Preview
ELECTRONICALLY
1 JAYNRY W. MAK, ESQ. (SBN 221004)
1534 Plaza Lane, #116 FILED
Superior Court of California,
2 Burlingame, CA 94010 County of San Francisco
Telephone: (415) 307-9783 03/25/2024
3
Clerk of the Court
BY: DAEJA ROGERS
4 Attorney for Plaintiffs Deputy Clerk
Gerard Patrick Fagan and Stephanie Barreto Fagan
5
6
7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO
9 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
10 CGC-24-613396
11 GERARD PATRICK FAGAN and Case Number:
STEPHANIE BARRETO FAGAN,
12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
Plaintiffs, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
13
14 vs. 1) Negligence
2) Nuisance
15 LIN LI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
3) Breach of Contract
TRUSTEE OF THE LIN LI REVOCABLE
16 4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability
TRUST 2006, and DOES 1 TO 10,
5) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
INCLUSIVE,
17 6) Unfair Business Practice
Defendants. 7) Excessive Rent Charge
18 8) Disgorgement of Rent Paid
19
9) Failure to Disclose a Material Fact
10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
20 11) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
12) Constructive Eviction
21
22
23 GERARD PATRICK FAGAN and STEPHANIE BARRETO FAGAN (hereinafter referred to
24 as “Plaintiffs”) bring this civil action against Defendants LIN LI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
25 TRUSTEE OF THE LIN LI REVOCABLE TRUST 2006, and DOES 1 TO 25, INCLUSIVE
26 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) and demand a jury trial. Plaintiffs complain and
27 allege upon their knowledge with respect to themselves and upon information and belief with respect
28 to all other matters as follows:
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
PARTIES
2
1. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were residents of the City and County of San
3 Francisco, California.
4 2. Plaintiffs were, at all times relevant herein, tenants residing at the real property known
5 as 2406 42nd Avenue (Apt. A), San Francisco, California 94116, which is an in-law unit (the
6 “Premises”).
7 3. Defendant Lin Li (the “Defendant”) is, and at all times relevant herein was, the owner
8 or agent for the owner of the 2406 42nd Avenue, San Francisco, California 94116 (the “Property”),
9 which includes Plaintiffs’ in-law unit. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant was authorized and
10 empowered to act, and did so act, as the owner or agent for the owner of the Premises and all of the
11 things herein alleged to have been done by Defendant were done in that capacity.
12 4. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities, whether they are individuals or
13 business entities, of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, and therefore sue them by such fictitious names
14 and will seek leave of this Court to insert true names and capacities once they have been ascertained.
15 JURISDICTION/VENUE
16 5. This Court is the proper Court for trial in this action in that the actions and omissions of
17 the Defendant as alleged herein were made within this Court’s jurisdictional area.
18 6. In addition, this Court is the proper Court and this action is properly filed in the County
19 of San Francisco because Defendants’ obligations and liability arise therein.
20 7. Finally, this Court is the proper Court because the Parties entered into the subject
21
contract in the County of San Francisco and because Plaintiffs suffered the harm they allege herein
22
with the County of San Francisco.
23
FACTUAL SUMMARY
24
8. On or about June 30, 2022, Plaintiffs entered into a written rental agreement with
25 Defendant Lin Li to occupy the Premises as their residence. The agreement called for Plaintiffs to pay
26 $2,000.00 in monthly rent for the right to occupy the Premises. At all relevant times a landlord-tenant
27 relationship existed between Plaintiffs and Defendant, as those terms have been defined and construed
28 under law. A true and correct copy of the rental agreement is hereby attached as “Exhibit 1”.
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants had knowledge that the tenant who
2
resided in the Premises prior to them died in the Premises and did not disclose this material fact to
3 Defendants. Rather, Defendants had Plaintiffs to clean out and dump the deceased tenant’s personal
4 property from the Premises prior to them moving in.
5 10. After Plaintiffs moved into the Premises, Defendants required Plaintiffs to pay an
6 additional $200.00 per month for the use of the garage in order to enter and exit the Premises and for
7 storage.
8 11. The Premises is an unapproved and illegal in-law unit. It is unwarranted, non-
9 conforming, and unpermitted. The Property is a single-family home that is zoned RH-1 and the kitchen
10 in the garage apartment was illegally installed. The Premises does not have its own address, does not
11 have its own gas and electric meter, does not have its own water meter, and does not have its own
12 mailbox.
