Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
MATHEWS PROFESSIONAL LAW GROUP, PC Superior Court of California,
Soby M. Mathews (State Bar #208317)
39899 Balentine Dr., Ste. #200 County of Alameda
Newark, CA 94560 03/22/2024 at 10:27:01 PM
Telephone: (510) 498-1949 By: Damaree Franklin,
Email: soby@mplg.us Deputy Clerk
O’NEILL, PC
Sean M. O’Neill (State Bar #277854)
1879 Lundy Ave., Ste. 16'
San Jose, CA 95131
Tel.: (510) 933-8321
Fax: (510) 259-9622
Email: sean@oneillplc.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bassam Sabbagh, Iris Castillo, and Zaiden Sabbagh
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Bo 12
zs
2a UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
13
Bassam Sabbagh, Iris Castillo, Zaiden CaseNo. 24" OBS 908
14 Sabbagh
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE
15 Plaintiff, HONORABLE
16
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
17 1 BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
HABITABILITY
18
2. BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET
19 ENJOYMENT
3. BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD
20 FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
David Scott Parsons And Kimberly Parsons, 4 PRIVATE NUISANCE
21 individually and as Trustees of the Parsons
Trust, dated May 10, 2023, Does 1-10, NEGLIGENCE
22 6. RETALIATORY ACTION BY LANDLORD
Defendants. AGAINST TENANT
23 DECLARATORY RELIEF
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs, Bassam Sabbagh aka Paul, Iris Castillo, Zaiden Sabbagh (collectively
“PLAINTIFF” or “PLAINTIFFS”) hereby complains and alleges as follows against David
Scott Parsons and Kimberly Parsons, individually and as Trustees of the Parsons Trust, dated
May 10, 2023 and DOE | through DOE 10, inclusive (collectively “DEFENDANT” or
“DEFENDANTS”).
This is a civil action for damages due to DEFENDANTS’ egregious conduct of failing to abate
a nuisance at the Premises that impacted PLAINTIFF’S ability to use and enjoy his rental unit.
10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11 Jurisdiction is proper because the Premises at issue in this Complaint is located in, and the
Bo 12 events herein alleged occurred in, the County of Alameda, and the amount of damages sought
zs
2a
segS 13
exceeds the minimum jurisdiction of this court ($25,000).
14
4 Venue is proper in the County of Alameda because the conduct, Premises, or events that gives
Be 15
az
rise to these claims occurred within the County of Alameda.
PARTIES
17
18 5. PLAINTIFFS Bassam “Paul” Sabbagh, Iris Castillo, Zaiden Sabbagh are residents of the State
19 of California, County of Alameda and reside at 4611 Norris Road, Fremont, California 94536
20 (the “Premises”) at all relevant times herein alleged.
21
Upon information and belief, DEFENDANTS David Scott Parsons and Kimberly Parsons,
22
individually and as Trustees of the Parsons Trust, dated May 10, 2023 are the owners of the
23
Premises.
24
25 PLAINTIFF is unaware of the true names and capacities of the DEFENDANTS sued herein
26 under the fictitious names DOE | through DOE 10, inclusive. PLAINTIFF will amend this
27 complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed
28
Complaint for Damages
and believes and thereon alleges that each of the DOE defendants is responsible in some
manner for the occurrences and injuries alleged in this complaint.
At all times mentioned in the causes of action to which this paragraph is incorporated by
reference, each and every DEFENDANT was the agent or employee of each and every other
DEFENDANT. In doing the things alleged in the causes of action into which this paragraph is
incorporated by reference, each and every DEFENDANT was acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment and was acting with the consent, permission, and
authorization of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS. All actions of each of the
10 DEFENDANTS alleged in the causes of action into which this paragraph is incorporated by
11 reference were ratified and approved by the officers or managing agents of every other
Bo 12 DEFENDANT.
zs
2a
segS 13
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14
PLAINTIFFS became occupants of the Premises at different times.
Be 15
az
10. Bassam Sabbagh (“Bassam’’) first began residing in the Premises in or about the summer of
16
2008.
17
18 11 His fiancé, Iris Castillo (“Iris”), began residing on the Premises in or about the fall of 2017.
19 12. His son, Zaiden Sabbagh, began residing on the Premises on September 27, 2019, when he
20 was born.
21
13 Within the applicable statute of limitations, Bassam suffered headaches, depressions, panic
22
attacks, blurred vision, sensitivity to light, heart palpitations, chronic fatigue and other
23
maladies.
24
25 14 Within the applicable statute of limitations, Iris has suffered similar symptoms, headaches and
26 anxiety, that would clear up when she would travel or otherwise spend more than one night at
27
28
Complaint for Damages
a different location, a clear indication that the time away from the Premises improved her
health.
15 Within the applicable statute of limitations, Zaiden has suffered from severe coughs, and other
maladies, that would clear up when he would travel or otherwise spend more than one night at
a different location, a clear indication that the time away from the Premises improved his
health.
