Preview
1 Ryan Levihn-Coon
Lena Giron
2 3360 N. San Fernando Rd.
#1070
3 Los Angeles, CA 90065
Email: HELP@justiceoverviolence.com
4
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11
RYAN LEVIHN-COON, an individual, Case No.:
12 and
Date of Filing: 29 March 2024
13 LENA GIRON, an individual,
14
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES &
15 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
16 1. Battery
v.
17
2. Assault
18
GREGORY TOSHIO DOI, JR., and 3. Physical Invasion of Privacy
19 (Cal. Civ. Code §1708.8) –
DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Intrusion Upon Seclusion
20
21 Defendants. 4. Trespass
22 5. Trespass to Chattels
23
6. Conversion
24
7. Forcible Entry
25
26 8. Forcible Detainer
27
28
1
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 9. Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress
2
10. Violations of Los Angeles
3
Civil & Human Rights Law
4
11. Statutory Violations of Los
5 Angeles Civil Harassment
Ordinance
6
7 12. Violations of CCP 527.6 &
527.8; Civil Harassment
8 (Restraining Order)
9 13. Negligence (Negligent
Infliction of Emotional
10
Distress)
11
14. Negligence/Personal Injury
12 (Incorporating Willful
Misconduct)
13
14 15. Violations of the Tom Banes
Civil Rights Act
15
16. Conspiracy — Aid & Abet
16
17 17. Nuisance
18
19 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
20
21
22
23
24 Plaintiffs Ryan Levihn-Coon and Lena Giron are individuals and complain and allege upon their own
25 knowledge with respect to themselves and upon information and belief with respect to all other matters, as follows:
26
27
I.
28 INTRODUCTION & PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 1. Plaintiffs have suffered egregious and ongoing injury, harassment, harm and loss caused by the Defendants
named herein that is still continuing to this day.
2
3 2. Plaintiffs file this action in order to hold Defendants accountable for the menacing campaign of terror,
intimidation and violence that they perpetrated against Plaintiffs, on account of which they suffered the loss
4
of their home, their vehicles, their personal property, their community and their well-being.
5
3. Plaintiffs file this Complaint in order to protect themselves, their family, their home and their property from
6
Defendants and their campaign of harassment and terror directed at Plaintiffs and to be made whole from the
7 losses and the damages Plaintiffs suffered due to Defendants’ outrageous misdeeds, including, but in no way
8 limited to, violent invasion of Plaintiffs’ land, home and property, violent acts perpetrated against Plaintiff
Ryan Levihn-Coon while he was in his own home, forcible invasion into Plaintiffs’ home while Plaintiff was
9
inside, driving a vehicle at Plaintiff Giron and verbally threatening Plaintiff Giron, vandalism of Plaintiffs’
10 security camera systems, theft of Plaintiffs’ most personal possessions, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs’
11 US Mail and home computer, from Plaintiffs’ most private spaces, and, ultimately, Defendants’ total
destruction, taking and demolition of Plaintiffs’ home, vehicles and personal property.
12
13 4. Plaintiffs initiate this lawsuit to hold the Defendants, specifically Gregory Toshio Doi, Jr. and his accomplices,
accountable for their sustained campaign of violence, intimidation and harm. Defendants’ campaign has
14
resulted in substantial losses for the Plaintiffs, including the loss of their home, vehicles, personal belongings,
15 community ties, peace-of-mind and well-being.
16
5. Furthermore, this Complaint is filed to safeguard the Plaintiffs and their families from further harassment and
17 threats from the Defendants with the aim of restoring Plaintiffs’ security and allowing Plaintiffs to recover
18 from the significant damages and losses proximately inflicted on Plaintiffs by the Defendants and their
wrongful actions.
19
20 II.
21 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22 6. As each Defendant’s principal place of business and/or residence is in the County of Los Angeles, Los
23 Angeles Superior Court is a proper venue for this matter. Further, this Court has personal authority over
Defendants on the grounds that Defendants conduct or transact business, reside in, and/or are employed within
24
this state and thus have purposely availed themselves of the laws and privileges thereof.
25
7. Furthermore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged herein, and this venue is proper
26
because all of the alleged acts and omissions occurred in and around the real property that forms the basis of
27 the subject matter of this Complaint, commonly known as 4000 Chevy Chase Drive, and its environs, in the
28
3
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, including, without limitation, Plaintiffs’
Residence Premises.
2
3 III.
4
THE PARTIES
5 8. Ryan Levihn-Coon (“Plaintiff”) at all times herein mentioned was a competent adult resident of the City of
6 Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California.
7 9. Lena Giron (“Plaintiff”) at all times herein mentioned was a competent adult resident of the City of Los
8 Angeles, Los Angeles County, California.
9 10. Defendant Gregory Toshio Doi, Jr. (hereinafter, “Defendant”, “Defendant Doi” and/or “Defendant Greg
10 Doi”), at all times herein mentioned, was a competent adult resident of Los Angeles County, California.
Defendant Doi has used many aliases, including, but not limited to, Greg Doi, Gregory Doi, Greg Doi, Jr. and
11
Gregory Doi, Jr. (See Exhibit E: Defendant Greg Doi)
12
11. Defendant Gregory Toshio Doi, Jr. is, and at all times relevant to this action, was a competent adult living in
13
and conducting business in Los Angeles County and upon information and belief is alleged to reside at his
14 property located at 2900 Stocker Plz, Los Angeles, California 90008 (APN: 2812-063-025), at 500 North
15 Rossmore, Unit 107, Los Angeles, CA 91351 (APN: 2836-040-230), or at some other location in Los Angeles
County.
16
17 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Doi was born and raised in Honolulu,
Hawaii and has worked as a lighting technician in the film industry in addition to having produced several
18
low-budget motion picture films.
19
13. Defendant Doi has been absent from the State of California on numerous occasions (including, but not limited
20
to, extended visits to Hawaii, Arizona and Oklahoma) since the accrual of the causes of action alleged in this
21 Complaint, and therefore, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 351, the statutes of limitations relevant to
22 Plaintiffs’ causes of actions were tolled during the pendency of Defendant Doi’s absence from the State of
California.
23
14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each Defendant and Doe Defendant in this action
24
has been absent from the State of California on at least one occasion since the accrual of the causes of action
25
alleged in this Complaint, and therefore, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 351, the statutes of limitations
26 relevant to Plaintiffs’ causes of actions were tolled during the pendency of Defendants’ absence from the State
of California.
27
28
4
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 15. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1–100, inclusive,
and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege
2
their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that
3 each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged,
4 and that Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. Plaintiffs are
informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Doi knows the true and correct names of the Doe
5
Defendants sued herein.
6
16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Doe 1 and Defendant Doe 2 are friends
7
and/or associates of Defendant Doi. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the true
8 identities of Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2 are known to Defendant Doi. (See Exhibits F and G: Defendants
9 Doe 1 and Doe 2)
10 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times herein mentioned each of the
11 Defendants, including all Defendants sued under fictitious names, was the agent and employee of each of the
remaining Defendants, and the actions and/or any failure to act alleged in this Complaint were done by
12
Defendants and/or agents and employees of Defendants, acting within the scope of their employment/agency,
13 and with Defendant’s permission and consent.
14
18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on such basis allege, that Defendants, at all times herein mentioned,
15 were the agents and employees of their codefendants and in doing the things hereinafter alleged were acting
16 within the course and scope of such agency and the permission and consent of their codefendants.
17 19. Unless otherwise specified, reference to Defendants shall refer to acts or omissions of Defendants by and
18 through their employees and agents.
19 20. Whereas Defendants are mentioned in this Complaint, “Defendants” shall mean each individual defendant,
20 individually and collectively.
21 21. Each reference in this Complaint to “defendant,” “defendants,” or a specifically named defendant refers also
22 to all defendants sued under fictitious names.
23 22. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, negligently hired, trained, and
supervised their employees and agents as alleged in this Complaint, including, but not limited to, entry
24
onto/into Plaintiffs’ vehicles and real property, taking of, and interference with, Plaintiffs’ property and
25
vehicles, and destruction of Plaintiffs’ real and personal property.
26
23. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that each of said Defendants is in some manner fraudulently,
27
maliciously, oppressively, intentionally, negligently, and/or otherwise responsible for the acts, omissions,
28 occurrences, and transactions alleged herein.
5
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based upon such information and belief, allege that, at all times herein
mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, partners, and alter egos of
2
the remaining Defendants, that the acts complained of herein were done within the course and scope of said
3 agency, service, employment, and partnership, and that the acts by each Defendant was ratified, approved and
4 adopted by each of the remaining Defendants.
5 25. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should
6 have known that they owed legal duties to Plaintiffs regarding the Residence Premises and Plaintiffs’ rights
to privacy and peace in Plaintiffs’ home, Plaintiffs’ personal rights and Plaintiffs’ property rights but
7
Defendants’ despicably, illegally, intentionally, fraudulently, maliciously, oppressively, outrageously,
8 wrongfully, recklessly, and/or negligently violated and breached those duties in order to increase Defendants'
9 profits to Plaintiffs’ injury and detriment.