13 12. Throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancy, the Premises were uninhabitable and lacked basic
14 characteristics necessary for human habitation. Despite their actual and constructive notice of
15 conditions requiring repair and/or maintenance, Defendant failed to make repairs or perform ordinary
16 maintenance about the Subject Property. The hazardous or dilapidated conditions about the Subject
17 Property included but were not limited to: improper locks and security systems, improper entry and
18 exit access, lack of effective waterproofing and weather protection, water damage, unsanitary
19 conditions, and rodent and vermin infestations. Plaintiffs complained to Defendant about the conditions
20 on multiple occasions at least since approximately July 1, 2022.
21 13. At all pertinent times, Defendant unreasonably delayed or failed to make repairs or
22 perform ordinary maintenance about the Premises; and/or failed to exercise due diligence in
23 commencing and performing repairs, maintenance and/or improvements at the Premises. None of these
24 conditions was caused by Plaintiffs or anyone under Plaintiffs’ control.
25 14. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs involuntarily vacated the
26 Premises on or before November 5, 2023. At the time Plaintiffs involuntarily vacated the Premises,
27 their rent was $2,075.00 per month because Defendants illegally increased the rent from $2,000.00 per
28 month to $2,075.00 per month, in excess of the allowable annual rent increase and before Plaintiffs’
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
anniversary date, in violation of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance.
2
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3
Negligence
4
15. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
5 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
6 16. Due to the landlord-tenant relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants, and under
7 Civil Code § 1714, Defendants owed Plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership,
8 management, maintenance and control of the Premises.
9 17. The duty of care owed by Defendants to Plaintiffs included but was not limited to the
10 following duties: the duty to perform ordinary maintenance and make repairs in a timely manner; the
11 duty to make necessary repairs and correct hazardous conditions about the premises; the duty to
12 adequately train, supervise, instruct and control agents, managers, employees or others acting on
13 Defendants’ behalf; the duty to provide safe, legal, habitable premises; the duty to refrain from
14 interfering with Plaintiffs’ enjoyment of the Premises; the duty to promote the continued occupancy of
15 the Premises by Plaintiffs; the duty to protect Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the Premises; the duty to
16 comply with all applicable state and local laws governing Plaintiffs’ rights as tenants; etc. These duties
17 were all continuing in nature.
18 18. Defendants substantially breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs, accidentally or
19 otherwise, in ways that include but are not limited to: the acts and omissions listed above.
20 19. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
21 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.
22 20. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the
23 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional
24 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress,
25 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety;
26 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and
27 other damages.
28 ///
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2
Nuisance
3 21. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
4 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
5 22. At all times relevant herein, Defendants failed to properly repair and maintain the
6 Premises with the result that the Premises were dangerous and unsafe.
7 23. The dangerous and defective conditions maintained by Defendants at the Premises were
8 injurious to Plaintiffs’ health, offensive to their senses, and an obstruction to the use of their home so
9 as to constitute a nuisance that deprived Plaintiffs of the safe, healthy, and comfortable use and
10 enjoyment of the Premises.
11 24. Defendants were required by law to abate these nuisances, but failed to do so.
12 25. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
13 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.
14 26. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the
15 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional
16 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress,
17 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety;
18 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and
19 other damages.
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21 Breach of Contract
22 27. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
23 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
24 28. Plaintiffs entered into a written rental agreement with Defendants regarding the
25 Premises.
26 29. Plaintiffs performed all obligations under the rental agreement except those obligations
27 for which they were excused or was prevented from performing.
28 30. Defendants’ acts and omissions in failing to provide habitable premises and failure to
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
rectify the health and safety issues in the Premises constitute a breach of the contract with Plaintiffs.
2
31. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
3
direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.
4
32. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the
5 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional
6 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress,
7 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety;
8 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and
9 other damages.
10 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability
12 33. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
13 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
14 34. The Premises is an unapproved and illegal in-law unit. A building permit was never
15 submitted to the local jurisdiction to confirm it would meet zoning and building requirements for its
16 intended use, it was never inspected by the local building department to ensure it complied with local
17 codes, and it was never issued a permit.