16. Shortly after moving into the Premises, Bassam requested that Fred Parsons make certain
repairs to the Premises consisting of painting the game room and addressing the barren
10 backyard. Fred W. Parsons, Jr made an offer to Bassam that if Bassam would pay for the
11 repairs and make other improvements to the backyard, Fred W. Parsons, Jr would never raise
Bo 12 Bassam’s rent, and he would never sell the property and he would never evict Bassam, as long
zs
2a
segS 13
as he wanted to live at the Premises.
14
17. Bassam agreed to this proposal, which was entirely oral.
Be 15
az
18 However, in reliance on this agreement, Bassam proceeded to spend approximately $150,000
16
in improvements and upgrades to the Premises. Google satellite and street view photos show
17
18 some of the extent of these improvements. Namely, the installation of cabanas, basketball
19 courts, hot tubs, lawns, and other improvements. All in reliance on the agreement with Fred
20 W. Parsons, Jr.
21
19. Edwina Parsons died prior to Fred W. Parson, Jr. Fred W. Parsons, Jr died on December 8,
22
2019. The successor trustee of the Parsons Family Trust, dated October 22, 1993 transferred
23
title to the Premises to the DEFENDANTS. Thereafter, on May 10, 2023, DEFENDANTS
24
25 quitclaimed their interest in the Premises to themselves as trustees of the Parsons Trust, dated
26 May 10, 2023.
27
28
Complaint for Damages
20. All parties who took ownership of the Premises after Fred W. Parsons, Jr died, were aware of
the terms ofthis agreement with Bassam and took ownership subject to this agreement.
21 Thereafter, in or about 2020 during the COVID 19 pandemic, DEFENDANTS informed
Bassam that they needed to sign a written lease, which was just pro forma, but that the terms
of the prior agreement with Fred Parsons, Jr would still be applicable and that DEFENDANTS
would continue to honor agreement with Fred Parsons, Jr.
22. DEFENDANTS told tenant that this lease was just to comply with the new tenant protection
act of 2019 which required certain notices and exemptions to be identified. However, the
10 original agreement between Bassam and Fred Parsons, Jr. regarding improvements, rent and
11 occupancy would remain the same. This is further supported by the fact that the pro forma
Bo 12 lease, failed to include known residents of the Premises, including Iris, Bassam’s fiancé, who
zs
2a
segS 13
was living on the premises, since 2017 and their son was also living on the premises since his
14
birth in 2019.
Be 15
az
23 On or around 2022, DEFENDANTS approached Bassam and Bassam acquiesced to the
16
increase in monthly rent from $2,000 to $3,000, but did not modify any of the other terms of
17
18 the original agreement between Bassam and Fred Parsons, Jr. This was done without the notice
19 required by the Fremont Residential Rent Increase Dispute Ordinance (“RRIDRO”).
20 24 Ever the good tenant, Bassam paid the $3,000 rent amount.
21
25 In the summer of 2023, Bassam requested that DEFENDANTS repair and replace the kitchen
22
cabinets and countertops as they were in extremely poor condition and releasing wood fibers
23
into pots, pans, and food items stored in the cabinets.
24
25 26. DEFENDANTS agreed to repair and replace the kitchen cabinets and countertops but they
26 limited the budget for repairs to three months of free rent totaling $9,000, and in line with their
27 original agreement Bassam paid for the costs of the repair over the rental allowance amount.
28
Complaint for Damages
27. Construction began on the interior of the Premises to remove the cabinetry in the kitchen and
other materials. During the course of this work, the workers on the project discovered water
damage, odor and significant mold blooms in the spaces behind the cabinets, walls and
flooring.
28 Bassam informed DEFENDANTS of the water damage, odor and significant mold blooms in
the spaces behind the cabinets, walls and flooring. Bassam informed DEFENDANTS that
additional work would need to be completed in order to remediate the water damage, odor and
significant mold blooms in the spaces behind the cabinets, walls and flooring, including but
10 not limited to replacing the subfloor, floor covering, sheetrock, and kitchen plumbing.
11 However, DEFENDANTS refused to pay for the additional work required to properly
Bo 12 remediate the mold damage to the Premises, therefore the issues were never properly
zs
2a
segS 13
remediated and continue to this day.
14
29. During this time period Bassam and his family were unable to live in the Premises and
Be 15
az
eventually were reduced to living in a RV on the basketball court of the Premises.
16
30. The discovery of the mold and the high levels of toxicity extended PLAINTIFFS’
17
18 homelessness even further.
19 31 Bassam reported the mold infestation to DEFENDANTS and requested that they take the
20 appropriate remedial measures to abate the infestation.
21
32. DEFENDANTS refused. Not only did they refuse to remedy the mold, they responded with a
22
60 day eviction notice.
23
33 Shortly thereafter, and, presumably, under the advice of counsel, DEFENDANTS offered to
24
25 place PLAINTIFFS in a local hotel.
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages
34. Later, and, again, under the apparent advice of counsel, DEFENDANTS attempted to buy their
way out of the consequences of their retaliatory, slum-lord behavior by making a take it or
leave offer of $19,000 and 30 Days free rent for Bassam and his family to get out.