10 26. Because Defendants had many collaborators as they conducted the acts and omissions described in this
11 Complaint, most of whom have identities that are currently unknown to Plaintiffs despite Plaintiffs’ reasonable
efforts made to ascertain their identities, Plaintiffs include Doe Defendants in this case in order to preserve
12
their claims against such Defendants, and Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true identities
13 when Plaintiffs ascertain such information. The Doe Defendants in this Complaint include agents, associates,
14 and employees of Defendant Doi, Defendant Doe 1 and Defendant 2, and include all individuals and entities
not included in the above-itemized list of Co-Conspirators and who are defendants in another pending lawsuit.
15
16 Defendants’ Co-Conspirators
17 27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants had many Co-Conspirators who
conspired with Defendants to undertake the actions described in this Complaint, including, but not limited to,
18
the following Co-Conspirators:
19
a. Mark Andrew Larinto;
20
b. Tyler Vincent Larinto;
21
22 c. Scenic Expressions, Inc.; and
23
d. Agents and employees of Scenic Expressions, Inc., Tyler Larinto and Mark Larinto as identified in
24 pending California Superior Court Case Number 24STCV05152.
25 28. These above-identified Co-Conspirators are defendants in a separate lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs, which is
26 currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court and identified by Case Number 24STCV05152.
27 Plaintiffs’ Special Vulnerabilities and Defendants’ Special Duties
28
6
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 29. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class due to their disabilities, which substantially impair one or more of
Plaintiffs’ major life activities. In addition, their conditions also placed them at higher risk for contracting and
2
developing complications from COVID.
3
30. Furthermore, as tenants-at-will of Defendants’ agents and Co-Conspirators, at all times relevant to this action
4
Defendants owed a special duty of care to Plaintiffs.
5
31. The landlord-tenant relationship established between Plaintiffs and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators is
6
recognized under California law as a special relationship that imposes specific obligations on the landlord,
7 including but not limited to, the duty to refrain from harassment of tenants, the duty to not enter tenants’
8 premises without right, the duty to provide certain notices required by law, the duty to provide a habitable
living environment, the duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition, and the duty to conduct repairs in a
9
timely manner.
10
32. A multitude of California appellate decisions offer broad support for the special relationship and duties of care
11
owed by Defendants to Plaintiffs, and elucidate the extent and nature of the obligations imposed on landlords
12 towards their tenants, including:
13
a. Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185: This case affirms that landlords owe a duty of care
14 to their tenants and outlines the scope of their duty, including the maintenance of common areas and
15 the provision of adequate security measures.
16 b. Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108: Although primarily addressing the duty of care owed to
17 invitees, their landmark decision is foundational in understanding the broader principles of negligence
that apply to landlord-tenant relationships.
18
19 c. Hinson v. Delis (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 62: In this case, the court held that landlords have a duty to
inspect the premises before leasing to discover latent defects and thereafter to maintain the premises
20
by conducting necessary repairs and ensuring the property is safe for tenants.
21
d. Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903: This case expanded on the landlord's liability for
22
failing to provide safe premises, specifically in the context of criminal acts by third parties, highlighting
23 the landlord's obligation to take reasonable security measures.
24
e. Werner v. Knoll (1948) 89 Cal.App.2d 474: This case discusses the landlord's general duty of care to
25 tenants, emphasizing the importance of maintaining safe and habitable premises.
26
f. Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46: Clarifies the scope of the implied warranty of habitability
27 and a landlord's duty to repair defects that exist at the inception of the tenancy.
28
7
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 g. Cummings v. Stanley (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 493: Discusses a landlord's obligations under the implied
warranty of habitability and the consequences of failing to address hazardous conditions on the
2
property.
3
COVID CONTEXT
4
33. Tenants and residential occupants have long been the target of harassment by unscrupulous landlords. The
5
Housing and Community Investment Department in the city of Los Angeles noted in a 2018 report that the
6 agency investigates some 10,000 complaints of tenant harassment annually. The agency estimated that around
7 36 percent of those complaints related to illegal evictions while another 20 percent related to a reduction of
housing services.
8
9 34. The devastating problem of tenant harassment, which forces tenants to choose between indignity and harm or
leaving their home, has only increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.
10
11 35. In response to their heightened level of harassment occurring during the pandemic, several cities enacted
tenant anti-harassment policies that give tenants a private right of action to challenge landlord behavior. Other
12
California jurisdictions, Los Angeles County included, had already established these sorts of protections
13 before the pandemic started. However, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors through their emergency
14 powers applied and expanded tenant harassment protections throughout the County, effective September 1,
2020, stating that “[t]their Board is dedicated to protecting tenants vulnerable to COVID-19 from undue
15
harassment and retaliation for their actions during the pandemic.” The Board has extended these critical
16 protections through December 31, 2022.
17
36. The COVID-19 pandemic hit Los Angeles County especially hard, causing widespread disruptions in civic
18 life. As of March 15, 2022, roughly 2.82 million county residents had tested positive for COVID-19 and over
19 32,000 people had died of the disease. The so-called “Delta variant” of the virus caused even more devastation
in the County, with daily infection rates reaching roughly 2,000 people and hospitalization rates doubling in
20
just two weeks in the month of July.
21
37. The Omicron variant was even worse. Starting at just 13 percent of new U.S. infections as of December 11,
22
2021, Omicron jumped to a staggering 73 percent of new U.S. infections as of December 20, 2021, only nine
23 days later! Twice as transmissible as Delta and four times as transmissible as the original COVID-19 strain,
Omicron was spreading in Los Angeles. The subsequent BA.2 subvariant of Omicron was even more
24
transmissible and was poised to become the dominant form of Omicron. For tenants at risk of displacement,
25
the rise of Omicron meant an increased probability of contracting a potentially deadly disease.
26
27
IV.
28 STATEMENT OF FACTS
8
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 The Residence Premises and Plaintiffs’ Arrival
2 38. On or about May 20, 2021, Plaintiffs drove their Casita, personal automobile, Solar Trailer and Cardinal
Trailer to the east side of Verdant Street, south of the intersection of Verdant Street and Chevy Chase Drive,
3
which is the certain west part of the Chevy Chase Property, as identified in Exhibit A of this Complaint,
4 including its curtilage, adjacent parking area, concrete foundation, structures, buildings, walls, utilities,
5 cultivated grounds, landscaping, fixtures, appurtenances, amenities and space above and below the land, and
which are referred to hereinafter as the “Residence Premises”. Plaintiffs entered unobstructed onto the
6
Residence Premises by simply driving onto the unoccupied and unmaintained and overgrown land
7 immediately outside a wire fence located directly west of the Warehouse located to the east of Verdant Street.
8
39. The location of the Residence Premises can additionally be described as being bordered on the west by Verdant
9 Street and North Atwater Park (“Park”), on the south by 3949 East Verdant Street (APN: 5594016004), on
10 the north by 3990 Chevy Chase Drive (APN# 5594016001), and along the east by the warehouse building of
the former Albert Van Luit Wallpaper Factory (the “Warehouse”). (See Maps Identifying Residence Premises,
11
Exhibit A)
12
40. Since on or about May 20th, 2021, Plaintiffs continuously resided on a part of the real property and parcel
13
located at 4000 Chevy Chase Drive, Los Angeles, California, 90039, such property recorded by the Los
14 Angeles County as Tax Assessor Parcel Number 5594015019 and/or Parcel APN# 5594-016-015 ("Chevy
15 Chase Property").
16 41. Plaintiffs lived, worked, and were at all times relevant to this action in actual, peaceable and exclusive
17 possession of the Residence Premises.
18 42. At all relevant times, the Residence Premises and Chevy Chase Property were private real property as a matter
19 of law.
20 Plaintiffs’ Improvements and Additions to Residence Premises
21 43. Plaintiffs continuously maintained all landscaping, structures and buildings on the Residence Premises and its
curtilage. Plaintiffs substantially improved the land through irrigation, cultivation and landscaping. Plaintiffs
22
were at all times responsible for the new construction on the Residence Premises, including the erection of
23
permanent walls that fully enclosed the interior yard of the Residence Premises, as well as kitchen and dining
24 facilities, guest room, dining and living areas and Plaintiffs’ workshop. Plaintiffs constructed the walled
enclosure and other construction, cultivation and landscaping of the Residence Premises in plain view of the
25
world, including Defendants and Plaintiffs’ neighbors, including the employees, managers and owners of
26
Scenic Expressions, Inc., who on a regular, often daily basis, walked and/or drove along Verdant Street,
27 running along the west boundary of the Residence Premises.