18 35. During Defendants’ ownership, management, maintenance and control of the Premises,
19 Plaintiffs’ home had substandard conditions as described above.
20 36. By failing to correct the substandard conditions at the Premises, Defendants acted
21 unreasonably and in want of ordinary care, and breached the warranty of habitability imposed on all
22 residential landlords by state and local law.
23 37. Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the substandard conditions at the
24 Premises. Plaintiffs gave Defendants notice of the substandard conditions and Defendants personally
25 observed the substandard conditions.
26 38. Despite actual and constructive notice of the substandard conditions, Defendants failed
27 to make proper and timely necessary repairs to the Premises.
28 39. Defendants’ lack of maintenance to the Premises caused the substandard conditions to
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
worsen after extended periods of neglect and deferred maintenance.
2
40. Plaintiffs did not cause or contribute to these substandard conditions.
3
41. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
4 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.
5 42. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the
6 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional
7 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress,
8 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety;
9 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and
10 other damages.
11 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12 Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
13 43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
14 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
15 44. Defendants engaged in activities which disrupted and were designed to disrupt
16 Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the Premises and common areas of the Property.
17 45. Defendants breached Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the Premises by failing to maintain
18 the Premises in habitable conditions.
19 46. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants engaged which were designed
20 to disrupt, which disrupted, and which continue to disrupt Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of their home at
21 the Premises.
22 47. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants interfered with, interrupted, and
23 deprived Plaintiffs of the full and beneficial use of the Premises and disturbed Plaintiffs’ peaceful
24 possession of their home, including the use and enjoyment of the common areas of the Property.
25 48. These acts of interference, interruption, deprivation, and disturbance by Defendants
26 amount to breaches of the covenant of quiet enjoyment implied in all rental agreements and codified in
27 California Civil Code section 1927.
28 49. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.
2
50. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the
3
Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional
4 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress,
5 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety;
6 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and
7 other damages.
8 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 Unfair Business Practice
10 51. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
11 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
12 52. Plaintiffs bring this action under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.,
13 as private persons economically injured and otherwise affected by the acts described in this Complaint.
14 53. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were duly authorized to conduct business under
15 the laws of the State of California and of the City and County of San Francisco. In conducting said
16 business, Defendants were obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California and the City
17 and County of San Francisco.
18 54. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have been engaged in the business of renting residential
19 premises to the public. Defendants continued to collect rent while maintaining the Premises in a
20 dangerous and nuisance condition, which adversely affected the safety of the residents and general
21 public.
22 55. Plaintiffs alleged that it is the regular practice of the Defendants to fail to maintain
23 tenants’ rental units and common areas in a habitable condition, to fail to comply with housing, health
24 and safety codes, and to breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment, all in violation of the law.
25 56. Defendants’ actions set forth therefore were misleading and deceptive in violation of
26 California Business and Professions Code §17200 – 17208.
27 57. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
28 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
58. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the
2
Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional
3 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress,
4 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety;
5 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and
6 other damages.
7 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 Excessive Rent Charge
9 59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
10 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
11 60. Plaintiffs’ tenancy at the Premises was within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Rent
12 Ordinance at all times relevant herein.
13 61. The defective conditions described above constitute substantial decreases in housing
14 services.
15 Defendants had actual and constructive notice of these decreases in housing services but did
16 not grant Plaintiffs a corresponding reduction in rent.
17 62. By failing to reduce Plaintiffs’ rent to compensate for the decreases in housing services,
18 Defendants charged rent which exceeded the limitations set forth in the San Francisco Rent Ordinance.
19 63. Rent Ordinance section 37.11A provides that excessive rent charges in violation of the
20 Rent Ordinance entitle tenants to initiate a civil proceeding for money damages, costs and attorney’s
21 fees.
22 64. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
23 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited to:
24 payment of excessive rent and other damages.
25 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26 Disgorgement of Rent Paid
27 (Gruzen v. Henry (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 515, 518)
28 65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
2
66. At all times relevant, Defendants did not have a valid certificate of occupancy for
3 Plaintiffs’ unit, and thus this made the Premises an illegal unit.
4 67. Despite the Premises being an illegal unit, Defendants continued to charge rent and
5 Plaintiffs paid that rent for the entire duration of the Plaintiffs’ tenancy
6 68. Pursuant to the rental agreement, Plaintiffs paid $2,000.00 per month in rent. However,
7 during Plaintiffs’ tenancy, Defendants illegally increased the rent from $2,000.00 per month to
8 $2,075.00 per month, in excess of the allowable annual rent increase and before Plaintiffs’ anniversary
9 date, in violation of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance.