35 Not only did this violated their obligations as landlords (and basic human decency) it also
repudiated the agreement of a lifetime lease at a fixed rate of rent. In the crawl space of the
Premises, a termite inspector discovered the lint duct from the laundry dryer pointed directly
below the house such that all the lint was being expelled into the crawlspace beneath the
Premises which created a fire-hazard just waiting for a dry season and stray spark to incinerate
10 the Premises.
11 36. The Premises did not have any carbon monoxide detectors or smoke detectors.
Bo 12 37. On the Premises a tree in front of the house is dangerously close to the chimney such that the
zs
2a
segS 13
branches from the tree touch the chimney, creating a situation where a stray spark could ignite
14
the tree.
Be 15
az
38 The Premises are also infested with termites further undermining the structural integrity of the
16
Premises.
17
18 39, In a shameful attempt to salvage the situation, DEFENDANTS sent a series of text messages
19 that laid bare the malicious motives of DEFENDANTS and constituted admissions on the
20 conduct of DEFENDANTS:
21
a. Paul, As per our conversation, I’m offering you two options at Norris Road: Option | is
22
as follows: You will sign a new legal agreement with me which states that you be
23
100% vacated from the home by May 1, 2024. At that time, I will pay you the
24
25 equivalent of $25,000 once you have vacated by that date. That includes $9000 for the
26 Feb/March/April rent of which you have effectively defaulted on and an additional
27 $16,000 once you have vacated the premises. You will get no money until you are
28
Complaint for Damages
100% vacated from the home by May 1, 2024. Note that I am emphasizing 100%
vacated by May 1, 2024, because there will be no time extentions. I believe this is a
very generous and fair option for you and it is not up for debate! Option 2: If you
decide not to take Option 1, We proceed with the original legally binding 60 day notice
and if you aren’t out of the home by April 2, 2024 as stipulated by the 60 day notice, I
will Evict you! Obviously, Option | is the best choice for both of us, but if you do end
up choosing Option 2, I will begin the eviction process as of April 2, 2024. Lastly,
Note these two options are all I’m offering you and you should seriously consider what
10 we discussed. That said, I want an answer from you within the next 48 hours or I will
11 consider you have chosen Option 2. Thank you!
Bo 12
zs
2a
segS 13
CLAIMS
14
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Be 15
az
(Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability)
16
40. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the
17
18 preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein.
19 41 At the time of the renting of the Premises to PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS, had a non-
20 delegable duty to repair the Premises in a reasonable time and to keep it habitable and not to
21
harm PLAINTIFFS.
22
42. Under contract principles applicable to residential dwellings, DEFENDANTS, was required to
23
provide a habitable premise to PLAINTIFFS, including free from trash and debris.
24
25 43 The lease imposed, among other terms, an implied warranty of habitability under California
26 law. Also, under common law and principles of tort liability applicable to DEFENDANTS, as
27
28
Complaint for Damages
owner of the Premises, each DEFENDANT herein named and Does 1 to 10 was required to
provide PLAINTIFFS with a tenable dwelling at all times during the lease.
44 DEFENDANTS had actual and/or constructive notice of the untenable and substandard
conditions of the Premises.
45 Despite such notice, DEFENDANTS, breached their duty of care and duty to repair when he
failed to abate the untenable and substandard conditions of the Premises within a reasonable
time under the circumstances, all to PLAINTIFFS' detriment.
46. DEFENDANTS breached the implied warranty of habitability when he failed to properly
10 maintain and failed to repair the Premises within a reasonable time under the circumstances;
11 thereby failing to provide PLAINTIFFS with habitable premises.
Bo
zs
12 47 As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS' breach of the warranty of habitability, PLAINTIFFS
2a
segS 13
has suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial.
14
48 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS prays for judgment as set forth below.
Be 15
az
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
16
(Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment)
17
18 49. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the
19 preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein.
20 50. Every lease, including PLAINTIFFS' lease, has an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment that
21
ensures that the landlord will not interfere with Plaintiff quiet enjoyment of their Premises
22
during the term of their tenancy.
23
51 California Civil Code §1927 requires that DEFENDANTS, and Does | to 10, as lessors of the
24
25 Premises secure for PLAINTIFFS the quiet possession ofthe Premises.
26 52. DEFENDANTS delay and failure to correct nuisance caused at the Premises Substantially
27 interfered with PLAINTIFFS’ beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises.
28
Complaint for Damages
53 DEFENDANTS breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment when they failed to abate this
nuisance within a reasonable amount of time, thereby proximately causing damages to
PLAINTIFFS.
54, WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS as set forth below.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
55 PLAINTIFFS re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein.
10 56. PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS entered into a contract to lease the Premises.
11 57. PLAINTIFFS performed all obligations required under the contract.
Bo 12 58 DEFENDANTS conduct of refusing to abate the nuisance occurring at the Premises prevented
zs
2a
segS 13
PLAINTIFFS from receiving the benefits under the contract..