28
9
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 44. Plaintiffs constructed the walls of the Residence Premises with doorways for entrance and egress at both the
north and south sides. Plaintiffs designed and installed fixtures and equipment for domestic comfort and
2
security, including electronic door locks, a doorbell, security cameras, and extensive exterior lighting.
3
45. Plaintiffs also designed and constructed the kitchen, fully equipped with refrigerators/freezers, two gas stoves,
4
a gas grill, a bathroom with full bathtub and shower, a living room, and a guest/entertainment room, the roof
5 of which Plaintiffs designed and constructed being comprised of more than 300 square feet of solar panels
6 rated to produce nearly 3,000 continuous watts of power. Plaintiff Levihn-Coon constructed the solar roof
upon metal columns he engineered and integrated into the exterior walls. Plaintiffs used the
7
guest/entertainment room to host friends and family for game nights, as well as for rest and for leisure for their
8 guests and themselves.
9
Plaintiffs’ Investments in Community and Provision of Services Free-of-Charge
10
46. Plaintiffs constructed an extensive workshop, complete with hundreds of tools and an extensive inventory of
11 construction supplies, on the Residence Premises. People came from all over the neighborhood seeking his
12 expertise related to maintaining and repairing cars, bicycles, and electronics, as well as welding, plumbing,
electrical, and carpentry.
13
14 47. Plaintiffs also designed and constructed facilities intended to serve the community, including members of the
house-dwelling community and the non-traditionally-housed community.
15
16 48. Plaintiffs were in actual, peaceable and exclusive possession of the Residence Premises when Defendants and
their associates violently broke down the doors and tore down the walls to Plaintiffs’ Residence Premises.
17
49. During the entire time that Plaintiffs resided on the Residence Premises, Plaintiffs maintained an apartment
18
located in the nearby Lincoln Heights neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles.
19
50. Plaintiffs elected to live at, and make improvements to, the Residence Premises because they recognized that
20
through their actions and activities of starting, maintaining and growing community-based resources,
21
including, but not limited to, a community fridge, community pantry, community meal preparation space,
22 community donation bin, bike repair services and small tool repair services, all provided free-of-charge and
at significant expense to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs were able to positively impact the community members who
23
lived and worked around the Residence Premises in direct and profound ways that provided Plaintiffs a deep
24
sense of connection and meaning. All such community services provided by Plaintiffs were provided free-of-
25 charge to any person without regard to individual characteristics, including, but not limited to, race, gender,
housing status, employment status, income sources, disability, criminal history or belief system. (See Exhibit
26
B: Free food pantry, community member and some of Plaintiffs’ tools and supplies stored in Plaintiffs’
27
Cardinal trailer on Residence Premises)
28
10
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 Plaintiffs’ Vehicles, Personal Property and Special Property
2 51. At all times herein mentioned, and in particular in February and March, 2022, Plaintiffs were, and still are,
owners and/or entitled to possession of, and were, and still are, entitled to possession of the following vehicles
3
and personal property:
4
a. A customized vehicle with California license plate number 4NE5342 and Vehicle Identification
5
Number (VIN) L4WC1H815LA255651, (hereinafter, the “Solar Trailer”), which at the time of taking
6 by Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, had a value of at least $50,000.00;
7
b. A customized vehicle with California license plate number TZC610 and Vehicle Identification Number
8 (VIN) F35YRA59846 (hereinafter, the “Casita”), which at the time of taking by Defendants and their
9 Co-Conspirators, had a value of at least $50,000.00;
10 c. A customized vehicle with California license plate number 4CD1398 and Vehicle Identification
11 Number (VIN) 1SALN11E0G2J00042 (hereinafter, the “Custom Motorcycle Trailer”), which at the
time of taking by Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, had a value of at least $5,000.00;
12
13 d. A customized travel trailer vehicle (hereinafter, the “Cardinal”), which at the time of taking by
Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, had a value of at least $20,000.00;
14
e. Other vehicles located in and around the Residence Premises, including Plaintiffs’ 2004 Silver Toyota
15
Corolla;
16
f. Additions and improvements to Plaintiffs’ vehicles;
17
18 g. All personal property stored in, on and around Plaintiffs’ vehicles and in and around the Residence
Premises and real property over which Plaintiffs had actual, peaceable and exclusive possession and
19
control to the exclusion of the whole world, including to the exclusion of Defendants; and
20
h. All additions and improvements to the Residence Premises and its curtilage, including walls, doors,
21
enclosures, cultivated plants and turfgrass, landscaping and other additions and improvements to the
22 Residence Premises.
23
52. In addition to Plaintiffs’ personal vehicles, Plaintiffs also had ownership and possession of their personal
24 property, located in, on, around and connected to Plaintiffs’ vehicles, such property having a value of at least
25 $400,000.00, which as a consequence of Defendants and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators’ actions, including, but
not limited to, the taking and towing of Plaintiffs’ vehicles by Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, were
26
stolen, damaged, destroyed and/or lost. Plaintiffs allege that all such losses are a direct consequence of
27 Defendants’ actions.
28
11
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 Defendants’ and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators’ Promises, Permission and Agreements – Plaintiffs’
Tenancy At-Will
2
53. Plaintiffs allege that they enjoyed a landlord-tenant relationship with Defendants’ Co-Conspirators’ Scenic
3
Expressions, Inc., Mark Larinto, Tyler Larinto, and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators, who acted, and each of
4 them, through themselves and their agents, as Plaintiffs’ landlords. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and
5 thereupon allege that their tenancy was a tenancy-at-will, created pursuant to promises, both explicit and
implicit, made to them by Defendants’ Co-Conspirators and their agents and by intentional acts and omissions
6
of Defendants’ Co-Conspirators in relation to Plaintiffs’ occupancy of the Residence Premises.
7
54. Pursuant to such tenancy-at-will, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and their Co-Conspirators were duty-bound
8
by statute and common law obligations in their actions directed at Plaintiffs, including duties concerning
9 notices, harassment, utilities, and termination of tenancy. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ alleged status as tenants-
at-will of Defendants’ Co-Conspirators on the Residence Premises, Plaintiffs were at all times since on or
10
about May of 2021, in actual, peaceable, and exclusive possession of the Residence Premises.
11
55. On or about June 1st, 2021, Chevy Chase Property onsite security contractor, Miguel, who has been a
12
permanent tenant residing on the Chevy Chase Property for years, instructed Plaintiffs to use the water utility
13
available on the Chevy Chase Property as a permanent water utility connection for maintaining the Residence
14 Premises. Plaintiffs connected a freshwater hose to a hose bib located on the southwest side of the Warehouse
on the Chevy Chase Property, immediately adjacent to a freight loading dock and employee entrance, such
15
dock and entrance being used on a daily basis by Defendants, their Co-Conspirators and their associates.
16
56. On or about June 7th, 2021, in the afternoon, Defendants Co-Conspirators’ onsite security employee, Miguel,
17
advised Plaintiffs that the “Manager” of the Chevy Chase Property wanted to discuss some things with
18 Plaintiffs. Miguel advised Plaintiffs that their own tenancy of years and their employment were both under
19 the “Manager”, and that the “Manager” was “El Jefe” and was responsible for making and enforcing all
decisions, agreements and contracts relating to the Chevy Chase Property and the affairs of the Defendants
20
and their Co-Conspirators. Miguel then directed and accompanied Plaintiffs to the northeast side of the Chevy
21 Chase Property and toward the business office of Scenic Expressions, Inc., located in the Warehouse, in order
22 to speak with the “Manager”.
23 57. Felipe Leal Aguilar (“Felipe”) is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a competent adult conducting
24 business in Los Angeles County, California.
25 58. Plaintiffs then met Felipe Leal Aguilar, who security employee and tenant-of-years, Miguel, introduced to
26 Plaintiffs, in Spanish, as “El Jefe” and then in English as the “Manager” of the business and Chevy Chase
Property.
27
28
12
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 59. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Felipe is, and at all times relevant to their action
was, the principal and person-in-charge responsible for the use of the real property and the business operations
2
at the Chevy Chase Property.
3
60. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that during all times herein relevant, Felipe’s
4
responsibilities included the execution and enforcement of contracts and agreements concerning the use of the
5 Chevy Chase Property, the business operations of Defendants’ Co-Conspirators, including, but not limited to,’
6 Scenic Expressions, Inc., Mark Larinto and Tyler Larinto.
7 a. Alternatively, in his senior position with Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, Felipe was responsible
8 for managing the use of the Chevy Chase Property and acted as a principal of Defendants’ Co-
Conspirators Scenic Expressions, Inc. while Defendants’ Co-Conspirators Mark and Tyler Larinto
9
acted as the actual and/or ostensible agents of Felipe, such agency authorized in order to carry-out the
10 property management responsibilities for the Chevy Chase Property. Plaintiffs are informed and
11 believe and thereon allege that such responsibilities included the negotiation and execution of contracts
and agreements and the execution and enforcement of contracts and agreements concerning the Chevy
12
Chase Property and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators Scenic Expressions, Inc., Mark Larinto and Tyler
13 Larinto.
14
61. Felipe advised Plaintiffs of an intermittent water leak he had noticed where Plaintiffs’ water hose connected
15 to the water utility on the Chevy Chase Property. Felipe asked Plaintiffs to be conscientious about water loss
16 because of the water shortages and drought we are experiencing in California. Felipe explicitly directed
Plaintiffs to use as much of the water utility as they needed and to please be mindful to not waste any that they
17
did not use or need.
18
62. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Felipe was acting as the principal or agent of
19
Defendants’ Co-Conspirators Scenic Expressions, Inc., their owners and directors, and/or the Defendants’ Co-
20 Conspirators Mark and Tyler Larinto, when he gave explicit permission to Plaintiffs to exclusively reside in
21 and occupy the Residence Premises.
22 63. Felipe implored Plaintiffs to simply ask him if Plaintiffs needed anything else besides possession of the
23 Residence Premises where they were residing and maintaining residence and Felipe would assist in any way
he could.
24
25 64. After meeting with Felipe, onsite security tenant and contractor Miguel informed Plaintiffs that Defendants’
Co-Conspirators, including managers and Felipe, were happy about the additional security and crime
26
deterrence provided by Plaintiffs on account of Plaintiffs’ presence, Plaintiffs’ 24-hour security cameras and
27 Plaintiffs’ 360-degree floodlights.
28
13
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 Plaintiffs’ Continuous Actual, Peaceable and Exclusive Possession of Residence Premises
2 65. Since on or about May 2021, and including about eight months following the above-described interactions
between Plaintiffs and Felipe, Plaintiffs enjoyed actual and peaceable possession of the Residence Premises
3
to the exclusion of the world. During this period of about eight months, Defendants and their Co-Conspirators
4 observed Plaintiffs and their activities, including living and working, on and around the Residence Premises
5 on a near daily basis, often interacting with Plaintiffs, yet not once entering onto Plaintiff’s Residence
Premises. Miguel, who regularly communicated with Felipe and with managers and employees of Scenic
6
Expressions, Inc., constantly reassured Plaintiffs that Defendants were very pleased with Plaintiffs’
7 maintenance, improvements and care of the Residence Premises.
8
Plaintiffs’ Continuous and Ongoing Improvements to Residence Premises
9
66. With the good faith understanding that they were tenants-at-will on the Residence Premises, and enjoying
10 actual, peaceable and exclusive possession of the Residence Premises, Plaintiffs continued to invest
11 significantly in the improvement of the Residence Premises.
12 67. Plaintiffs continued to improve the Residence Premises throughout 2021 and 2022. Improvements made by
13 Plaintiffs included grading, planting of perennial plants, landscaping, installation of approximately 1,000
square feet of turf grass sod and installation of groundcover including approximately 1,000 cubic feet of wood
14
mulch and straw. Plaintiffs’ improvements and maintenance to Residence Premises also included regular tree
15 trimming, debris removal and ongoing maintenance and irrigation of landscaping. Additionally, Plaintiffs
16 continued to provide crime deterrence with 24-hour area floodlights and recorded video monitoring.
17 68. Plaintiffs maintained their exclusive possession of the Residence Premises peaceably, never by force, threats
or menacing conduct. Defendants, their employees, agents, principals, Defendants’ Co-Conspirators, LAPD
18
officers, and Park Rangers never entered or attempted to enter onto the Residence Premises until on or about
19
March 1st, 2022, when by menacing threats and violent incursion, Defendants and Defendants’ Co-
20 Conspirators forcibly broke into, entered upon and detained the Residence Premises and have by menacing
conduct, threats and physical barriers continued to detain the Residence Premises from Plaintiffs.
21
22 Larinto Co-Conspirators
23 69. On or about September 7th, 2021, Plaintiffs first learned of the existence of Mark and Tyler Larinto when
Defendants’ Co-Conspirator Mark Larinto came to Verdant Street at the boundary of the Residence Premises.
24
Plaintiffs observed Defendants’ Co-Conspirator Mark Larinto’s presence on Verdant Street via Plaintiffs’
25 security camera monitor inside their home, Plaintiffs’ Casita. Plaintiff Giron went outside and met Defendants’
26 Co-Conspirator Mark Larinto outside the Residence Premises. Plaintiff Giron and Defendants’ Co-
Conspirator Mark Larinto talked for about 20 minutes, after which Defendants’ Co-Conspirator Mark Larinto
27
left and Plaintiff Giron went inside the Residence Premises.
28
14
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 Defendants’ Deceptions, Misrepresentations, Harassment and Threats
2 70. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators,
including, but not limited to, Scenic Expressions, Inc., Mark Larinto and Tyler Larinto had personally
3
observed and were fully aware of Plaintiffs’ ongoing, actual, peaceable and exclusive possession of the
4 Residence Premises since at least as early as July of 2021.
5
71. On or about the month of September or October 2021, and after at least four months of continuous water
6 utility, and without notice or warning to Plaintiffs, Defendants and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators disconnected
7 Plaintiffs’ freshwater hose utility and removed the water utility connection by permanently capping it.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants and their Co-Conspirators took this
8
action in order to compel Plaintiffs to vacate the Residence Premises, later accuse Plaintiffs of utility theft,
9 create an increased fire hazard in order to falsely blame Plaintiffs and justify Defendants’ harassment of, and
10 violence toward, Plaintiffs, intentionally cause and/or exacerbate a conflagration in order to obtain an
insurance windfall by the intentional burning of the decrepit and derelict Warehouse, and to endanger
11
Plaintiffs’ lives and property by depriving them of water resources necessary to protect against a fire and to
12 live.
13
72. Notwithstanding Defendants’ and their Co-Conspirators’ termination of Plaintiffs’ water utility, Plaintiffs
14 never caused any uncontrolled fire on the Residence Premises. Plaintiffs were forced to import tens of
15 thousands of gallons of water to the Residence Premises and install storage tanks and solar-powered pumps
in order to maintain the landscaping/irrigation, for household uses, and for safety and preparation in light of
16
Defendants’ and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators’ dangerous, malicious and reckless termination of utilities,
17 nefarious motives and the consequential elevated risks to life and property that their behavior created.
18
73. Plaintiffs increased security of the Residence Premises in the months of September, October, and November
19 2021 by completing construction of exterior walls, installation of additional privacy fencing, exterior doors,
20 doorbell, and additional exterior lighting and security cameras.
21 74. At no point prior to November of 2021 did any Defendant or Defendants’ Co-Conspirator ask Plaintiffs or
22 communicate to Plaintiffs any request, demand or desire that Plaintiffs vacate or abandon the Residence
Premises.
23
24 The Eviction Notice and Defendants’ Escalating Threats and Menacing Conduct
75. On November 23rd, 2021, Plaintiffs’ friend advised Plaintiff Levihn-Coon that several individuals were in the
25
street outside the Residence Premises, and they asked to speak with Plaintiff Giron, whereupon Plaintiff
26
Levihn-Coon alerted Plaintiff Giron, who went outside to find Defendants and their Co-Conspirators on
27 Verdant Street.
28
15
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
1 76. Plaintiff Levihn-Coon listened from the interior side of the Residence Premises wall while observing Plaintiff
Giron and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators on a remote security camera monitor and the interaction that ensued
2
between Plaintiff Giron, Defendants and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators, including, but not limited to, Mark
3 Larinto and Tyler Larinto, as well as other individuals whose identities are unknown at this time to Plaintiffs.
4
77. Plaintiffs then observed Defendants’ Co-Conspirator, Tyler Larinto, and another unknown individual posting
5 documents with the title “EVICTION NOTICE”, such notices signed by Defendants’ Co-Conspirators’ Mark
6 Larinto, Robert Larinto and Tyler Larinto, to multiple places on Plaintiffs’ vehicles and exterior walls and
doors of Residence Premises.
7
8 78. A true and correct copy of the Eviction Notice is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C.
9 79. The posted Eviction Notice stated in part:
10
"You will be given until Tuesday 11/30/21 to vacate the Premises, 4000 Chevy Chase Dr. Easement
11 (Property of Scenic Expression Inc.) adjacent to the park. In compliance with applicable laws for the
12 State of California. Do note, all personal belongings that have been illegally placed on private
property will be removed and disposed of. If these items have not been removed by Tuesday
13
11/30/21, our team will proceed to remove all items and have them disposed of. The LAPD is aware
14 of the situation and will be monitoring as such."
15
"PLEASE BE ADVISED THEIR SITUATION MAY CAUSE A SAFETY HAZARD DUE TO THE FACT
16 THERE WILL BE HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY ON THE PREMISES TO ASSIST IN
17 THE REMOVAL PROCEES. YOU ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO REMOVE YOUR ITEMS PRIOR
TO THIS DATE. PLEASE DO NOT BE ON THE PREMISES ON THIS DATE 11/30/21 AND
18
MOVING FORWARD".
