it to be unfit for human occupation.
LAPIN & TAHERIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of their duty, as alleged
14 hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered damages, as more fully alleged hereinabove.
15
38. As a result, Defendants are therefore liable to Plaintiff, as alleged hereinabove, and
16
according to proof at time of trial.
17
18
FIFTH COUNT
19
(Premises liability - Maintenance of Nuisance, Cal. Civ. Code §3479)
20
39. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
21
22 40. The defective and dangerous conditions of the premises as alleged in this
23 Complaint constituted a nuisance within the meaning of Cal. Civil Code §3479 and Cal. Code of
24 Civ. Procedure §731 in that they deprived Plaintiff of the safe, healthy, and comfortable use of the
25 Property.
26
41. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ creation of a nuisance, Plaintiff
27
suffered damages according to proof at time of trial.
28
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 42. As a result, Defendants are therefore liable to Plaintiff, as alleged hereinabove, and
2 according to proof at time of trial.
3
4
SIXTH COUNT
5
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
6
43. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
7
44. Defendants’ failure to put the premises into a condition fit for human occupation
8
9 before and while renting it out to Plaintiff and repeated failure to repair the defects or to have them
10 repaired when requested by Plaintiff, all as alleged more fully hereinabove, was knowing,
910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120
11 intentional, and willful and done with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188
12 emotional distress.
LAPIN & TAHERIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
45. As a result, Plaintiff experienced damages according to proof at time of trial.
14
46. In failing to correct the defects within a reasonable time or at all, despite notice,
15
Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive, in that it was conduct carried on by the
16
17 Defendants in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff; rights and subjected Plaintiff to cruel
18 and unjust hardship.
19 47. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensatory damages, as we well as punitive
20 damages, all according to proof at trial.
21
22
SEVENTH COUNT
23
(Constructive Eviction)
24
48. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
25
49. The premises eventually became uninhabitable to Plaintiff.
26
50. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged hereinabove, Plaintiff
27
28 suffered damages and injuries, all as alleged hereinabove.
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 51. Defendants’ conduct in failing to maintain premises in a condition fit for human
2 occupation was oppressive and malicious within the meaning of Cal. Civil Code §3294 in that it
3
subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
4
rights and safety, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.
5
6
EIGHTH COUNT
7
(Breach of Quiet Enjoyment, Cal. Civ. Code §1927, 3294[a])
8
52. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
9
10 53. At all relevant times herein, Cal. Civ. Code §1927 was in full force and effect and
910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120
11 was binding on the Defendants. This section prohibits lessors from actions that diminish a lessee’s
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188
12 quiet possession of the leased premises, against all persons lawfully claiming the same.
LAPIN & TAHERIAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 54. By the lease, Defendants impliedly covenanted that Plaintiff should have quiet
14
enjoyment and possession of the leased Property during the lease’s term and any extension
15
thereof.
16
55. Defendants, who at all times mentioned in this Complaint were, and still are,
17
18 owners or managers or operators of the leased Property, breached this implied covenant.
19 56. For all relevant periods, Plaintiff was unable to enjoy the quiet use of the premises
20 because of the habitability problems.
21 57. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the covenant, as alleged
22
hereinabove, Plaintiff was damaged, all according to proof at time of trial.
23
58. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensatory damages according to proof at trial.
24
25
26
27
28
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 NINTH COUNT
2 (Willful bad faith retention of security deposit in violation of Cal. Civ. Code
§1950.5(l))
3
59. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
4
5 60. Defendant has willfully, intentionally and in bad faith retained the entire security
6 deposit for lease of the subject premises in violation of Cal. Civil. Code § 1950.5(l) and has not
7 returned to Plaintiff within no later than twenty-one (21) days of the Plaintiff’s vacation of the
8
premises the security deposit as required by Cal. Civil Code § 1950.5(g)(1) nor has Defendant
9
provided Plaintiff with an itemization for any deductions as required by Cal. Civ. Code §
10
910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120
1950.5(f)(2).
11
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188
12 61. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to statutory damages up to twice the amount of the
LAPIN & TAHERIAN
13 security deposit together with actual damages incurred by Plaintiff.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14
15 TENTH COUNT
16 (Failure to Pay Tenant Relocation Assistance in Violation of Cal. Civ Code § 1946.2)
17 62. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
18 63. Defendant terminated the residential lease agreement without at-fault just cause.
19
Because Defendant’s termination of the lease agreement meets the criteria for no-fault just cause,
20
Defendant was liable under statute to either at Defendant’s election to issue payment to Plaintiff in
21
the amount equal to one-month’s rent or waiver of the last month’s rent for relocation assistance.
22
23 Defendant received payment in full for the final month’s rent and did not issue payment of one
24 month’s rent for relocation assistance.
25 64. None of the exceptions for relocation assistance set forth in Cal. Civil Code §
26
1946.2 (e) are either applicable to the subject property, the lease agreement and timely notices
27
given by Defendant.
28
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 65. Plaintiff is entitled to damages equal to one month’s rent, together with interests
2 and costs therein.
3
4
ELEVENTH COUNT
5
(Unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200)
6
66. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove.
7
67. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged hereinabove, was illegal, unfair, and malicious.
8
68. Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to injunctive relief, attorney fees, and other damages,
9
10 according to law.
910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120
11 TWELFTH COUNT
ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188
12 (Retaliato
Preview
1 Daniel L. Lapin, Esq. – SBN: 169361 Saman Taherian, Esq. – SBN: 170953 2 Law Office of Lapin & Taherian 910 Pleasant Grove Blvd., Suite 120 3 Roseville, CA 95678-6188 4 Telephone: (408) 271-9270 Facsimile: (408) 271-9288 5 6 E-Mail: sam@ltlawgroup.com daniel@ltlawgroup.com 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF PLACER 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120 11 ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188 12 CASE No. LAPIN & TAHERIAN 13 CAROLINE KOBERLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 Plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PREMISES LIABILITY 15 Vs. 16 JAMES N. HARDWICK and 17 Does 1 to 100, 18 Defendants 19 20 21 22 COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 23 Comes now CAROLINE KOBERLE (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and complains against 24 JAMES N. HARDWICK (hereinafter “Defendant”) as follows: 25 1. Plaintiff is an individual over the age of 18 years and a resident of the State of 26 California County of Placer. 27 2. Defendant is an individual over the age of 18 years old, and on information and 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 belief, a resident of Placer County. 2 3. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 3 otherwise of Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. 4 Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and 5 believes and thereupon allege that each of the Defendants fictitiously named herein as DOE is 6 7 legally responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings 8 hereinafter referred to, and proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as hereinafter 9 alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to insert the names and/or 10 capacities of such fictitiously named defendants when the same have been ascertained. 910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120 11 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188 12 mentioned herein, defendants, and each of them, including DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and LAPIN & TAHERIAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 each of them, were either agents, employees, and/or representatives of their codefendants, and 14 15 were, as such, acting within the course, scope, and authority of said agency, employment and/or 16 representation, and that each and every defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was 17 negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other defendant as an agent, employee 18 and/or representative. 19 5. This court is the proper court because the contract that is subject of the litigation 20 was entered into in this court’s jurisdictional area, and/or because the property that is the subject 21 of this litigation is located in this court’s jurisdictional area and/or a defendant lives in this 22 23 jurisdiction. 24 6. The property that is the subject matter of this litigation is a single-family home 25 commonly known as 183 College Way, Auburn, California, 95603, and, on information and belief, 26 has assessor parcel number 004-072-018 (hereinafter “Property”). 27 7. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a tenant in Property, pursuant to a lawfully 28 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 executed rental agreement executed on or about September 2017. 2 8. A true and correct copy of the rental agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3 9. On or about November 6, 2023, the City of Auburn issued a citation against 4 Defendant regarding various habitability defects and code violations in Property, including, 5 without limitation, material deferred maintenance, a wasp nest, unpermitted deck repair with non- 6 7 code compliant framing, electrical system issues, improper rain gutter downspout termination 8 points, non-operable thermostat, evidence of repeated water intrusion, leak in waste pipe, window 9 installations without permit resulting in poorly functioning windows, improperly installed 10 dishwasher, partially non-functional range. 910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120 11 10. A true and correct copy of the citation is attached hereto as Exhibit B. ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188 12 11. Moreover, and during various periods of Plaintiff’s residency, there existed LAPIN & TAHERIAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 numerous other habitability issues, including, without limitation, major rodent infestation, roof 14 15 leaks, periods with no hot water, periods with no heat, and repeated electrical failures due to faulty 16 wiring. 17 12. Plaintiff herein has endured non-habitable conditions related to items above. 