14
Be 15
az
59, That by doing so, DEFENDANTS did not act fairly and in good faith; and PLAINTIFFS were
16
harmed by DEFENDANTS' conduct.
17
18 60. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS as set forth below.
19 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
20 (Private Nuisance)
21
61 PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the
22
preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein.
23
62. DEFENDANTS, by acting or failing to act, created at condition or permitted a condition or
24
25 permitted a condition to exist that was an obstruction to the free use of Premises, so as to
26 interfere with PLAINTIFFS' enjoyment of his Premises.
27
28
10
Complaint for Damages
63 DEFENDANTS' conduct in failing to abate the nuisance was intentional and created a
dangerous condition.
64. This condition substantially interfered with PLAINTIFFS' use and enjoyment ofhis Premises.
65 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS as set forth below.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Negligence)
66. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein.
10 67. At all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS knew failing to abate the nuisance would
11 injure PLAINTIFFS.
Bo 12 68 At all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS owed a duty of care to PLAINTIFFS. This
zs
2a
segS 13
duty is set forth in California Civil Code §1714(a) and imposes a duty of care on
14
DEFENDANTS to exercise due care in management of the Premises so as to avoid foreseeable
Be 15
az
injury to their tenant.
16
69. DEFENDANTS breached their duty of care when they negligently and carelessly failed to
17
18 abate nuisances occurring at the Premises.
19 70. DEFENDANTS further breached their duty of care to PLAINTIFFS when they negligently
20 and carelessly ignored PLAINTIFFS’ right to quiet enjoyment and use of the Premises.
21
71 As a direct and proximate cause of DEFENDANTS' breach of the duty of care, PLAINTIFFS
22
suffered damage, in an amount to be proved at trial.
23
72. As a further direct and proximate cause of DEFENDANTS' breach of the duty of care,
24
25 PLAINTIFFS suffered emotional distress in having to move out of the Premises.
26 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
27 (Retaliatory Action By Landlord Against Tenant)
28
il
Complaint for Damages
73 PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein.
74. At all times mentioned, PLAINTIFFS complied with the terms of the rental agreement,
including payment of rent.
75 On, and after, September 2023, PLAINTIFFS, in good faith, made a complaint regarding the
tenantability of the dwelling unit by discussing the discovery of water damage, odor and
significant mold blooms in the spaces behind the cabinets, walls and flooring, including but
not limited to replacing the subfloor, floor covering, sheetrock, and kitchen plumbing .
10 76. DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFFS because of PLAINTIFFS' complaint by
11 serving a 60 Day Notice to Vacate. DEFENDANTS ' retaliatory conduct occurred within 180
Bo 12 days of Plaintiff's complaint regarding the tenantability of the premises.
zs
2a
segS 13
77. DEFENDANTS retaliatory action was unlawful pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1942.5.
14
78 DEFENDANTS’ retaliatory action was done with fraud, oppression, and malice toward
Be 15
az
Plaintiff.
16
79. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful retaliatory action, Plaintiff sustained actual
17
18 damages for emotional distress, reasonable attorney’s fees, and punitive damages, Plaintiff's
19 damages exceed the jurisdictional minimum.
20 80. Because DEFENDANTS acted with fraud, oppression, and malice toward PLAINTIFFS,
21
PLAINTIFFS are entitled to recover punitive damages of not less than $100 nor more than
22
$2,000 for each act, according to proof pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1942.5.
23
81 Because of DEFENDANTS' unlawful retaliatory action, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to recover
24
25 reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1942.5.
26 82. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS as set forth below.
27 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
28
12
Complaint for Damages
(Declaratory Relief)
83. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein.
84. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANT
concerning the existence ofan oral agreement and their respective rights and duties under this
agreement with respect to the PREMISES.
85 PLAINTIFFS desire a judicial determination and declaration as to the existence ofa oral
agreement between PLAINTIFF's and DEFENDANTS' and these parties’ respective rights and
10 duties under the agreement; specifically, regarding the terms of rent, duration, and the parties”
11 obligations thereunder.
Bo 12 Prayer
zs
2a
segS 13
86. Judgment for PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS according to proof, but no less than
14
$500,000.
Be 15
az
87. For declaration that PLAINTIFFS have an enforceable agreement to lease the Premises for
16
$3,000 which lasts for the duration of PLAINTIFF’s life or his voluntarily vacating from the
17
18 Property..
19 88 For punitive and exemplary damages.