10 69. Further, at all times relevant, because the Premises was an illegal unit, there were no
11 dedicated utility meters only for Plaintiffs' Premises. The Property only had one set of utility meters
12 shared by Plaintiffs and the other set of tenants upstairs so there is no proper formula to calculate how
13 much Plaintiffs owed for utilities.
14 70. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
15 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited to:
16 payment of excessive rents; costs; and other damages.
17 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 Failure to Disclose a Material Fact
19 71. Pursuant to California Civil Code section 1710.2, landlords must disclose to prospective
20 tenants any deaths that have occurred on the property within the past three years.
21 72. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants had knowledge that the tenant who
22 resided in the Premises prior to them died in the Premises and did not disclose this material fact to
23 Defendants.
24 73. Defendants had Plaintiffs to clean out and dump the deceased tenant’s personal property
25 from the Premises prior to them moving in.
26 74. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
27 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited to:
28 personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, sleeplessness, and other physical
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety; reduced enjoyment of the Premises;
2
payment of excessive rents; costs; and other damages.
3
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
5
75. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
6 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
7 76. The actions of Defendants, as alleged herein, were extreme and outrageous and done
8 with conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs.
9 77. Plaintiffs suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of Defendant knowing,
10 intentional and willful failure to correct the conditions at the Premises.
11 78. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were susceptible to additional discomfort as a result of
12 the conduct described herein and such conduct adversely affected Plaintiffs’ emotional and mental
13 health.
14 79. Defendants could have remedied and rectified the conduct, yet consciously failed and
15 refused to do so.
16 80. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
17 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.
18 81. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; personal injuries
19 such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety;
20 fear for personal health and safety; decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises;
21 and other damages.
22 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
24 82. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
25 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
26 83. The actions of Defendants in failing to provide habitable premises and failure to remedy
27 the injurious and dangerous conditions at the Premises constitute negligent infliction of emotional
28 distress in that Defendants knew or should have known that said actions would cause Plaintiffs severe
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
emotional distress.
2
84. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
3
direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.
4 85. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; personal injuries
5 such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety;
6 fear for personal health and safety; decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises;
7 and other damages.
8 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 Constructive Eviction
10 86. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the
11 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein.
12 87. During Defendants’ ownership, management, maintenance and control of the Premises,
13 Plaintiffs’ home had substandard conditions as described above.
14 88. Despite actual and constructive notice of the substandard conditions, Defendants failed
15 to make proper and timely necessary repairs to the Premises.
16 89. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions in failing to provide habitable premises
17 and failure to rectify the health and safety issues in the Premises, Plaintiffs involuntarily vacated the
18 Premises.
19 90. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the
20 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.
21 91. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the
22 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional
23 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress,
24 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety;
25 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and
26 other damages.
27 ///
28 ///
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
PRAYER FOR JUDGMENT
2
Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
3 1. For general and compensatory damages according to proof;
4 2. For special damages according to proof;
5 3. For treble damages according to proof;
6 4. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;
7 5. For costs of suit herein incurred;
8 6. For money damages of not less than three times actual damages suffered;
9 7. For interest due on all damages;
10 8. For civil penalties for each violation;
11 9. For all future damages;
12 10. For attorney’s fees pursuant to statute;
13 11. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
14 Date: March 21, 2024 Respectfully Submitted:
15
16
Jaynry W. Mak, Esq.
17
Attorney for Plaintiffs
18
19
20 JURY DEMAND
21 Plaintiffs Gerard Patrick Fagan and Stephanie Barreto Fagan respectfully demand a jury trial
22 on this matter.
23 Date: March 21, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,
24
25
Jaynry W. Mak, Esq.
