Preview
ELECTRONICALLY
1 Arlo Hale Smith SBN 96971
378 Golden Gate Ave STE 326 FILED
Superior Court of California,
2 San Francisco, CA 94102 County of San Francisco
(415) 685-9331 03/22/2024
3
Attorney for Plaintiff Clerk of the Court
BY: DAEJA ROGERS
4 Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
5 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
6
ARLO HALE SMITH Case No.
CGC-24-613416
7
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR
8 (1) BREACH OF WARRANTY OF
vs. HABITABILITY
9
(2) COLLECTION OF RENT FOR IN
10 HAMPTON COURT SF, LP, MERIDIAN VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE
MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., AND DOES SECTION 1942.4
11 1TO 100 (3) NUISANCE
(4) NEGLIGENCE
12
s (5) ELDER ABUSE
13 (6) VIOLATION OF THE RENT
ORDINANCE
14 (7) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
(8) DAMAGES AND
15 (9) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
16
17
Plaintiff Arlo Hale Smith (hereafter “Plaintiff”) alleges for a cause of action against
18 Defendants Hampton Court SF, LP (hereafter “Hampton Court”), Meridian Management
19 Group, Inc. (hereafter “MMG”), and Does 1-100 (hereafter “Defendants”) as follows:
20
21 1- Defendant Hampton Court SF. LP (hereafter “Hampton Court”) is a California limited
22 partnership owner of real property commonly known as 378 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, CA (hereafter “the Property”). The Property contains approximately 100
23
residential units which said Defendants rent for residential use.
24
2- Defendant Meridian Management Group, Inc (hereafter “MMG”) is a California
25
corporation employed by Hampton Court to manage the Property.
26
3- Plaintiff is uncertain of the true names of those Defendants sued as and Does 1-100,
27 and therefore sues them under said fictitious names. Plaintiff alleges upon information
28
1 and belief that each of said fictitiously-named Defendants is in some manner
2 responsible for the damages to plaintiffs alleged herein.
3
4- Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that each Defendant is in some manner
4
responsible for the occurrences alleged herein and that plaintiffs’ damages were
5
proximately caused by each and every Defendant.
6
5- Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that each Defendant was the agent,
7 servant, representative and/or agent of each co-Defendant, and that in doing the things
8 alleged hereinafter each Defendant was acting in the scope of his/her/its authority as
9 an agent, servant, representative and/or agent of each co-Defendants, and with the
10 permission and consent of all co-Defendants.
11 6- Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that each Defendant assisted, aided and
abetted, ratified, or condoned the actions of each other Defendant.
12
13
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14 (BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY)
15
7- Plaintiff incorporates by references all allegations of Paragraphs 1-6 above.
16
8- Since approximately May, 2018, Plaintiff has been occupying unit 326 of the Property,
17
a residential unit, under a month to month lease with Hampton Court.
18 9- Plaintiff’s tenancy is subject to the San Francisco Rent Control Ordinance.
19 10- From May, 2018 to the present, the Property has had many unsafe, defective, and
20 unhealthy conditions, all of which make the Property untenantable, including, but not
21 limited to, the following:
22 a) Rodents infest the Property. Unit 326 rodent problem has existed
continuously.
23 b) There is also a serious cockroach problem in the Property, which also
24 invaded Unit 326.
c) Bedbugs’ infestation is so severe, the Property is on the Bedbug Registry.
25
d) Vermin completely destroyed Plaintiff’s computer, casing permanent loss of
26 data and work files spanning many years.
27 e) The plumbing in the Property is not adequately maintained. Unit 326 has
reoccurring constant problems with sewage overflow, and water leaks.
28
1 f) Unit 326 has reoccurring malfunctioning electrical wiring and regularly shuts
off, and plugs in Unit 326 do not work. The same is truw of other units in the
2
Property.
3 g) Elevators in the Property (a 5 story building) are frequently out of service.
4 There are many disabled, including Plaintiff, and senior tenants in the
Property, who are seriously impacted, and forced to climb up steep stairs.
5 h) Defective venting systems in the Property which generate odors and toxic
6 fumes, for which the City of San Francisco has issued citations.
i) Unit 326 has an ancient gas stove which belongs to landlord has no
7
functioning oven. Also 3 of 4 burners don’t work, and the 4th burner works
8 only intermittently.
9
11- None of these untenantable conditions were caused by the wrongful or abnormal use
10
of the Property by Plaintiff, or anyone acting under his authority.
11
12- Defendants and each of them have at all times had both actual and constructive notice
12 and knowledge of all of these untenantable conditions, including but not limited
13 through complaints from Plaintiff and other tenants.
14 13- Despite such notices and knowledge, Defendants have failed to correct said
15 untenantable conditions within a reasonable time, and in times not at all.
16 14- As a direct and proximate result of the failure and refusal of Defendants to correct
these untenantable conditions, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in an amount
17
according to proof, but not less than $200,000. These damages include:
18
a. General damages, including damages for discomfort, annoyance and emotional
19 distress.
20 b. Personal Property damage.
c. Economic loss through overpayment of past rent for an untenantable unit.
21
22 15- Plaintiff alleges that the failure and refusal of Defendants to correct these
23 untenantable conditions was knowing, intentional and willful, and were made with
malice and the intent to oppress and defraud Plaintiff. These untaken for the purpose
24
of forcing a rent-controlled tenant to move out, so that Defendants could take
25
advantage of the Costa-Hawkins Act and re-rent the Unit for significantly higher rent.
26
16- Plaintiff, therefore, seeks punitive damages, according to proof, but not less than $1
27
million.
28
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(COLLECTION OF RENT FOR UNTENANTABLE DWELLING IN
2 VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1942.4)
17- Plaintiff incorporates by references all allegations of Paragraphs 1-16 above.
3
18- The subject property substantially lacks affirmative characteristics identified in Civil
4
Code section 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code section 179203 because conditions
5
exist there that endanger the life, limb, property, safety and/or welfare of the public
6
and occupants of the dwelling.
7 19- The Department of Building Inspection has cited Defendants for numerous violations
8 of the San Francisco Housing Code.
9 20- The conditions cited by DBI have existed and have not been abated 35 days beyond
10 the date of issuance. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the delay in
11 abating the notices is without good cause.
21- The conditions described above were not caused by an act or omission of Plaintiffs in
12
violation of Civil Code 1941.1 or Health and Safety Code section 179203.
13
22- Defendants have continued to demand and collect rent despite the existence of the
14
conditions described above, thereby violating Civil Code section 1942.4. As a direct
15 and proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer actual
16 damages, including discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, anxiety, economic loss,
17 loss of use and mental anguish, all to their detriment in the amount to be determined
18 at trial.
19 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(NUISANCE)
20
23- Plaintiff incorporates by references all allegations of Paragraphs 1-22 above.
21
24- Plaintiff alleges that the failure and refusal of Defendants to correct these
22
untenantable conditions was a nuisance which deprived plaintiff of the safe,
23
comfortable and healthy use of the Property.
24
25 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENCE)
26
25- Plaintiff incorporates by references all allegations of Paragraphs 1-24 above.
27
28
1 26- Plaintiff alleges that the failure and refusal of Defendants to correct these
2 untenantable conditions was negligent.
3
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (ELDER ABUSE)
5
27- Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of paragraphs 1-26 above.
6
28- Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned in this pleading, an "elder' as defined in CA
7 Welfare & Institutions Code ("WIC") section 15610.27.
8 29- Under CA WIC section 15610.07(a)(1) "abuse of an elder" (hereafter "elder abuse")
9 includes acts that inflict "mental suffering" on an elder. CA WIC section 15610.53
10 provides:
11 "Mental suffering" means fear, agitation, confusion, severe depression, or other
forms of severe emotional distress that is brought about by forms of intimidating
12 behavior, threats, harassment, or by deceptive acts performed or false or misleading
statements made with malicious intent to agitate, confuse, frighten, or cause severe
13 depression or serious emotional distress of the elder . . .”
14
30- From May, 2018 to the present, Defendants engaged in acts of elder abuse against
15 Plaintiff, including but was not limited to:
16 a. failure to remedy known untenantable conditions of the Property;
17 b. making demands for rent from Plaintiff they know are excessive; and
18 c. unlawful entry into plaintiff’s unit without his consent
19
31- Plaintiff alleges that all of the elder abuse described in this complaint was done by
20
Defendants with malicious intent to agitate, confuse, frighten, and cause severe
21 depression and serious emotional distress to Plaintiff, and for the purpose of forcing a
22 rent-controlled tenant to move out, so that Defendants could take advantage of the
23 Costa-Hawkins Act and re-rent the Unit for a significantly higher rent.
24
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 (Violation of the Rent Ordinance § 37.10B)
26
32- Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of paragraphs 1-31 above.
27 33- During the course of Plaintiff’s tenancy at the premises, Defendants and/or their
28 agents harassed Plaintiffs, as Defined by Rent Ordinance Section 37.1OB, inter alia,
1 by failing to provide housing services required by contract or by state, county or local
2 housing, health or safety laws, by failing to perform repairs or maintenance required
by contract or by state, county of local housing, health or safety laws; by failing to
3
exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance; by influencing or
4
attempting to influence Plaintiff to vacate by fraud, intimidation or coercion; by
5
refusing to acknowledge receipt of tenant’s lawful rent payments; and by interfering
6
with Plaintiff’s quiet use and enjoyment of the subject premises.
7 34- Defendants and/or their agents acted in a knowing or intentional manner or with
8 reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and in bad faith when harassing Plaintiff.
9 35- Chapter 37.1OB, subdivision (c)(5) of the Rent Ordinance provides for an award of
10 not less than three times the actual damages for violation of Chapter 37.1OB, et. seq.,
11 and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to not less than three times their actual damages.
36- Defendant’s conduct, as heretofore alleged, was willful and in conscious disregard for
12
the rights of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is also entitled to three times damages for
13
emotional distress.
14
37- Chapter 37.10B, subdivision (c)(5) of the Rent Ordinance provides for the award of
15 reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party in any action brought under this
16 section. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee.
17 38- As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Rent Ordinance,
18 Plaintiff has suffered damages as is heretofore set forth.
19 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES)
20
39- Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of paragraphs1-38 above.
21
40- California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (the “Unfair Business
22
Practices Act”) prohibits unfair competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair or
23
fraudulent business act or practice. "Unfair competition" is defined by section 17200
24 as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." An act or practice is
25 deemed unlawful when it violates any federal, state, or local law.
26 41- California Business and Professions Code section 17204 allows “any person who has
27 suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of such unfair
28
1 competition” to prosecute a civil action for violation of the Unfair Business Practices
2 Act.
42- Defendants transact business by owning, operating and collecting rental income from
3
378 Golden Gate Ave, a mix-used building with residential units. These units are
4
rent-controlled units within the City and County of San Francisco.
5
43- Defendants have and are engaging in the following unfair, unlawful business
6
practices and unfair competition prohibited Business and Professions Code sections
7 17200- 17210. These practices include, but are not limited to: failing to provide
8 habitable premises in violation of Civil Code section 1941 and 1941.1 and various
9 provisions of the San Francisco Housing Code; collecting rent for untenantable
10 premises in violation of Civil Code 1942.4 and harassing Plaintiffs in violation of
11 Rent Ordinance section 37.10B, subdivisions (a)(1), (2), (3), (5), (8), (10) and (11).
44- Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation
12
of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The acts and
13
practices described above have allowed Defendants to gain an unfair competitive
14
advantage over law-abiding landlords and competitors.
15 45- As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and practices, Defendants
16 have received income, profits and other benefits, which they would not have received
17 if they had not engaged in the violations of the Unfair Business Practices Act.
18 46- As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and practices, Defendants
19 have received, and continue to receive, ill-gotten gains belonging to Plaintiff and
others similarly situated.
20
47- Business and Professions Code section 17203 provides that the Court may restore to
21
any person in interest any money or property which may have been acquired by
22
means of such unfair competition. Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution pursuant to
23
Business and Professions Code section 17203.
24 48- An order under section 17203 and/or any other applicable law requiring Defendant to
25 disgorge all the profits and gains he has reaped though his unlawful, unfair, and
26 fraudulent conduct is necessary and appropriate to prevent Defendants from profiting
27 and benefiting from these illegal and wrongful acts.
28
1 49- An award of attorneys’ fees is appropriate pursuant to California Code of Civil
2 Procedure section 1021.5 and other applicable laws, because: 1) there is a financial
burden involved in pursuing this action; and 2) it would be against the interest of
3
justice to force Plaintiffs to pay attorneys’ fees from any amount recovered in this
4
action.
5
50- Said Unfair Business Practices included, but were not limited to, the acts described in
6
the previous paragraphs.
7 51- By virtue of the foregoing Unfair Business Practices, Plaintiff has been deprived of
8 property in an amount according to proof and requests restitution pursuant to
9 California Business and Professions Code section 17203.
10 52- Plaintiff alleges that unless ordered to do otherwise by this court, Defendants and
11 each of them will continue to engage in the foregoing Unfair Business Practices.
53- Plaintiff therefore requests injunctive relief pursuant to California Business and
12
Professions Code section 17203.
13
14
JURY DEMAND
15
1- Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury in this action
16
17
PRAYER
18
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment as follows:
19
1- For damages, according to proof, but in an amount of not less than $1,250,000,
20
including punitive damages.
21
2- For restitution from and injunctive relief against Defendants as heretofore requested.
22 3- For costs, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
23
24
Dated: 3/22 /2024 ______________/s/______________
25 Arlo Hale Smith, Attorney for Plaintiff
26
27
28
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY 1 Arlo Hale Smith SBN 96971 378 Golden Gate Ave STE 326 FILED Superior Court of California, 2 San Francisco, CA 94102 County of San Francisco (415) 685-9331 03/22/2024 3 Attorney for Plaintiff Clerk of the Court BY: DAEJA ROGERS 4 Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 6 ARLO HALE SMITH Case No. CGC-24-613416 7 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR 8 (1) BREACH OF WARRANTY OF vs. HABITABILITY 9 (2) COLLECTION OF RENT FOR IN 10 HAMPTON COURT SF, LP, MERIDIAN VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., AND DOES SECTION 1942.4 11 1TO 100 (3) NUISANCE (4) NEGLIGENCE 12 s (5) ELDER ABUSE 13 (6) VIOLATION OF THE RENT ORDINANCE 14 (7) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (8) DAMAGES AND 15 (9) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 16 17 Plaintiff Arlo Hale Smith (hereafter “Plaintiff”) alleges for a cause of action against 18 Defendants Hampton Court SF, LP (hereafter “Hampton Court”), Meridian Management 19 Group, Inc. (hereafter “MMG”), and Does 1-100 (hereafter “Defendants”) as follows: 20 21 1- Defendant Hampton Court SF. LP (hereafter “Hampton Court”) is a California limited 22 partnership owner of real property commonly known as 378 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA (hereafter “the Property”). The Property contains approximately 100 23 residential units which said Defendants rent for residential use. 24 2- Defendant Meridian Management Group, Inc (hereafter “MMG”) is a California 25 corporation employed by Hampton Court to manage the Property. 26 3- Plaintiff is uncertain of the true names of those Defendants sued as and Does 1-100, 27 and therefore sues them under said fictitious names. Plaintiff alleges upon information 28 1 and belief that each of said fictitiously-named Defendants is in some manner 2 responsible for the damages to plaintiffs alleged herein. 3 4- Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that each Defendant is in some manner 4 responsible for the occurrences alleged herein and that plaintiffs’ damages were 5 proximately caused by each and every Defendant. 6 5- Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that each Defendant was the agent, 7 servant, representative and/or agent of each co-Defendant, and that in doing the things 8 alleged hereinafter each Defendant was acting in the scope of his/her/its authority as 9 an agent, servant, representative and/or agent of each co-Defendants, and with the 10 permission and consent of all co-Defendants. 11 6- Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that each Defendant assisted, aided and abetted, ratified, or condoned the actions of each other Defendant. 12 13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 14 (BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY) 15 7- Plaintiff incorporates by references all allegations of Paragraphs 1-6 above. 16 8- Since approximately May, 2018, Plaintiff has been occupying unit 326 of the Property, 17 a residential unit, under a month to month lease with Hampton Court. 18 9- Plaintiff’s tenancy is subject to the San Francisco Rent Control Ordinance. 19 10- From May, 2018 to the present, the Property has had many unsafe, defective, and 20 unhealthy conditions, all of which make the Property untenantable, including, but not 21 limited to, the following: 22 a) Rodents infest the Property. Unit 326 rodent problem has existed continuously. 23 b) There is also a serious cockroach problem in the Property, which also 24 invaded Unit 326. c) Bedbugs’ infestation is so severe, the Property is on the Bedbug Registry. 25 d) Vermin completely destroyed Plaintiff’s computer, casing permanent loss of 26 data and work files spanning many years. 27 e) The plumbing in the Property is not adequately maintained. Unit 326 has reoccurring constant problems with sewage overflow, and water leaks. 28 1 f) Unit 326 has reoccurring malfunctioning electrical wiring and regularly shuts off, and plugs in Unit 326 do not work. The same is truw of other units in the 2 Property. 3 g) Elevators in the Property (a 5 story building) are frequently out of service. 4 There are many disabled, including Plaintiff, and senior tenants in the Property, who are seriously impacted, and forced to climb up steep stairs. 5 h) Defective venting systems in the Property which generate odors and toxic 6 fumes, for which the City of San Francisco has issued citations. i) Unit 326 has an ancient gas stove which belongs to landlord has no 7 functioning oven. Also 3 of 4 burners don’t work, and the 4th burner works 8 only intermittently. 9 11- None of these untenantable conditions were caused by the wrongful or abnormal use 10 of the Property by Plaintiff, or anyone acting under his authority. 11 12- Defendants and each of them have at all times had both actual and constructive notice 12 and knowledge of all of these untenantable conditions, including but not limited 13 through complaints from Plaintiff and other tenants. 14 13- Despite such notices and knowledge, Defendants have failed to correct said 15 untenantable conditions within a reasonable time, and in times not at all. 16 14- As a direct and proximate result of the failure and refusal of Defendants to correct these untenantable conditions, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in an amount 17 according to proof, but not less than $200,000. These damages include: 18 a. General damages, including damages for discomfort, annoyance and emotional 19 distress. 20 b. Personal Property damage. c. Economic loss through overpayment of past rent for an untenantable unit. 21 22 15- Plaintiff alleges that the failure and refusal of Defendants to correct these 23 untenantable conditions was knowing, intentional and willful, and were made with malice and the intent to oppress and defraud Plaintiff. These untaken for the purpose 24 of forcing a rent-controlled tenant to move out, so that Defendants could take 25 advantage of the Costa-Hawkins Act and re-rent the Unit for significantly higher rent. 26 16- Plaintiff, therefore, seeks punitive damages, according to proof, but not less than $1 27 million. 28 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (COLLECTION OF RENT FOR UNTENANTABLE DWELLING IN 2 VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1942.4) 17- Plaintiff incorporates by references all allegations of Paragraphs 1-16 above. 3 18- The subject property substantially lacks affirmative characteristics identified in Civil 4 Code section 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code section 179203 because conditions 5 exist there that endanger the life, limb, property, safety and/or welfare of the public 6 and occupants of the dwelling. 7 19- The Department of Building Inspection has cited Defendants for numerous violations 8 of the San Francisco Housing Code. 9 20- The conditions cited by DBI have existed and have not been abated 35 days beyond 10 the date of issuance. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the delay in 11 abating the notices is without good cause. 