20 89. For reasonable attorney fees
21
90. For costs of suit, and
22
91 For such other and further reliefas this Court may deem just and proper
23
92. Punitive damages, according to proof pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1942.5
24
25 93 Reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1942.5
26 94. That the Court award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
27
28
13
Complaint for Damages
1 Date: March 22, 2024 MATHEWS & PROFESSIONAL LAW
GROUP, PC
2
Soby M. Mathews, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10
11
Fo 12
zs
ga
So 13
242
Sas
go<
B20 14
33
Ze
25
g2
ea 15
RAZ
gf
ZS
oa 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Complaint for Damages
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED MATHEWS PROFESSIONAL LAW GROUP, PC Superior Court of California, Soby M. Mathews (State Bar #208317) 39899 Balentine Dr., Ste. #200 County of Alameda Newark, CA 94560 03/22/2024 at 10:27:01 PM Telephone: (510) 498-1949 By: Damaree Franklin, Email: soby@mplg.us Deputy Clerk O’NEILL, PC Sean M. O’Neill (State Bar #277854) 1879 Lundy Ave., Ste. 16' San Jose, CA 95131 Tel.: (510) 933-8321 Fax: (510) 259-9622 Email: sean@oneillplc.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bassam Sabbagh, Iris Castillo, and Zaiden Sabbagh 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Bo 12 zs 2a UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 13 Bassam Sabbagh, Iris Castillo, Zaiden CaseNo. 24" OBS 908 14 Sabbagh ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE 15 Plaintiff, HONORABLE 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 17 1 BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 18 2. BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET 19 ENJOYMENT 3. BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD 20 FAITH AND FAIR DEALING David Scott Parsons And Kimberly Parsons, 4 PRIVATE NUISANCE 21 individually and as Trustees of the Parsons Trust, dated May 10, 2023, Does 1-10, NEGLIGENCE 22 6. RETALIATORY ACTION BY LANDLORD Defendants. AGAINST TENANT 23 DECLARATORY RELIEF 24 25 26 27 28 Complaint for Damages INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, Bassam Sabbagh aka Paul, Iris Castillo, Zaiden Sabbagh (collectively “PLAINTIFF” or “PLAINTIFFS”) hereby complains and alleges as follows against David Scott Parsons and Kimberly Parsons, individually and as Trustees of the Parsons Trust, dated May 10, 2023 and DOE | through DOE 10, inclusive (collectively “DEFENDANT” or “DEFENDANTS”). This is a civil action for damages due to DEFENDANTS’ egregious conduct of failing to abate a nuisance at the Premises that impacted PLAINTIFF’S ability to use and enjoy his rental unit. 10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11 Jurisdiction is proper because the Premises at issue in this Complaint is located in, and the Bo 12 events herein alleged occurred in, the County of Alameda, and the amount of damages sought zs 2a segS 13 exceeds the minimum jurisdiction of this court ($25,000). 14 4 Venue is proper in the County of Alameda because the conduct, Premises, or events that gives Be 15 az rise to these claims occurred within the County of Alameda. PARTIES 17 18 5. PLAINTIFFS Bassam “Paul” Sabbagh, Iris Castillo, Zaiden Sabbagh are residents of the State 19 of California, County of Alameda and reside at 4611 Norris Road, Fremont, California 94536 20 (the “Premises”) at all relevant times herein alleged. 21 Upon information and belief, DEFENDANTS David Scott Parsons and Kimberly Parsons, 22 individually and as Trustees of the Parsons Trust, dated May 10, 2023 are the owners of the 23 Premises. 24 25 PLAINTIFF is unaware of the true names and capacities of the DEFENDANTS sued herein 26 under the fictitious names DOE | through DOE 10, inclusive. PLAINTIFF will amend this 27 complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed 28 Complaint for Damages and believes and thereon alleges that each of the DOE defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences and injuries alleged in this complaint. At all times mentioned in the causes of action to which this paragraph is incorporated by reference, each and every DEFENDANT was the agent or employee of each and every other DEFENDANT. In doing the things alleged in the causes of action into which this paragraph is incorporated by reference, each and every DEFENDANT was acting within the course and scope of its agency or employment and was acting with the consent, permission, and authorization of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS. All actions of each of the 10 DEFENDANTS alleged in the causes of action into which this paragraph is incorporated by 11 reference were ratified and approved by the officers or managing agents of every other Bo 12 DEFENDANT. zs 2a segS 13 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 14 PLAINTIFFS became occupants of the Premises at different times. Be 15 az 10. Bassam Sabbagh (“Bassam’’) first began residing in the Premises in or about the summer of 16 2008. 17 18 11 His fiancé, Iris Castillo (“Iris”), began residing on the Premises in or about the fall of 2017. 19 12. His son, Zaiden Sabbagh, began residing on the Premises on September 27, 2019, when he 20 was born. 21 13 Within the applicable statute of limitations, Bassam suffered headaches, depressions, panic 22 attacks, blurred vision, sensitivity to light, heart palpitations, chronic fatigue and other 23 maladies. 24 25 14 Within the applicable statute of limitations, Iris has suffered similar symptoms, headaches and 26 anxiety, that would clear up when she would travel or otherwise spend more than one night at 27 28 Complaint for Damages a different location, a clear indication that the time away from the Premises improved her health. 