26 Attorney for Plaintiffs
27
28
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY 1 JAYNRY W. MAK, ESQ. (SBN 221004) 1534 Plaza Lane, #116 FILED Superior Court of California, 2 Burlingame, CA 94010 County of San Francisco Telephone: (415) 307-9783 03/25/2024 3 Clerk of the Court BY: DAEJA ROGERS 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs Deputy Clerk Gerard Patrick Fagan and Stephanie Barreto Fagan 5 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO 9 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 10 CGC-24-613396 11 GERARD PATRICK FAGAN and Case Number: STEPHANIE BARRETO FAGAN, 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND Plaintiffs, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 13 14 vs. 1) Negligence 2) Nuisance 15 LIN LI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 3) Breach of Contract TRUSTEE OF THE LIN LI REVOCABLE 16 4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability TRUST 2006, and DOES 1 TO 10, 5) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment INCLUSIVE, 17 6) Unfair Business Practice Defendants. 7) Excessive Rent Charge 18 8) Disgorgement of Rent Paid 19 9) Failure to Disclose a Material Fact 10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 20 11) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 12) Constructive Eviction 21 22 23 GERARD PATRICK FAGAN and STEPHANIE BARRETO FAGAN (hereinafter referred to 24 as “Plaintiffs”) bring this civil action against Defendants LIN LI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 25 TRUSTEE OF THE LIN LI REVOCABLE TRUST 2006, and DOES 1 TO 25, INCLUSIVE 26 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) and demand a jury trial. Plaintiffs complain and 27 allege upon their knowledge with respect to themselves and upon information and belief with respect 28 to all other matters as follows: 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 PARTIES 2 1. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were residents of the City and County of San 3 Francisco, California. 4 2. Plaintiffs were, at all times relevant herein, tenants residing at the real property known 5 as 2406 42nd Avenue (Apt. A), San Francisco, California 94116, which is an in-law unit (the 6 “Premises”). 7 3. Defendant Lin Li (the “Defendant”) is, and at all times relevant herein was, the owner 8 or agent for the owner of the 2406 42nd Avenue, San Francisco, California 94116 (the “Property”), 9 which includes Plaintiffs’ in-law unit. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant was authorized and 10 empowered to act, and did so act, as the owner or agent for the owner of the Premises and all of the 11 things herein alleged to have been done by Defendant were done in that capacity. 12 4. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities, whether they are individuals or 13 business entities, of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, and therefore sue them by such fictitious names 14 and will seek leave of this Court to insert true names and capacities once they have been ascertained. 15 JURISDICTION/VENUE 16 5. This Court is the proper Court for trial in this action in that the actions and omissions of 17 the Defendant as alleged herein were made within this Court’s jurisdictional area. 18 6. In addition, this Court is the proper Court and this action is properly filed in the County 19 of San Francisco because Defendants’ obligations and liability arise therein. 20 7. Finally, this Court is the proper Court because the Parties entered into the subject 21 contract in the County of San Francisco and because Plaintiffs suffered the harm they allege herein 22 with the County of San Francisco. 23 FACTUAL SUMMARY 24 8. On or about June 30, 2022, Plaintiffs entered into a written rental agreement with 25 Defendant Lin Li to occupy the Premises as their residence. The agreement called for Plaintiffs to pay 26 $2,000.00 in monthly rent for the right to occupy the Premises. At all relevant times a landlord-tenant 27 relationship existed between Plaintiffs and Defendant, as those terms have been defined and construed 28 under law. A true and correct copy of the rental agreement is hereby attached as “Exhibit 1”. 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants had knowledge that the tenant who 2 resided in the Premises prior to them died in the Premises and did not disclose this material fact to 3 Defendants. Rather, Defendants had Plaintiffs to clean out and dump the deceased tenant’s personal 4 property from the Premises prior to them moving in. 5 10. After Plaintiffs moved into the Premises, Defendants required Plaintiffs to pay an 6 additional $200.00 per month for the use of the garage in order to enter and exit the Premises and for 7 storage. 8 11. The Premises is an unapproved and illegal in-law unit. It is unwarranted, non- 9 conforming, and unpermitted. The Property is a single-family home that is zoned RH-1 and the kitchen 10 in the garage apartment was illegally installed. The Premises does not have its own address, does not 11 have its own gas and electric meter, does not have its own water meter, and does not have its own 12 mailbox. 13 12. Throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancy, the Premises were uninhabitable and lacked basic 14 characteristics necessary for human habitation. Despite their actual and constructive notice of 15 conditions requiring repair and/or maintenance, Defendant failed to make repairs or perform ordinary 16 maintenance about the Subject Property. The hazardous or dilapidated conditions about the Subject 17 Property included but were not limited to: improper locks and security systems, improper entry and 18 exit access, lack of effective waterproofing and weather protection, water damage, unsanitary 19 conditions, and rodent and vermin infestations. Plaintiffs complained to Defendant about the conditions 20 on multiple occasions at least since approximately July 1, 2022. 21 13. At all pertinent times, Defendant unreasonably delayed or failed to make repairs or 22 perform ordinary maintenance about the Premises; and/or failed to exercise due diligence in 23 commencing and performing repairs, maintenance and/or improvements at the Premises. None of these 24 conditions was caused by Plaintiffs or anyone under Plaintiffs’ control. 