18 13. On the evening November 9, 2023, shortly after receipt of notice of citation issued 19 by the City of Auburn against the subject premises, Defendant sent Plaintiff an accusatory and 20 retaliatory text message requesting Plaintiff vacate the subject premises threatening to serve the 21 following day [in context] either a three (3) day notice, thirty (30) day notice or sixty (60) day 22 23 notice. 24 14. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s text message to Plaintiff is attached hereto 25 as Exhibit C. 26 15. Plaintiff vacated the premises on or about November 19, 2023. 27 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FIRST COUNT 2 (Premises liability due to breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability) 3 16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 4 17. At all relevant times, California Civil Code §1941.1 was in full force and effect and 5 was binding on Defendants. Under this law, landlords have the obligation, and the legal duty to 6 use due care, to provide and maintain leased premises in a habitable condition. 7 18. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff as a result of its relationship as a landlord and 8 9 tenant under a valid, written rental agreement. 10 19. Defendant breached this duty by renting out and then refusing to repair a unit that 910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120 11 Defendant knew had substantial defects, as alleged hereinabove. ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188 12 20. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of duty, as alleged LAPIN & TAHERIAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 hereinabove, Plaintiff was damaged because, inter alia, she paid excessive rent, suffered out of 14 pocket expenses, suffered damage to personal property, suffered loss of use of personal property, 15 suffered loss of use of real property, suffered emotional injury, and/or suffered injury to her health, 16 17 all according to proof at time of trial. 18 21. Plaintiff’s damages are provided for under law, including, without limitation, Cal. 19 Civ. Code §§3281, 3300. 20 22. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and exemplary damages as a result of 21 Defendant’s breach of duty. 22 23. Defendants’ failure to put the premise into a condition fit for human occupation at 23 the time of renting it to Plaintiff, and Defendants’ failure to repair the defective and dangerous 24 25 conditions or to have them repaired within a reasonable time after notification, as alleged above, 26 were oppressive and malicious within the meaning of Cal. Civil Code §3294 in that they subjected 27 Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 safety, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. 2 SECOND COUNT 3 (Contractual Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability) 4 24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 5 6 25. Under California law, every lease for residential property contains an implied 7 warranty of habitability. 8 26. Defendants breached this duty by renting out and then refusing to repair a unit that 9 defendants knew had defects, as alleged hereinabove. 10 27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the rental agreement, 910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120 11 Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages as described hereinabove. ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188 12 LAPIN & TAHERIAN 28. Defendants therefore have become liable to Plaintiff, as alleged hereinabove, and ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 14 according to proof at time of trial. 15 16 THIRD COUNT 17 (Premises liability - Negligence, Cal. Civ. Code §1714[a],3333) 18 29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 19 30. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants owed a duty of ordinary and reasonable 20 care to Plaintiff to maintain the premises in good repair and condition. 21 31. Defendants failed to exercise their duty of ordinary care in the management of the 22 above-mentioned unit, as set forth in further detail hereinabove. 23 24 32. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ breach of duties, Plaintiff has 25 suffered damages as described hereinabove. 26 33. As a result, Defendants are therefore liable to Plaintiff, as alleged hereinabove, and 27 according to proof at time of trial. 28 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 FOURTH COUNT 4 (Negligent Maintenance of Premises, Cal. Civ. Code §1714, 1941) 5 34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 6 35. Pursuant to Cal. Civil Code §1941, Defendants were required to put the premises in 7 a condition for human occupation before and while renting it out and to repair all subsequent 8 dilapidations, other than those caused by the tenant’s want of ordinary care, which rendered the 9 premises un-tenantable. 10 910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120 36. At the time Defendants rented the premises to Plaintiff, Defendants so negligently 11 ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188 12 owned, maintained, and repaired the premises as to cause it to be unfit for human occupation. LAPIN & TAHERIAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of their duty, as alleged 14 hereinabove, Plaintiff has suffered damages, as more fully alleged hereinabove. 15 38. As a result, Defendants are therefore liable to Plaintiff, as alleged hereinabove, and 16 according to proof at time of trial. 17 18 FIFTH COUNT 19 (Premises liability - Maintenance of Nuisance, Cal. Civ. Code §3479) 20 39. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 21 22 40. The defective and dangerous conditions of the premises as alleged in this 23 Complaint constituted a nuisance within the meaning of Cal. Civil Code §3479 and Cal. Code of 24 Civ. Procedure §731 in that they deprived Plaintiff of the safe, healthy, and comfortable use of the 25 Property. 26 41. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ creation of a nuisance, Plaintiff 27 suffered damages according to proof at time of trial. 28 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 42. As a result, Defendants are therefore liable to Plaintiff, as alleged hereinabove, and 2 according to proof at time of trial. 3 4 SIXTH COUNT 5 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 6 43. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 7 44. Defendants’ failure to put the premises into a condition fit for human occupation 8 9 before and while renting it out to Plaintiff and repeated failure to repair the defects or to have them 10 repaired when requested by Plaintiff, all as alleged more fully hereinabove, was knowing, 910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120 11 intentional, and willful and done with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188 12 emotional distress. LAPIN & TAHERIAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 45. As a result, Plaintiff experienced damages according to proof at time of trial. 14 46. In failing to correct the defects within a reasonable time or at all, despite notice, 15 Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive, in that it was conduct carried on by the 16 17 Defendants in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff; rights and subjected Plaintiff to cruel 18 and unjust hardship. 19 47. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensatory damages, as we well as punitive 20 damages, all according to proof at trial. 21 22 SEVENTH COUNT 23 (Constructive Eviction) 24 48. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 25 49. The premises eventually became uninhabitable to Plaintiff. 26 50. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged hereinabove, Plaintiff 27 28 suffered damages and injuries, all as alleged hereinabove. 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 51. Defendants’ conduct in failing to maintain premises in a condition fit for human 2 occupation was oppressive and malicious within the meaning of Cal. Civil Code §3294 in that it 3 subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 4 rights and safety, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. 5 6 EIGHTH COUNT 7 (Breach of Quiet Enjoyment, Cal. Civ. Code §1927, 3294[a]) 8 52. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 9 10 53. At all relevant times herein, Cal. Civ. Code §1927 was in full force and effect and 910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120 11 was binding on the Defendants. This section prohibits lessors from actions that diminish a lessee’s ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188 12 quiet possession of the leased premises, against all persons lawfully claiming the same. LAPIN & TAHERIAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 54. By the lease, Defendants impliedly covenanted that Plaintiff should have quiet 14 enjoyment and possession of the leased Property during the lease’s term and any extension 15 thereof. 16 55. Defendants, who at all times mentioned in this Complaint were, and still are, 17 18 owners or managers or operators of the leased Property, breached this implied covenant. 19 56. For all relevant periods, Plaintiff was unable to enjoy the quiet use of the premises 20 because of the habitability problems. 21 57. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the covenant, as alleged 22 hereinabove, Plaintiff was damaged, all according to proof at time of trial. 23 58. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensatory damages according to proof at trial. 24 25 26 27 28 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 NINTH COUNT 2 (Willful bad faith retention of security deposit in violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1950.5(l)) 3 59. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 4 5 60. Defendant has willfully, intentionally and in bad faith retained the entire security 6 deposit for lease of the subject premises in violation of Cal. Civil. Code § 1950.5(l) and has not 7 returned to Plaintiff within no later than twenty-one (21) days of the Plaintiff’s vacation of the 8 premises the security deposit as required by Cal. Civil Code § 1950.5(g)(1) nor has Defendant 9 provided Plaintiff with an itemization for any deductions as required by Cal. Civ. Code § 10 910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120 1950.5(f)(2). 11 ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188 12 61. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to statutory damages up to twice the amount of the LAPIN & TAHERIAN 13 security deposit together with actual damages incurred by Plaintiff. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 15 TENTH COUNT 16 (Failure to Pay Tenant Relocation Assistance in Violation of Cal. Civ Code § 1946.2) 17 62. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 18 63. Defendant terminated the residential lease agreement without at-fault just cause. 19 Because Defendant’s termination of the lease agreement meets the criteria for no-fault just cause, 20 Defendant was liable under statute to either at Defendant’s election to issue payment to Plaintiff in 21 the amount equal to one-month’s rent or waiver of the last month’s rent for relocation assistance. 22 23 Defendant received payment in full for the final month’s rent and did not issue payment of one 24 month’s rent for relocation assistance. 25 64. None of the exceptions for relocation assistance set forth in Cal. Civil Code § 26 1946.2 (e) are either applicable to the subject property, the lease agreement and timely notices 27 given by Defendant. 28 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 65. Plaintiff is entitled to damages equal to one month’s rent, together with interests 2 and costs therein. 3 4 ELEVENTH COUNT 5 (Unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) 6 66. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs set forth hereinabove. 7 67. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged hereinabove, was illegal, unfair, and malicious. 8 68. Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to injunctive relief, attorney fees, and other damages, 9 10 according to law. 910 PLEASANT GROVE BLVD., SUITE 120 11 TWELFTH COUNT ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-6188 12 (Retaliato