15 Within the applicable statute of limitations, Zaiden has suffered from severe coughs, and other maladies, that would clear up when he would travel or otherwise spend more than one night at a different location, a clear indication that the time away from the Premises improved his health. 16. Shortly after moving into the Premises, Bassam requested that Fred Parsons make certain repairs to the Premises consisting of painting the game room and addressing the barren 10 backyard. Fred W. Parsons, Jr made an offer to Bassam that if Bassam would pay for the 11 repairs and make other improvements to the backyard, Fred W. Parsons, Jr would never raise Bo 12 Bassam’s rent, and he would never sell the property and he would never evict Bassam, as long zs 2a segS 13 as he wanted to live at the Premises. 14 17. Bassam agreed to this proposal, which was entirely oral. Be 15 az 18 However, in reliance on this agreement, Bassam proceeded to spend approximately $150,000 16 in improvements and upgrades to the Premises. Google satellite and street view photos show 17 18 some of the extent of these improvements. Namely, the installation of cabanas, basketball 19 courts, hot tubs, lawns, and other improvements. All in reliance on the agreement with Fred 20 W. Parsons, Jr. 21 19. Edwina Parsons died prior to Fred W. Parson, Jr. Fred W. Parsons, Jr died on December 8, 22 2019. The successor trustee of the Parsons Family Trust, dated October 22, 1993 transferred 23 title to the Premises to the DEFENDANTS. Thereafter, on May 10, 2023, DEFENDANTS 24 25 quitclaimed their interest in the Premises to themselves as trustees of the Parsons Trust, dated 26 May 10, 2023. 27 28 Complaint for Damages 20. All parties who took ownership of the Premises after Fred W. Parsons, Jr died, were aware of the terms ofthis agreement with Bassam and took ownership subject to this agreement. 21 Thereafter, in or about 2020 during the COVID 19 pandemic, DEFENDANTS informed Bassam that they needed to sign a written lease, which was just pro forma, but that the terms of the prior agreement with Fred Parsons, Jr would still be applicable and that DEFENDANTS would continue to honor agreement with Fred Parsons, Jr. 22. DEFENDANTS told tenant that this lease was just to comply with the new tenant protection act of 2019 which required certain notices and exemptions to be identified. However, the 10 original agreement between Bassam and Fred Parsons, Jr. regarding improvements, rent and 11 occupancy would remain the same. This is further supported by the fact that the pro forma Bo 12 lease, failed to include known residents of the Premises, including Iris, Bassam’s fiancé, who zs 2a segS 13 was living on the premises, since 2017 and their son was also living on the premises since his 14 birth in 2019. Be 15 az 23 On or around 2022, DEFENDANTS approached Bassam and Bassam acquiesced to the 16 increase in monthly rent from $2,000 to $3,000, but did not modify any of the other terms of 17 18 the original agreement between Bassam and Fred Parsons, Jr. This was done without the notice 19 required by the Fremont Residential Rent Increase Dispute Ordinance (“RRIDRO”). 20 24 Ever the good tenant, Bassam paid the $3,000 rent amount. 21 25 In the summer of 2023, Bassam requested that DEFENDANTS repair and replace the kitchen 22 cabinets and countertops as they were in extremely poor condition and releasing wood fibers 23 into pots, pans, and food items stored in the cabinets. 24 25 26. DEFENDANTS agreed to repair and replace the kitchen cabinets and countertops but they 26 limited the budget for repairs to three months of free rent totaling $9,000, and in line with their 27 original agreement Bassam paid for the costs of the repair over the rental allowance amount. 28 Complaint for Damages 27. Construction began on the interior of the Premises to remove the cabinetry in the kitchen and other materials. During the course of this work, the workers on the project discovered water damage, odor and significant mold blooms in the spaces behind the cabinets, walls and flooring. 28 Bassam informed DEFENDANTS of the water damage, odor and significant mold blooms in the spaces behind the cabinets, walls and flooring. Bassam informed DEFENDANTS that additional work would need to be completed in order to remediate the water damage, odor and significant mold blooms in the spaces behind the cabinets, walls and flooring, including but 10 not limited to replacing the subfloor, floor covering, sheetrock, and kitchen plumbing. 11 However, DEFENDANTS refused to pay for the additional work required to properly Bo 12 remediate the mold damage to the Premises, therefore the issues were never properly zs 2a segS 13 remediated and continue to this day. 14 29. During this time period Bassam and his family were unable to live in the Premises and Be 15 az eventually were reduced to living in a RV on the basketball court of the Premises. 16 30. The discovery of the mold and the high levels of toxicity extended PLAINTIFFS’ 17 18 homelessness even further. 19 31 Bassam reported the mold infestation to DEFENDANTS and requested that they take the 20 appropriate remedial measures to abate the infestation. 21 32. DEFENDANTS refused. Not only did they refuse to remedy the mold, they responded with a 22 60 day eviction notice. 23 33 Shortly thereafter, and, presumably, under the advice of counsel, DEFENDANTS offered to 24 25 place PLAINTIFFS in a local hotel. 26 27 28 Complaint for Damages 34. Later, and, again, under the apparent advice of counsel, DEFENDANTS attempted to buy their way out of the consequences of their retaliatory, slum-lord behavior by making a take it or leave offer of $19,000 and 30 Days free rent for Bassam and his family to get out. 35 Not only did this violated their obligations as landlords (and basic human decency) it also repudiated the agreement of a lifetime lease at a fixed rate of rent. In the crawl space of the Premises, a termite inspector discovered the lint duct from the laundry dryer pointed directly below the house such that all the lint was being expelled into the crawlspace beneath the Premises which created a fire-hazard just waiting for a dry season and stray spark to incinerate 10 the Premises. 