25 14. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs involuntarily vacated the 26 Premises on or before November 5, 2023. At the time Plaintiffs involuntarily vacated the Premises, 27 their rent was $2,075.00 per month because Defendants illegally increased the rent from $2,000.00 per 28 month to $2,075.00 per month, in excess of the allowable annual rent increase and before Plaintiffs’ 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 anniversary date, in violation of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. 2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 3 Negligence 4 15. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 5 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 6 16. Due to the landlord-tenant relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants, and under 7 Civil Code § 1714, Defendants owed Plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, 8 management, maintenance and control of the Premises. 9 17. The duty of care owed by Defendants to Plaintiffs included but was not limited to the 10 following duties: the duty to perform ordinary maintenance and make repairs in a timely manner; the 11 duty to make necessary repairs and correct hazardous conditions about the premises; the duty to 12 adequately train, supervise, instruct and control agents, managers, employees or others acting on 13 Defendants’ behalf; the duty to provide safe, legal, habitable premises; the duty to refrain from 14 interfering with Plaintiffs’ enjoyment of the Premises; the duty to promote the continued occupancy of 15 the Premises by Plaintiffs; the duty to protect Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the Premises; the duty to 16 comply with all applicable state and local laws governing Plaintiffs’ rights as tenants; etc. These duties 17 were all continuing in nature. 18 18. Defendants substantially breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs, accidentally or 19 otherwise, in ways that include but are not limited to: the acts and omissions listed above. 20 19. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 21 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. 22 20. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the 23 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional 24 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, 25 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety; 26 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and 27 other damages. 28 /// 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Nuisance 3 21. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 4 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 5 22. At all times relevant herein, Defendants failed to properly repair and maintain the 6 Premises with the result that the Premises were dangerous and unsafe. 7 23. The dangerous and defective conditions maintained by Defendants at the Premises were 8 injurious to Plaintiffs’ health, offensive to their senses, and an obstruction to the use of their home so 9 as to constitute a nuisance that deprived Plaintiffs of the safe, healthy, and comfortable use and 10 enjoyment of the Premises. 11 24. Defendants were required by law to abate these nuisances, but failed to do so. 12 25. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 13 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. 14 26. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the 15 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional 16 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, 17 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety; 18 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and 19 other damages. 20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Breach of Contract 22 27. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 23 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 24 28. Plaintiffs entered into a written rental agreement with Defendants regarding the 25 Premises. 26 29. Plaintiffs performed all obligations under the rental agreement except those obligations 27 for which they were excused or was prevented from performing. 28 30. Defendants’ acts and omissions in failing to provide habitable premises and failure to 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 rectify the health and safety issues in the Premises constitute a breach of the contract with Plaintiffs. 2 31. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 3 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. 4 32. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the 5 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional 6 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, 7 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety; 8 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and 9 other damages. 10 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability 12 33. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 13 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 14 34. The Premises is an unapproved and illegal in-law unit. A building permit was never 15 submitted to the local jurisdiction to confirm it would meet zoning and building requirements for its 16 intended use, it was never inspected by the local building department to ensure it complied with local 17 codes, and it was never issued a permit. 18 35. During Defendants’ ownership, management, maintenance and control of the Premises, 19 Plaintiffs’ home had substandard conditions as described above. 20 36. By failing to correct the substandard conditions at the Premises, Defendants acted 21 unreasonably and in want of ordinary care, and breached the warranty of habitability imposed on all 22 residential landlords by state and local law. 23 37. Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the substandard conditions at the 24 Premises. Plaintiffs gave Defendants notice of the substandard conditions and Defendants personally 25 observed the substandard conditions. 26 38. Despite actual and constructive notice of the substandard conditions, Defendants failed 27 to make proper and timely necessary repairs to the Premises. 28 39. Defendants’ lack of maintenance to the Premises caused the substandard conditions to 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 worsen after extended periods of neglect and deferred maintenance. 