19
80. In the conversation between Defendant Mark and Plaintiff Giron, Plaintiff Levihn-Coon heard Defendants’
20
Preview
1 Ryan Levihn-Coon Lena Giron 2 3360 N. San Fernando Rd. #1070 3 Los Angeles, CA 90065 Email: HELP@justiceoverviolence.com 4 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 RYAN LEVIHN-COON, an individual, Case No.: 12 and Date of Filing: 29 March 2024 13 LENA GIRON, an individual, 14 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & 15 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 16 1. Battery v. 17 2. Assault 18 GREGORY TOSHIO DOI, JR., and 3. Physical Invasion of Privacy 19 (Cal. Civ. Code §1708.8) – DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Intrusion Upon Seclusion 20 21 Defendants. 4. Trespass 22 5. Trespass to Chattels 23 6. Conversion 24 7. Forcible Entry 25 26 8. Forcible Detainer 27 28 1 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 9. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 2 10. Violations of Los Angeles 3 Civil & Human Rights Law 4 11. Statutory Violations of Los 5 Angeles Civil Harassment Ordinance 6 7 12. Violations of CCP 527.6 & 527.8; Civil Harassment 8 (Restraining Order) 9 13. Negligence (Negligent Infliction of Emotional 10 Distress) 11 14. Negligence/Personal Injury 12 (Incorporating Willful Misconduct) 13 14 15. Violations of the Tom Banes Civil Rights Act 15 16. Conspiracy — Aid & Abet 16 17 17. Nuisance 18 19 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 20 21 22 23 24 Plaintiffs Ryan Levihn-Coon and Lena Giron are individuals and complain and allege upon their own 25 knowledge with respect to themselves and upon information and belief with respect to all other matters, as follows: 26 27 I. 28 INTRODUCTION & PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 2 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 1. Plaintiffs have suffered egregious and ongoing injury, harassment, harm and loss caused by the Defendants named herein that is still continuing to this day. 2 3 2. Plaintiffs file this action in order to hold Defendants accountable for the menacing campaign of terror, intimidation and violence that they perpetrated against Plaintiffs, on account of which they suffered the loss 4 of their home, their vehicles, their personal property, their community and their well-being. 5 3. Plaintiffs file this Complaint in order to protect themselves, their family, their home and their property from 6 Defendants and their campaign of harassment and terror directed at Plaintiffs and to be made whole from the 7 losses and the damages Plaintiffs suffered due to Defendants’ outrageous misdeeds, including, but in no way 8 limited to, violent invasion of Plaintiffs’ land, home and property, violent acts perpetrated against Plaintiff Ryan Levihn-Coon while he was in his own home, forcible invasion into Plaintiffs’ home while Plaintiff was 9 inside, driving a vehicle at Plaintiff Giron and verbally threatening Plaintiff Giron, vandalism of Plaintiffs’ 10 security camera systems, theft of Plaintiffs’ most personal possessions, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs’ 11 US Mail and home computer, from Plaintiffs’ most private spaces, and, ultimately, Defendants’ total destruction, taking and demolition of Plaintiffs’ home, vehicles and personal property. 12 13 4. Plaintiffs initiate this lawsuit to hold the Defendants, specifically Gregory Toshio Doi, Jr. and his accomplices, accountable for their sustained campaign of violence, intimidation and harm. Defendants’ campaign has 14 resulted in substantial losses for the Plaintiffs, including the loss of their home, vehicles, personal belongings, 15 community ties, peace-of-mind and well-being. 16 5. Furthermore, this Complaint is filed to safeguard the Plaintiffs and their families from further harassment and 17 threats from the Defendants with the aim of restoring Plaintiffs’ security and allowing Plaintiffs to recover 18 from the significant damages and losses proximately inflicted on Plaintiffs by the Defendants and their wrongful actions. 19 20 II. 21 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 22 6. As each Defendant’s principal place of business and/or residence is in the County of Los Angeles, Los 23 Angeles Superior Court is a proper venue for this matter. Further, this Court has personal authority over Defendants on the grounds that Defendants conduct or transact business, reside in, and/or are employed within 24 this state and thus have purposely availed themselves of the laws and privileges thereof. 25 7. Furthermore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged herein, and this venue is proper 26 because all of the alleged acts and omissions occurred in and around the real property that forms the basis of 27 the subject matter of this Complaint, commonly known as 4000 Chevy Chase Drive, and its environs, in the 28 3 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, including, without limitation, Plaintiffs’ Residence Premises. 2 3 III. 4 THE PARTIES 5 8. Ryan Levihn-Coon (“Plaintiff”) at all times herein mentioned was a competent adult resident of the City of 6 Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. 7 9. Lena Giron (“Plaintiff”) at all times herein mentioned was a competent adult resident of the City of Los 8 Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. 9 10. Defendant Gregory Toshio Doi, Jr. (hereinafter, “Defendant”, “Defendant Doi” and/or “Defendant Greg 10 Doi”), at all times herein mentioned, was a competent adult resident of Los Angeles County, California. Defendant Doi has used many aliases, including, but not limited to, Greg Doi, Gregory Doi, Greg Doi, Jr. and 11 Gregory Doi, Jr. (See Exhibit E: Defendant Greg Doi) 12 11. Defendant Gregory Toshio Doi, Jr. is, and at all times relevant to this action, was a competent adult living in 13 and conducting business in Los Angeles County and upon information and belief is alleged to reside at his 14 property located at 2900 Stocker Plz, Los Angeles, California 90008 (APN: 2812-063-025), at 500 North 15 Rossmore, Unit 107, Los Angeles, CA 91351 (APN: 2836-040-230), or at some other location in Los Angeles County. 16 17 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Doi was born and raised in Honolulu, Hawaii and has worked as a lighting technician in the film industry in addition to having produced several 18 low-budget motion picture films. 19 13. Defendant Doi has been absent from the State of California on numerous occasions (including, but not limited 20 to, extended visits to Hawaii, Arizona and Oklahoma) since the accrual of the causes of action alleged in this 21 Complaint, and therefore, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 351, the statutes of limitations relevant to 22 Plaintiffs’ causes of actions were tolled during the pendency of Defendant Doi’s absence from the State of California. 23 14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each Defendant and Doe Defendant in this action 24 has been absent from the State of California on at least one occasion since the accrual of the causes of action 25 alleged in this Complaint, and therefore, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 351, the statutes of limitations 26 relevant to Plaintiffs’ causes of actions were tolled during the pendency of Defendants’ absence from the State of California. 27 28 4 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 15. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1–100, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege 2 their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that 3 each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, 4 and that Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Doi knows the true and correct names of the Doe 5 Defendants sued herein. 6 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Doe 1 and Defendant Doe 2 are friends 7 and/or associates of Defendant Doi. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the true 8 identities of Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2 are known to Defendant Doi. (See Exhibits F and G: Defendants 9 Doe 1 and Doe 2) 10 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times herein mentioned each of the 11 Defendants, including all Defendants sued under fictitious names, was the agent and employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and the actions and/or any failure to act alleged in this Complaint were done by 12 Defendants and/or agents and employees of Defendants, acting within the scope of their employment/agency, 13 and with Defendant’s permission and consent. 14 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on such basis allege, that Defendants, at all times herein mentioned, 15 were the agents and employees of their codefendants and in doing the things hereinafter alleged were acting 16 within the course and scope of such agency and the permission and consent of their codefendants. 17 19. Unless otherwise specified, reference to Defendants shall refer to acts or omissions of Defendants by and 18 through their employees and agents. 19 20. Whereas Defendants are mentioned in this Complaint, “Defendants” shall mean each individual defendant, 20 individually and collectively. 21 21. Each reference in this Complaint to “defendant,” “defendants,” or a specifically named defendant refers also 22 to all defendants sued under fictitious names. 23 22. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, negligently hired, trained, and supervised their employees and agents as alleged in this Complaint, including, but not limited to, entry 24 onto/into Plaintiffs’ vehicles and real property, taking of, and interference with, Plaintiffs’ property and 25 vehicles, and destruction of Plaintiffs’ real and personal property. 26 23. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that each of said Defendants is in some manner fraudulently, 27 maliciously, oppressively, intentionally, negligently, and/or otherwise responsible for the acts, omissions, 28 occurrences, and transactions alleged herein. 5 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based upon such information and belief, allege that, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, partners, and alter egos of 2 the remaining Defendants, that the acts complained of herein were done within the course and scope of said 3 agency, service, employment, and partnership, and that the acts by each Defendant was ratified, approved and 4 adopted by each of the remaining Defendants. 5 25. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should 6 have known that they owed legal duties to Plaintiffs regarding the Residence Premises and Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy and peace in Plaintiffs’ home, Plaintiffs’ personal rights and Plaintiffs’ property rights but 7 Defendants’ despicably, illegally, intentionally, fraudulently, maliciously, oppressively, outrageously, 8 wrongfully, recklessly, and/or negligently violated and breached those duties in order to increase Defendants' 9 profits to Plaintiffs’ injury and detriment. 10 26. Because Defendants had many collaborators as they conducted the acts and omissions described in this 11 Complaint, most of whom have identities that are currently unknown to Plaintiffs despite Plaintiffs’ reasonable efforts made to ascertain their identities, Plaintiffs include Doe Defendants in this case in order to preserve 12 their claims against such Defendants, and Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true identities 13 when Plaintiffs ascertain such information. The Doe Defendants in this Complaint include agents, associates, 14 and employees of Defendant Doi, Defendant Doe 1 and Defendant 2, and include all individuals and entities not included in the above-itemized list of Co-Conspirators and who are defendants in another pending lawsuit. 15 16 Defendants’ Co-Conspirators 17 27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants had many Co-Conspirators who conspired with Defendants to undertake the actions described in this Complaint, including, but not limited to, 18 the following Co-Conspirators: 19 a. Mark Andrew Larinto; 20 b. Tyler Vincent Larinto; 21 22 c. Scenic Expressions, Inc.; and 23 d. Agents and employees of Scenic Expressions, Inc., Tyler Larinto and Mark Larinto as identified in 24 pending California Superior Court Case Number 24STCV05152. 25 28. These above-identified Co-Conspirators are defendants in a separate lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs, which is 26 currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court and identified by Case Number 24STCV05152. 27 Plaintiffs’ Special Vulnerabilities and Defendants’ Special Duties 28 6 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 29. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class due to their disabilities, which substantially impair one or more of Plaintiffs’ major life activities. In addition, their conditions also placed them at higher risk for contracting and 2 developing complications from COVID. 3 30. Furthermore, as tenants-at-will of Defendants’ agents and Co-Conspirators, at all times relevant to this action 4 Defendants owed a special duty of care to Plaintiffs. 5 31. The landlord-tenant relationship established between Plaintiffs and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators is 6 recognized under California law as a special relationship that imposes specific obligations on the landlord, 7 including but not limited to, the duty to refrain from harassment of tenants, the duty to not enter tenants’ 8 premises without right, the duty to provide certain notices required by law, the duty to provide a habitable living environment, the duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition, and the duty to conduct repairs in a 9 timely manner. 10 32. A multitude of California appellate decisions offer broad support for the special relationship and duties of care 11 owed by Defendants to Plaintiffs, and elucidate the extent and nature of the obligations imposed on landlords 12 towards their tenants, including: 13 a. Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185: This case affirms that landlords owe a duty of care 14 to their tenants and outlines the scope of their duty, including the maintenance of common areas and 15 the provision of adequate security measures. 16 b. Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108: Although primarily addressing the duty of care owed to 17 invitees, their landmark decision is foundational in understanding the broader principles of negligence that apply to landlord-tenant relationships. 18 19 c. Hinson v. Delis (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 62: In this case, the court held that landlords have a duty to inspect the premises before leasing to discover latent defects and thereafter to maintain the premises 20 by conducting necessary repairs and ensuring the property is safe for tenants. 21 d. Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903: This case expanded on the landlord's liability for 22 failing to provide safe premises, specifically in the context of criminal acts by third parties, highlighting 23 the landlord's obligation to take reasonable security measures. 24 e. Werner v. Knoll (1948) 89 Cal.App.2d 474: This case discusses the landlord's general duty of care to 25 tenants, emphasizing the importance of maintaining safe and habitable premises. 26 f. Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46: Clarifies the scope of the implied warranty of habitability 27 and a landlord's duty to repair defects that exist at the inception of the tenancy. 28 7 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 g. Cummings v. Stanley (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 493: Discusses a landlord's obligations under the implied warranty of habitability and the consequences of failing to address hazardous conditions on the 2 property. 3 COVID CONTEXT 4 33. Tenants and residential occupants have long been the target of harassment by unscrupulous landlords. The 5 Housing and Community Investment Department in the city of Los Angeles noted in a 2018 report that the 6 agency investigates some 10,000 complaints of tenant harassment annually. The agency estimated that around 7 36 percent of those complaints related to illegal evictions while another 20 percent related to a reduction of housing services. 8 9 34. The devastating problem of tenant harassment, which forces tenants to choose between indignity and harm or leaving their home, has only increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. 10 11 35. In response to their heightened level of harassment occurring during the pandemic, several cities enacted tenant anti-harassment policies that give tenants a private right of action to challenge landlord behavior. Other 12 California jurisdictions, Los Angeles County included, had already established these sorts of protections 13 before the pandemic started. However, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors through their emergency 14 powers applied and expanded tenant harassment protections throughout the County, effective September 1, 2020, stating that “[t]their Board is dedicated to protecting tenants vulnerable to COVID-19 from undue 15 harassment and retaliation for their actions during the pandemic.” The Board has extended these critical 16 protections through December 31, 2022. 17 36. The COVID-19 pandemic hit Los Angeles County especially hard, causing widespread disruptions in civic 18 life. As of March 15, 2022, roughly 2.82 million county residents had tested positive for COVID-19 and over 19 32,000 people had died of the disease. The so-called “Delta variant” of the virus caused even more devastation in the County, with daily infection rates reaching roughly 2,000 people and hospitalization rates doubling in 20 just two weeks in the month of July. 21 37. The Omicron variant was even worse. Starting at just 13 percent of new U.S. infections as of December 11, 22 2021, Omicron jumped to a staggering 73 percent of new U.S. infections as of December 20, 2021, only nine 23 days later! Twice as transmissible as Delta and four times as transmissible as the original COVID-19 strain, Omicron was spreading in Los Angeles. The subsequent BA.2 subvariant of Omicron was even more 24 transmissible and was poised to become the dominant form of Omicron. For tenants at risk of displacement, 25 the rise of Omicron meant an increased probability of contracting a potentially deadly disease. 26 27 IV. 28 STATEMENT OF FACTS 8 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 The Residence Premises and Plaintiffs’ Arrival 2 38. On or about May 20, 2021, Plaintiffs drove their Casita, personal automobile, Solar Trailer and Cardinal Trailer to the east side of Verdant Street, south of the intersection of Verdant Street and Chevy Chase Drive, 3 which is the certain west part of the Chevy Chase Property, as identified in Exhibit A of this Complaint, 4 including its curtilage, adjacent parking area, concrete foundation, structures, buildings, walls, utilities, 5 cultivated grounds, landscaping, fixtures, appurtenances, amenities and space above and below the land, and which are referred to hereinafter as the “Residence Premises”. Plaintiffs entered unobstructed onto the 6 Residence Premises by simply driving onto the unoccupied and unmaintained and overgrown land 7 immediately outside a wire fence located directly west of the Warehouse located to the east of Verdant Street. 8 39. The location of the Residence Premises can additionally be described as being bordered on the west by Verdant 9 Street and North Atwater Park (“Park”), on the south by 3949 East Verdant Street (APN: 5594016004), on 10 the north by 3990 Chevy Chase Drive (APN# 5594016001), and along the east by the warehouse building of the former Albert Van Luit Wallpaper Factory (the “Warehouse”). (See Maps Identifying Residence Premises, 11 Exhibit A) 12 40. Since on or about May 20th, 2021, Plaintiffs continuously resided on a part of the real property and parcel 13 located at 4000 Chevy Chase Drive, Los Angeles, California, 90039, such property recorded by the Los 14 Angeles County as Tax Assessor Parcel Number 5594015019 and/or Parcel APN# 5594-016-015 ("Chevy 15 Chase Property"). 16 41. Plaintiffs lived, worked, and were at all times relevant to this action in actual, peaceable and exclusive 17 possession of the Residence Premises. 18 42. At all relevant times, the Residence Premises and Chevy Chase Property were private real property as a matter 19 of law. 20 Plaintiffs’ Improvements and Additions to Residence Premises 21 43. Plaintiffs continuously maintained all landscaping, structures and buildings on the Residence Premises and its curtilage. Plaintiffs substantially improved the land through irrigation, cultivation and landscaping. Plaintiffs 22 were at all times responsible for the new construction on the Residence Premises, including the erection of 23 permanent walls that fully enclosed the interior yard of the Residence Premises, as well as kitchen and dining 24 facilities, guest room, dining and living areas and Plaintiffs’ workshop. Plaintiffs constructed the walled enclosure and other construction, cultivation and landscaping of the Residence Premises in plain view of the 25 world, including Defendants and Plaintiffs’ neighbors, including the employees, managers and owners of 26 Scenic Expressions, Inc., who on a regular, often daily basis, walked and/or drove along Verdant Street, 27 running along the west boundary of the Residence Premises. 28 9 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 44. Plaintiffs constructed the walls of the Residence Premises with doorways for entrance and egress at both the north and south sides. Plaintiffs designed and installed fixtures and equipment for domestic comfort and 2 security, including electronic door locks, a doorbell, security cameras, and extensive exterior lighting. 3 45. Plaintiffs also designed and constructed the kitchen, fully equipped with refrigerators/freezers, two gas stoves, 4 a gas grill, a bathroom with full bathtub and shower, a living room, and a guest/entertainment room, the roof 5 of which Plaintiffs designed and constructed being comprised of more than 300 square feet of solar panels 6 rated to produce nearly 3,000 continuous watts of power. Plaintiff Levihn-Coon constructed the solar roof upon metal columns he engineered and integrated into the exterior walls. Plaintiffs used the 7 guest/entertainment room to host friends and family for game nights, as well as for rest and for leisure for their 8 guests and themselves. 9 Plaintiffs’ Investments in Community and Provision of Services Free-of-Charge 10 46. Plaintiffs constructed an extensive workshop, complete with hundreds of tools and an extensive inventory of 11 construction supplies, on the Residence Premises. People came from all over the neighborhood seeking his 12 expertise related to maintaining and repairing cars, bicycles, and electronics, as well as welding, plumbing, electrical, and carpentry. 13 14 47. Plaintiffs also designed and constructed facilities intended to serve the community, including members of the house-dwelling community and the non-traditionally-housed community. 15 16 48. Plaintiffs were in actual, peaceable and exclusive possession of the Residence Premises when Defendants and their associates violently broke down the doors and tore down the walls to Plaintiffs’ Residence Premises. 17 49. During the entire time that Plaintiffs resided on the Residence Premises, Plaintiffs maintained an apartment 18 located in the nearby Lincoln Heights neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles. 19 50. Plaintiffs elected to live at, and make improvements to, the Residence Premises because they recognized that 20 through their actions and activities of starting, maintaining and growing community-based resources, 21 including, but not limited to, a community fridge, community pantry, community meal preparation space, 22 community donation bin, bike repair services and small tool repair services, all provided free-of-charge and at significant expense to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs were able to positively impact the community members who 23 lived and worked around the Residence Premises in direct and profound ways that provided Plaintiffs a deep 24 sense of connection and meaning. All such community services provided by Plaintiffs were provided free-of- 25 charge to any person without regard to individual characteristics, including, but not limited to, race, gender, housing status, employment status, income sources, disability, criminal history or belief system. (See Exhibit 26 B: Free food pantry, community member and some of Plaintiffs’ tools and supplies stored in Plaintiffs’ 27 Cardinal trailer on Residence Premises) 28 10 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 Plaintiffs’ Vehicles, Personal Property and Special Property 2 51. At all times herein mentioned, and in particular in February and March, 2022, Plaintiffs were, and still are, owners and/or entitled to possession of, and were, and still are, entitled to possession of the following vehicles 3 and personal property: 4 a. A customized vehicle with California license plate number 4NE5342 and Vehicle Identification 5 Number (VIN) L4WC1H815LA255651, (hereinafter, the “Solar Trailer”), which at the time of taking 6 by Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, had a value of at least $50,000.00; 7 b. A customized vehicle with California license plate number TZC610 and Vehicle Identification Number 8 (VIN) F35YRA59846 (hereinafter, the “Casita”), which at the time of taking by Defendants and their 9 Co-Conspirators, had a value of at least $50,000.00; 10 c. A customized vehicle with California license plate number 4CD1398 and Vehicle Identification 11 Number (VIN) 1SALN11E0G2J00042 (hereinafter, the “Custom Motorcycle Trailer”), which at the time of taking by Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, had a value of at least $5,000.00; 12 13 d. A customized travel trailer vehicle (hereinafter, the “Cardinal”), which at the time of taking by Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, had a value of at least $20,000.00; 14 e. Other vehicles located in and around the Residence Premises, including Plaintiffs’ 2004 Silver Toyota 15 Corolla; 16 f. Additions and improvements to Plaintiffs’ vehicles; 17 18 g. All personal property stored in, on and around Plaintiffs’ vehicles and in and around the Residence Premises and real property over which Plaintiffs had actual, peaceable and exclusive possession and 19 control to the exclusion of the whole world, including to the exclusion of Defendants; and 20 h. All additions and improvements to the Residence Premises and its curtilage, including walls, doors, 21 enclosures, cultivated plants and turfgrass, landscaping and other additions and improvements to the 22 Residence Premises. 23 52. In addition to Plaintiffs’ personal vehicles, Plaintiffs also had ownership and possession of their personal 24 property, located in, on, around and connected to Plaintiffs’ vehicles, such property having a value of at least 25 $400,000.00, which as a consequence of Defendants and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators’ actions, including, but not limited to, the taking and towing of Plaintiffs’ vehicles by Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, were 26 stolen, damaged, destroyed and/or lost. Plaintiffs allege that all such losses are a direct consequence of 27 Defendants’ actions. 28 11 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 Defendants’ and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators’ Promises, Permission and Agreements – Plaintiffs’ Tenancy At-Will 2 53. Plaintiffs allege that they enjoyed a landlord-tenant relationship with Defendants’ Co-Conspirators’ Scenic 3 Expressions, Inc., Mark Larinto, Tyler Larinto, and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators, who acted, and each of 4 them, through themselves and their agents, as Plaintiffs’ landlords. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and 5 thereupon allege that their tenancy was a tenancy-at-will, created pursuant to promises, both explicit and implicit, made to them by Defendants’ Co-Conspirators and their agents and by intentional acts and omissions 6 of Defendants’ Co-Conspirators in relation to Plaintiffs’ occupancy of the Residence Premises. 7 54. Pursuant to such tenancy-at-will, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and their Co-Conspirators were duty-bound 8 by statute and common law obligations in their actions directed at Plaintiffs, including duties concerning 9 notices, harassment, utilities, and termination of tenancy. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ alleged status as tenants- at-will of Defendants’ Co-Conspirators on the Residence Premises, Plaintiffs were at all times since on or 10 about May of 2021, in actual, peaceable, and exclusive possession of the Residence Premises. 11 55. On or about June 1st, 2021, Chevy Chase Property onsite security contractor, Miguel, who has been a 12 permanent tenant residing on the Chevy Chase Property for years, instructed Plaintiffs to use the water utility 13 available on the Chevy Chase Property as a permanent water utility connection for maintaining the Residence 14 Premises. Plaintiffs connected a freshwater hose to a hose bib located on the southwest side of the Warehouse on the Chevy Chase Property, immediately adjacent to a freight loading dock and employee entrance, such 15 dock and entrance being used on a daily basis by Defendants, their Co-Conspirators and their associates. 16 56. On or about June 7th, 2021, in the afternoon, Defendants Co-Conspirators’ onsite security employee, Miguel, 17 advised Plaintiffs that the “Manager” of the Chevy Chase Property wanted to discuss some things with 18 Plaintiffs. Miguel advised Plaintiffs that their own tenancy of years and their employment were both under 19 the “Manager”, and that the “Manager” was “El Jefe” and was responsible for making and enforcing all decisions, agreements and contracts relating to the Chevy Chase Property and the affairs of the Defendants 20 and their Co-Conspirators. Miguel then directed and accompanied Plaintiffs to the northeast side of the Chevy 21 Chase Property and toward the business office of Scenic Expressions, Inc., located in the Warehouse, in order 22 to speak with the “Manager”. 23 57. Felipe Leal Aguilar (“Felipe”) is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a competent adult conducting 24 business in Los Angeles County, California. 25 58. Plaintiffs then met Felipe Leal Aguilar, who security employee and tenant-of-years, Miguel, introduced to 26 Plaintiffs, in Spanish, as “El Jefe” and then in English as the “Manager” of the business and Chevy Chase Property. 27 28 12 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 59. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Felipe is, and at all times relevant to their action was, the principal and person-in-charge responsible for the use of the real property and the business operations 2 at the Chevy Chase Property. 3 60. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that during all times herein relevant, Felipe’s 4 responsibilities included the execution and enforcement of contracts and agreements concerning the use of the 5 Chevy Chase Property, the business operations of Defendants’ Co-Conspirators, including, but not limited to,’ 6 Scenic Expressions, Inc., Mark Larinto and Tyler Larinto. 