11 36. The Premises did not have any carbon monoxide detectors or smoke detectors. Bo 12 37. On the Premises a tree in front of the house is dangerously close to the chimney such that the zs 2a segS 13 branches from the tree touch the chimney, creating a situation where a stray spark could ignite 14 the tree. Be 15 az 38 The Premises are also infested with termites further undermining the structural integrity of the 16 Premises. 17 18 39, In a shameful attempt to salvage the situation, DEFENDANTS sent a series of text messages 19 that laid bare the malicious motives of DEFENDANTS and constituted admissions on the 20 conduct of DEFENDANTS: 21 a. Paul, As per our conversation, I’m offering you two options at Norris Road: Option | is 22 as follows: You will sign a new legal agreement with me which states that you be 23 100% vacated from the home by May 1, 2024. At that time, I will pay you the 24 25 equivalent of $25,000 once you have vacated by that date. That includes $9000 for the 26 Feb/March/April rent of which you have effectively defaulted on and an additional 27 $16,000 once you have vacated the premises. You will get no money until you are 28 Complaint for Damages 100% vacated from the home by May 1, 2024. Note that I am emphasizing 100% vacated by May 1, 2024, because there will be no time extentions. I believe this is a very generous and fair option for you and it is not up for debate! Option 2: If you decide not to take Option 1, We proceed with the original legally binding 60 day notice and if you aren’t out of the home by April 2, 2024 as stipulated by the 60 day notice, I will Evict you! Obviously, Option | is the best choice for both of us, but if you do end up choosing Option 2, I will begin the eviction process as of April 2, 2024. Lastly, Note these two options are all I’m offering you and you should seriously consider what 10 we discussed. That said, I want an answer from you within the next 48 hours or I will 11 consider you have chosen Option 2. Thank you! Bo 12 zs 2a segS 13 CLAIMS 14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Be 15 az (Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability) 16 40. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the 17 18 preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein. 19 41 At the time of the renting of the Premises to PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS, had a non- 20 delegable duty to repair the Premises in a reasonable time and to keep it habitable and not to 21 harm PLAINTIFFS. 22 42. Under contract principles applicable to residential dwellings, DEFENDANTS, was required to 23 provide a habitable premise to PLAINTIFFS, including free from trash and debris. 24 25 43 The lease imposed, among other terms, an implied warranty of habitability under California 26 law. Also, under common law and principles of tort liability applicable to DEFENDANTS, as 27 28 Complaint for Damages owner of the Premises, each DEFENDANT herein named and Does 1 to 10 was required to provide PLAINTIFFS with a tenable dwelling at all times during the lease. 44 DEFENDANTS had actual and/or constructive notice of the untenable and substandard conditions of the Premises. 45 Despite such notice, DEFENDANTS, breached their duty of care and duty to repair when he failed to abate the untenable and substandard conditions of the Premises within a reasonable time under the circumstances, all to PLAINTIFFS' detriment. 46. DEFENDANTS breached the implied warranty of habitability when he failed to properly 10 maintain and failed to repair the Premises within a reasonable time under the circumstances; 11 thereby failing to provide PLAINTIFFS with habitable premises. Bo zs 12 47 As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS' breach of the warranty of habitability, PLAINTIFFS 2a segS 13 has suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial. 14 48 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS prays for judgment as set forth below. Be 15 az SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 16 (Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment) 17 18 49. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the 19 preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein. 20 50. Every lease, including PLAINTIFFS' lease, has an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment that 21 ensures that the landlord will not interfere with Plaintiff quiet enjoyment of their Premises 22 during the term of their tenancy. 23 51 California Civil Code §1927 requires that DEFENDANTS, and Does | to 10, as lessors of the 24 25 Premises secure for PLAINTIFFS the quiet possession ofthe Premises. 26 52. DEFENDANTS delay and failure to correct nuisance caused at the Premises Substantially 27 interfered with PLAINTIFFS’ beneficial use and enjoyment of the premises. 28 Complaint for Damages 53 DEFENDANTS breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment when they failed to abate this nuisance within a reasonable amount of time, thereby proximately causing damages to PLAINTIFFS. 54, WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS as set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) 55 PLAINTIFFS re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein. 10 56. PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS entered into a contract to lease the Premises. 11 57. PLAINTIFFS performed all obligations required under the contract. Bo 12 58 DEFENDANTS conduct of refusing to abate the nuisance occurring at the Premises prevented zs 2a segS 13 PLAINTIFFS from receiving the benefits under the contract.. 14 Be 15 az 59, That by doing so, DEFENDANTS did not act fairly and in good faith; and PLAINTIFFS were 16 harmed by DEFENDANTS' conduct. 17 18 60. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS as set forth below. 19 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 20 (Private Nuisance) 21 61 PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the 22 preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein. 23 62. DEFENDANTS, by acting or failing to act, created at condition or permitted a condition or 24 25 permitted a condition to exist that was an obstruction to the free use of Premises, so as to 26 interfere with PLAINTIFFS' enjoyment of his Premises. 27 28 10 Complaint for Damages 63 DEFENDANTS' conduct in failing to abate the nuisance was intentional and created a dangerous condition. 64. This condition substantially interfered with PLAINTIFFS' use and enjoyment ofhis Premises. 65 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS as set forth below. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (Negligence) 66. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein. 10 67. At all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS knew failing to abate the nuisance would 11 injure PLAINTIFFS. Bo 12 68 At all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS owed a duty of care to PLAINTIFFS. This zs 2a segS 13 duty is set forth in California Civil Code §1714(a) and imposes a duty of care on 14 DEFENDANTS to exercise due care in management of the Premises so as to avoid foreseeable Be 15 az injury to their tenant. 16 69. DEFENDANTS breached their duty of care when they negligently and carelessly failed to 17 18 abate nuisances occurring at the Premises. 19 70. DEFENDANTS further breached their duty of care to PLAINTIFFS when they negligently 20 and carelessly ignored PLAINTIFFS’ right to quiet enjoyment and use of the Premises. 21 71 As a direct and proximate cause of DEFENDANTS' breach of the duty of care, PLAINTIFFS 22 suffered damage, in an amount to be proved at trial. 23 72. As a further direct and proximate cause of DEFENDANTS' breach of the duty of care, 24 25 PLAINTIFFS suffered emotional distress in having to move out of the Premises. 26 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 27 (Retaliatory Action By Landlord Against Tenant) 28 il Complaint for Damages 73 PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein. 74. At all times mentioned, PLAINTIFFS complied with the terms of the rental agreement, including payment of rent. 75 On, and after, September 2023, PLAINTIFFS, in good faith, made a complaint regarding the tenantability of the dwelling unit by discussing the discovery of water damage, odor and significant mold blooms in the spaces behind the cabinets, walls and flooring, including but not limited to replacing the subfloor, floor covering, sheetrock, and kitchen plumbing . 10 76. DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFFS because of PLAINTIFFS' complaint by 11 serving a 60 Day Notice to Vacate. DEFENDANTS ' retaliatory conduct occurred within 180 Bo 12 days of Plaintiff's complaint regarding the tenantability of the premises. zs 2a segS 13 77. DEFENDANTS retaliatory action was unlawful pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1942.5. 14 78 DEFENDANTS’ retaliatory action was done with fraud, oppression, and malice toward Be 15 az Plaintiff. 16 79. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful retaliatory action, Plaintiff sustained actual 17 18 damages for emotional distress, reasonable attorney’s fees, and punitive damages, Plaintiff's 19 damages exceed the jurisdictional minimum. 20 80. Because DEFENDANTS acted with fraud, oppression, and malice toward PLAINTIFFS, 21 PLAINTIFFS are entitled to recover punitive damages of not less than $100 nor more than 22 $2,000 for each act, according to proof pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1942.5. 23 81 Because of DEFENDANTS' unlawful retaliatory action, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to recover 24 25 reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1942.5. 26 82. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS as set forth below. 27 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 28 12 Complaint for Damages (Declaratory Relief) 83. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth herein. 84. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANT concerning the existence ofan oral agreement and their respective rights and duties under this agreement with respect to the PREMISES. 85 PLAINTIFFS desire a judicial determination and declaration as to the existence ofa oral agreement between PLAINTIFF's and DEFENDANTS' and these parties’ respective rights and 10 duties under the agreement; specifically, regarding the terms of rent, duration, and the parties” 11 obligations thereunder. Bo 12 Prayer zs 2a segS 13 86. Judgment for PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS according to proof, but no less than 14 $500,000. Be 15 az 87. For declaration that PLAINTIFFS have an enforceable agreement to lease the Premises for 16 $3,000 which lasts for the duration of PLAINTIFF’s life or his voluntarily vacating from the 17 18 Property.. 19 88 For punitive and exemplary damages. 20 89. For reasonable attorney fees 21 90. For costs of suit, and 22 91 For such other and further reliefas this Court may deem just and proper 23 92. Punitive damages, according to proof pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1942.5 24 25 93 Reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Civ. Code, § 1942.5 26 94. That the Court award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. 27 28 13 Complaint for Damages 1 Date: March 22, 2024 MATHEWS & PROFESSIONAL LAW GROUP, PC 2 Soby M. Mathews, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 11 Fo 12 zs ga So 13 242 Sas go< B20 14 33 Ze 25 g2 ea 15 RAZ gf ZS oa 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 Complaint for Damages