2 40. Plaintiffs did not cause or contribute to these substandard conditions. 3 41. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 4 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. 5 42. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the 6 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional 7 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, 8 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety; 9 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and 10 other damages. 11 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 12 Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment 13 43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 14 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 15 44. Defendants engaged in activities which disrupted and were designed to disrupt 16 Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the Premises and common areas of the Property. 17 45. Defendants breached Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the Premises by failing to maintain 18 the Premises in habitable conditions. 19 46. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants engaged which were designed 20 to disrupt, which disrupted, and which continue to disrupt Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of their home at 21 the Premises. 22 47. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants interfered with, interrupted, and 23 deprived Plaintiffs of the full and beneficial use of the Premises and disturbed Plaintiffs’ peaceful 24 possession of their home, including the use and enjoyment of the common areas of the Property. 25 48. These acts of interference, interruption, deprivation, and disturbance by Defendants 26 amount to breaches of the covenant of quiet enjoyment implied in all rental agreements and codified in 27 California Civil Code section 1927. 28 49. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. 2 50. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the 3 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional 4 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, 5 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety; 6 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and 7 other damages. 8 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 Unfair Business Practice 10 51. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 11 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 12 52. Plaintiffs bring this action under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., 13 as private persons economically injured and otherwise affected by the acts described in this Complaint. 14 53. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were duly authorized to conduct business under 15 the laws of the State of California and of the City and County of San Francisco. In conducting said 16 business, Defendants were obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California and the City 17 and County of San Francisco. 18 54. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have been engaged in the business of renting residential 19 premises to the public. Defendants continued to collect rent while maintaining the Premises in a 20 dangerous and nuisance condition, which adversely affected the safety of the residents and general 21 public. 22 55. Plaintiffs alleged that it is the regular practice of the Defendants to fail to maintain 23 tenants’ rental units and common areas in a habitable condition, to fail to comply with housing, health 24 and safety codes, and to breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment, all in violation of the law. 25 56. Defendants’ actions set forth therefore were misleading and deceptive in violation of 26 California Business and Professions Code §17200 – 17208. 27 57. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 28 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 58. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the 2 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional 3 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, 4 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety; 5 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and 6 other damages. 7 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 Excessive Rent Charge 9 59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 10 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 11 60. Plaintiffs’ tenancy at the Premises was within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Rent 12 Ordinance at all times relevant herein. 13 61. The defective conditions described above constitute substantial decreases in housing 14 services. 15 Defendants had actual and constructive notice of these decreases in housing services but did 16 not grant Plaintiffs a corresponding reduction in rent. 17 62. By failing to reduce Plaintiffs’ rent to compensate for the decreases in housing services, 18 Defendants charged rent which exceeded the limitations set forth in the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. 19 63. Rent Ordinance section 37.11A provides that excessive rent charges in violation of the 20 Rent Ordinance entitle tenants to initiate a civil proceeding for money damages, costs and attorney’s 21 fees. 22 64. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 23 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited to: 24 payment of excessive rent and other damages. 25 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 26 Disgorgement of Rent Paid 27 (Gruzen v. Henry (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 515, 518) 28 65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 2 66. At all times relevant, Defendants did not have a valid certificate of occupancy for 3 Plaintiffs’ unit, and thus this made the Premises an illegal unit. 4 67. Despite the Premises being an illegal unit, Defendants continued to charge rent and 5 Plaintiffs paid that rent for the entire duration of the Plaintiffs’ tenancy 6 68. Pursuant to the rental agreement, Plaintiffs paid $2,000.00 per month in rent. However, 7 during Plaintiffs’ tenancy, Defendants illegally increased the rent from $2,000.00 per month to 8 $2,075.00 per month, in excess of the allowable annual rent increase and before Plaintiffs’ anniversary 9 date, in violation of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. 