21- The conditions described above were not caused by an act or omission of Plaintiffs in 12 violation of Civil Code 1941.1 or Health and Safety Code section 179203. 13 22- Defendants have continued to demand and collect rent despite the existence of the 14 conditions described above, thereby violating Civil Code section 1942.4. As a direct 15 and proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer actual 16 damages, including discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, anxiety, economic loss, 17 loss of use and mental anguish, all to their detriment in the amount to be determined 18 at trial. 19 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (NUISANCE) 20 23- Plaintiff incorporates by references all allegations of Paragraphs 1-22 above. 21 24- Plaintiff alleges that the failure and refusal of Defendants to correct these 22 untenantable conditions was a nuisance which deprived plaintiff of the safe, 23 comfortable and healthy use of the Property. 24 25 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENCE) 26 25- Plaintiff incorporates by references all allegations of Paragraphs 1-24 above. 27 28 1 26- Plaintiff alleges that the failure and refusal of Defendants to correct these 2 untenantable conditions was negligent. 3 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (ELDER ABUSE) 5 27- Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of paragraphs 1-26 above. 6 28- Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned in this pleading, an "elder' as defined in CA 7 Welfare & Institutions Code ("WIC") section 15610.27. 8 29- Under CA WIC section 15610.07(a)(1) "abuse of an elder" (hereafter "elder abuse") 9 includes acts that inflict "mental suffering" on an elder. CA WIC section 15610.53 10 provides: 11 "Mental suffering" means fear, agitation, confusion, severe depression, or other forms of severe emotional distress that is brought about by forms of intimidating 12 behavior, threats, harassment, or by deceptive acts performed or false or misleading statements made with malicious intent to agitate, confuse, frighten, or cause severe 13 depression or serious emotional distress of the elder . . .” 14 30- From May, 2018 to the present, Defendants engaged in acts of elder abuse against 15 Plaintiff, including but was not limited to: 16 a. failure to remedy known untenantable conditions of the Property; 17 b. making demands for rent from Plaintiff they know are excessive; and 18 c. unlawful entry into plaintiff’s unit without his consent 19 31- Plaintiff alleges that all of the elder abuse described in this complaint was done by 20 Defendants with malicious intent to agitate, confuse, frighten, and cause severe 21 depression and serious emotional distress to Plaintiff, and for the purpose of forcing a 22 rent-controlled tenant to move out, so that Defendants could take advantage of the 23 Costa-Hawkins Act and re-rent the Unit for a significantly higher rent. 24 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 (Violation of the Rent Ordinance § 37.10B) 26 32- Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of paragraphs 1-31 above. 27 33- During the course of Plaintiff’s tenancy at the premises, Defendants and/or their 28 agents harassed Plaintiffs, as Defined by Rent Ordinance Section 37.1OB, inter alia, 1 by failing to provide housing services required by contract or by state, county or local 2 housing, health or safety laws, by failing to perform repairs or maintenance required by contract or by state, county of local housing, health or safety laws; by failing to 3 exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance; by influencing or 4 attempting to influence Plaintiff to vacate by fraud, intimidation or coercion; by 5 refusing to acknowledge receipt of tenant’s lawful rent payments; and by interfering 6 with Plaintiff’s quiet use and enjoyment of the subject premises. 7 34- Defendants and/or their agents acted in a knowing or intentional manner or with 8 reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and in bad faith when harassing Plaintiff. 9 35- Chapter 37.1OB, subdivision (c)(5) of the Rent Ordinance provides for an award of 10 not less than three times the actual damages for violation of Chapter 37.1OB, et. seq., 11 and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to not less than three times their actual damages. 36- Defendant’s conduct, as heretofore alleged, was willful and in conscious disregard for 12 the rights of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is also entitled to three times damages for 13 emotional distress. 14 37- Chapter 37.10B, subdivision (c)(5) of the Rent Ordinance provides for the award of 15 reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party in any action brought under this 16 section. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee. 17 38- As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Rent Ordinance, 18 Plaintiff has suffered damages as is heretofore set forth. 19 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES) 20 39- Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of paragraphs1-38 above. 21 40- California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (the “Unfair Business 22 Practices Act”) prohibits unfair competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair or 23 fraudulent business act or practice. "Unfair competition" is defined by section 17200 24 as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." An act or practice is 25 deemed unlawful when it violates any federal, state, or local law. 26 41- California Business and Professions Code section 17204 allows “any person who has 27 suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of such unfair 28 1 competition” to prosecute a civil action for violation of the Unfair Business Practices 2 Act. 42- Defendants transact business by owning, operating and collecting rental income from 3 378 Golden Gate Ave, a mix-used building with residential units. These units are 4 rent-controlled units within the City and County of San Francisco. 5 43- Defendants have and are engaging in the following unfair, unlawful business 6 practices and unfair competition prohibited Business and Professions Code sections 7 17200- 17210. These practices include, but are not limited to: failing to provide 8 habitable premises in violation of Civil Code section 1941 and 1941.1 and various 9 provisions of the San Francisco Housing Code; collecting rent for untenantable 10 premises in violation of Civil Code 1942.4 and harassing Plaintiffs in violation of 11 Rent Ordinance section 37.10B, subdivisions (a)(1), (2), (3), (5), (8), (10) and (11). 44- Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation 12 of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The acts and 13 practices described above have allowed Defendants to gain an unfair competitive 14 advantage over law-abiding landlords and competitors. 15 45- As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and practices, Defendants 16 have received income, profits and other benefits, which they would not have received 17 if they had not engaged in the violations of the Unfair Business Practices Act. 18 46- As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and practices, Defendants 19 have received, and continue to receive, ill-gotten gains belonging to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. 20 47- Business and Professions Code section 17203 provides that the Court may restore to 21 any person in interest any money or property which may have been acquired by 22 means of such unfair competition. Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution pursuant to 23 Business and Professions Code section 17203. 24 48- An order under section 17203 and/or any other applicable law requiring Defendant to 25 disgorge all the profits and gains he has reaped though his unlawful, unfair, and 26 fraudulent conduct is necessary and appropriate to prevent Defendants from profiting 27 and benefiting from these illegal and wrongful acts. 28 1 49- An award of attorneys’ fees is appropriate pursuant to California Code of Civil 2 Procedure section 1021.5 and other applicable laws, because: 1) there is a financial burden involved in pursuing this action; and 2) it would be against the interest of 3 justice to force Plaintiffs to pay attorneys’ fees from any amount recovered in this 4 action. 5 50- Said Unfair Business Practices included, but were not limited to, the acts described in 6 the previous paragraphs. 7 51- By virtue of the foregoing Unfair Business Practices, Plaintiff has been deprived of 8 property in an amount according to proof and requests restitution pursuant to 9 California Business and Professions Code section 17203. 10 52- Plaintiff alleges that unless ordered to do otherwise by this court, Defendants and 11 each of them will continue to engage in the foregoing Unfair Business Practices. 53- Plaintiff therefore requests injunctive relief pursuant to California Business and 12 Professions Code section 17203. 13 14 JURY DEMAND 15 1- Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury in this action 16 17 PRAYER 18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment as follows: 19 1- For damages, according to proof, but in an amount of not less than $1,250,000, 20 including punitive damages. 21 2- For restitution from and injunctive relief against Defendants as heretofore requested. 22 3- For costs, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 23 24 Dated: 3/22 /2024 ______________/s/______________ 25 Arlo Hale Smith, Attorney for Plaintiff 26 27 28