7 a. Alternatively, in his senior position with Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, Felipe was responsible 8 for managing the use of the Chevy Chase Property and acted as a principal of Defendants’ Co- Conspirators Scenic Expressions, Inc. while Defendants’ Co-Conspirators Mark and Tyler Larinto 9 acted as the actual and/or ostensible agents of Felipe, such agency authorized in order to carry-out the 10 property management responsibilities for the Chevy Chase Property. Plaintiffs are informed and 11 believe and thereon allege that such responsibilities included the negotiation and execution of contracts and agreements and the execution and enforcement of contracts and agreements concerning the Chevy 12 Chase Property and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators Scenic Expressions, Inc., Mark Larinto and Tyler 13 Larinto. 14 61. Felipe advised Plaintiffs of an intermittent water leak he had noticed where Plaintiffs’ water hose connected 15 to the water utility on the Chevy Chase Property. Felipe asked Plaintiffs to be conscientious about water loss 16 because of the water shortages and drought we are experiencing in California. Felipe explicitly directed Plaintiffs to use as much of the water utility as they needed and to please be mindful to not waste any that they 17 did not use or need. 18 62. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Felipe was acting as the principal or agent of 19 Defendants’ Co-Conspirators Scenic Expressions, Inc., their owners and directors, and/or the Defendants’ Co- 20 Conspirators Mark and Tyler Larinto, when he gave explicit permission to Plaintiffs to exclusively reside in 21 and occupy the Residence Premises. 22 63. Felipe implored Plaintiffs to simply ask him if Plaintiffs needed anything else besides possession of the 23 Residence Premises where they were residing and maintaining residence and Felipe would assist in any way he could. 24 25 64. After meeting with Felipe, onsite security tenant and contractor Miguel informed Plaintiffs that Defendants’ Co-Conspirators, including managers and Felipe, were happy about the additional security and crime 26 deterrence provided by Plaintiffs on account of Plaintiffs’ presence, Plaintiffs’ 24-hour security cameras and 27 Plaintiffs’ 360-degree floodlights. 28 13 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 Plaintiffs’ Continuous Actual, Peaceable and Exclusive Possession of Residence Premises 2 65. Since on or about May 2021, and including about eight months following the above-described interactions between Plaintiffs and Felipe, Plaintiffs enjoyed actual and peaceable possession of the Residence Premises 3 to the exclusion of the world. During this period of about eight months, Defendants and their Co-Conspirators 4 observed Plaintiffs and their activities, including living and working, on and around the Residence Premises 5 on a near daily basis, often interacting with Plaintiffs, yet not once entering onto Plaintiff’s Residence Premises. Miguel, who regularly communicated with Felipe and with managers and employees of Scenic 6 Expressions, Inc., constantly reassured Plaintiffs that Defendants were very pleased with Plaintiffs’ 7 maintenance, improvements and care of the Residence Premises. 8 Plaintiffs’ Continuous and Ongoing Improvements to Residence Premises 9 66. With the good faith understanding that they were tenants-at-will on the Residence Premises, and enjoying 10 actual, peaceable and exclusive possession of the Residence Premises, Plaintiffs continued to invest 11 significantly in the improvement of the Residence Premises. 12 67. Plaintiffs continued to improve the Residence Premises throughout 2021 and 2022. Improvements made by 13 Plaintiffs included grading, planting of perennial plants, landscaping, installation of approximately 1,000 square feet of turf grass sod and installation of groundcover including approximately 1,000 cubic feet of wood 14 mulch and straw. Plaintiffs’ improvements and maintenance to Residence Premises also included regular tree 15 trimming, debris removal and ongoing maintenance and irrigation of landscaping. Additionally, Plaintiffs 16 continued to provide crime deterrence with 24-hour area floodlights and recorded video monitoring. 17 68. Plaintiffs maintained their exclusive possession of the Residence Premises peaceably, never by force, threats or menacing conduct. Defendants, their employees, agents, principals, Defendants’ Co-Conspirators, LAPD 18 officers, and Park Rangers never entered or attempted to enter onto the Residence Premises until on or about 19 March 1st, 2022, when by menacing threats and violent incursion, Defendants and Defendants’ Co- 20 Conspirators forcibly broke into, entered upon and detained the Residence Premises and have by menacing conduct, threats and physical barriers continued to detain the Residence Premises from Plaintiffs. 21 22 Larinto Co-Conspirators 23 69. On or about September 7th, 2021, Plaintiffs first learned of the existence of Mark and Tyler Larinto when Defendants’ Co-Conspirator Mark Larinto came to Verdant Street at the boundary of the Residence Premises. 24 Plaintiffs observed Defendants’ Co-Conspirator Mark Larinto’s presence on Verdant Street via Plaintiffs’ 25 security camera monitor inside their home, Plaintiffs’ Casita. Plaintiff Giron went outside and met Defendants’ 26 Co-Conspirator Mark Larinto outside the Residence Premises. Plaintiff Giron and Defendants’ Co- Conspirator Mark Larinto talked for about 20 minutes, after which Defendants’ Co-Conspirator Mark Larinto 27 left and Plaintiff Giron went inside the Residence Premises. 28 14 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 Defendants’ Deceptions, Misrepresentations, Harassment and Threats 2 70. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators, including, but not limited to, Scenic Expressions, Inc., Mark Larinto and Tyler Larinto had personally 3 observed and were fully aware of Plaintiffs’ ongoing, actual, peaceable and exclusive possession of the 4 Residence Premises since at least as early as July of 2021. 5 71. On or about the month of September or October 2021, and after at least four months of continuous water 6 utility, and without notice or warning to Plaintiffs, Defendants and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators disconnected 7 Plaintiffs’ freshwater hose utility and removed the water utility connection by permanently capping it. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants and their Co-Conspirators took this 8 action in order to compel Plaintiffs to vacate the Residence Premises, later accuse Plaintiffs of utility theft, 9 create an increased fire hazard in order to falsely blame Plaintiffs and justify Defendants’ harassment of, and 10 violence toward, Plaintiffs, intentionally cause and/or exacerbate a conflagration in order to obtain an insurance windfall by the intentional burning of the decrepit and derelict Warehouse, and to endanger 11 Plaintiffs’ lives and property by depriving them of water resources necessary to protect against a fire and to 12 live. 13 72. Notwithstanding Defendants’ and their Co-Conspirators’ termination of Plaintiffs’ water utility, Plaintiffs 14 never caused any uncontrolled fire on the Residence Premises. Plaintiffs were forced to import tens of 15 thousands of gallons of water to the Residence Premises and install storage tanks and solar-powered pumps in order to maintain the landscaping/irrigation, for household uses, and for safety and preparation in light of 16 Defendants’ and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators’ dangerous, malicious and reckless termination of utilities, 17 nefarious motives and the consequential elevated risks to life and property that their behavior created. 18 73. Plaintiffs increased security of the Residence Premises in the months of September, October, and November 19 2021 by completing construction of exterior walls, installation of additional privacy fencing, exterior doors, 20 doorbell, and additional exterior lighting and security cameras. 21 74. At no point prior to November of 2021 did any Defendant or Defendants’ Co-Conspirator ask Plaintiffs or 22 communicate to Plaintiffs any request, demand or desire that Plaintiffs vacate or abandon the Residence Premises. 23 24 The Eviction Notice and Defendants’ Escalating Threats and Menacing Conduct 75. On November 23rd, 2021, Plaintiffs’ friend advised Plaintiff Levihn-Coon that several individuals were in the 25 street outside the Residence Premises, and they asked to speak with Plaintiff Giron, whereupon Plaintiff 26 Levihn-Coon alerted Plaintiff Giron, who went outside to find Defendants and their Co-Conspirators on 27 Verdant Street. 28 15 Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 1 76. Plaintiff Levihn-Coon listened from the interior side of the Residence Premises wall while observing Plaintiff Giron and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators on a remote security camera monitor and the interaction that ensued 2 between Plaintiff Giron, Defendants and Defendants’ Co-Conspirators, including, but not limited to, Mark 3 Larinto and Tyler Larinto, as well as other individuals whose identities are unknown at this time to Plaintiffs. 4 77. Plaintiffs then observed Defendants’ Co-Conspirator, Tyler Larinto, and another unknown individual posting 5 documents with the title “EVICTION NOTICE”, such notices signed by Defendants’ Co-Conspirators’ Mark 6 Larinto, Robert Larinto and Tyler Larinto, to multiple places on Plaintiffs’ vehicles and exterior walls and doors of Residence Premises. 7 8 78. A true and correct copy of the Eviction Notice is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C. 9 79. The posted Eviction Notice stated in part: 10 "You will be given until Tuesday 11/30/21 to vacate the Premises, 4000 Chevy Chase Dr. Easement 11 (Property of Scenic Expression Inc.) adjacent to the park. In compliance with applicable laws for the 12 State of California. Do note, all personal belongings that have been illegally placed on private property will be removed and disposed of. If these items have not been removed by Tuesday 13 11/30/21, our team will proceed to remove all items and have them disposed of. The LAPD is aware 14 of the situation and will be monitoring as such." 15 "PLEASE BE ADVISED THEIR SITUATION MAY CAUSE A SAFETY HAZARD DUE TO THE FACT 16 THERE WILL BE HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY ON THE PREMISES TO ASSIST IN 17 THE REMOVAL PROCEES. YOU ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO REMOVE YOUR ITEMS PRIOR TO THIS DATE. PLEASE DO NOT BE ON THE PREMISES ON THIS DATE 11/30/21 AND 18 MOVING FORWARD". 19 80. In the conversation between Defendant Mark and Plaintiff Giron, Plaintiff Levihn-Coon heard Defendants’ 20