10 69. Further, at all times relevant, because the Premises was an illegal unit, there were no 11 dedicated utility meters only for Plaintiffs' Premises. The Property only had one set of utility meters 12 shared by Plaintiffs and the other set of tenants upstairs so there is no proper formula to calculate how 13 much Plaintiffs owed for utilities. 14 70. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 15 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited to: 16 payment of excessive rents; costs; and other damages. 17 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Failure to Disclose a Material Fact 19 71. Pursuant to California Civil Code section 1710.2, landlords must disclose to prospective 20 tenants any deaths that have occurred on the property within the past three years. 21 72. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants had knowledge that the tenant who 22 resided in the Premises prior to them died in the Premises and did not disclose this material fact to 23 Defendants. 24 73. Defendants had Plaintiffs to clean out and dump the deceased tenant’s personal property 25 from the Premises prior to them moving in. 26 74. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 27 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. Said damages include but are not limited to: 28 personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, sleeplessness, and other physical 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety; reduced enjoyment of the Premises; 2 payment of excessive rents; costs; and other damages. 3 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 5 75. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 6 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 7 76. The actions of Defendants, as alleged herein, were extreme and outrageous and done 8 with conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs. 9 77. Plaintiffs suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of Defendant knowing, 10 intentional and willful failure to correct the conditions at the Premises. 11 78. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were susceptible to additional discomfort as a result of 12 the conduct described herein and such conduct adversely affected Plaintiffs’ emotional and mental 13 health. 14 79. Defendants could have remedied and rectified the conduct, yet consciously failed and 15 refused to do so. 16 80. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 17 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. 18 81. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; personal injuries 19 such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; 20 fear for personal health and safety; decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; 21 and other damages. 22 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 24 82. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 25 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 26 83. The actions of Defendants in failing to provide habitable premises and failure to remedy 27 the injurious and dangerous conditions at the Premises constitute negligent infliction of emotional 28 distress in that Defendants knew or should have known that said actions would cause Plaintiffs severe 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 emotional distress. 2 84. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 3 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. 4 85. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; personal injuries 5 such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; 6 fear for personal health and safety; decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; 7 and other damages. 8 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 Constructive Eviction 10 86. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all the 11 paragraphs above in this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 12 87. During Defendants’ ownership, management, maintenance and control of the Premises, 13 Plaintiffs’ home had substandard conditions as described above. 14 88. Despite actual and constructive notice of the substandard conditions, Defendants failed 15 to make proper and timely necessary repairs to the Premises. 16 89. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions in failing to provide habitable premises 17 and failure to rectify the health and safety issues in the Premises, Plaintiffs involuntarily vacated the 18 Premises. 19 90. Defendants’ acts and omissions were a substantial factor in causing and/or were the 20 direct and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs. 21 91. Said damages include but are not limited to: substantial annoyance; eviction from the 22 Premises; total loss of the rent-controlled tenancy; property damage; bodily injury and severe emotional 23 distress causing bodily injury; personal injuries such as anxiety, severe emotional distress, 24 sleeplessness, and other physical manifestations of anxiety; fear for personal health and safety; 25 decreased housing services, reduced enjoyment of the Premises; payment of excessive rents; costs; and 26 other damages. 27 /// 28 /// 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 PRAYER FOR JUDGMENT 2 Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 3 1. For general and compensatory damages according to proof; 4 2. For special damages according to proof; 5 3. For treble damages according to proof; 6 4. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof; 7 5. For costs of suit herein incurred; 8 6. For money damages of not less than three times actual damages suffered; 9 7. For interest due on all damages; 10 8. For civil penalties for each violation; 11 9. For all future damages; 12 10. For attorney’s fees pursuant to statute; 13 11. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. 14 Date: March 21, 2024 Respectfully Submitted: 15 16 Jaynry W. Mak, Esq. 17 Attorney for Plaintiffs 18 19 20 JURY DEMAND 21 Plaintiffs Gerard Patrick Fagan and Stephanie Barreto Fagan respectfully demand a jury trial 22 on this matter. 23 Date: March 21, 2024 Respectfully Submitted, 24 25 Jaynry W. Mak, Esq. 26 Attorney for Plaintiffs 27 28 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL