Preview
1 HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq., SBN: 278622
2 haig@hbklawyers.com
Raffi Tapanian, Esq., SBN: 345246
3 raffi@hbklawyers.com
801 N. BRAND BLVD., SUITE 970
4 GLENDALE, CA 91203
Phone: 1-818-696-2306
5 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10 VERONIQUE WILLIAMS, an individual; Case No.
SHAWN HORNSBY, an individual; L.H., a
11 minor by and through her guardian SHAWN COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
HORNSBY, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
12
(1) PRIVATE NUISANCE
13 PLAINTIFFS,
(2) NEGLIGENCE
14
v. (3) BREACH OF WARRANTY OF
15 HABITABILITY
16 CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the (4) BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD
SURVIVOR’S TRUST created under the FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
17 KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9,
2011; CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the (5) BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT
18 MARITAL TRUST created under the KAPIN OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011;
19 CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the (6) VIOLATION OF CA CIVIL CODE
EXEMPTION TRUST created under the
20 KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, §1941; CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
2011; MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
21 (7) VIOLATION OF CA CIVIL CODE
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 §1942.4; WRONGFUL RENT
through 50, Inclusive
22 COLLECTION/INCRESE, AND/OR
NOTICE TO PAY OR QUIT
23 DEFENDANTS. (8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
24 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
25 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
26
27
28
-1-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 COMES NOW PLAINTIFFS VERONIQUE WILLIAMS, SHAWN HORNSBY, L.H.
2 (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF VERONIQUE, PLAINTIFF SHAWN, PLAINTIFF L.H.” and
3 collectively, “PLAINTIFFS”) with complaints against above-named CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee
4 of the SURVIVOR’S TRUST created under the KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9,
5 2011; CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the MARITAL TRUST created under the KAPIN LIVING
6 TRUST dated September 9, 2011; CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the EXEMPTION TRUST
7 created under the KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011; MOSS MANAGEMENT
8 SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive, (hereinafter
9 collectively “DEFENDANTS” or “LANDLORDS”) and alleges as follows:
10 INTRODUCTION
11 1. In this action, PLAINTIFFS seek monetary damages against DEFENDANTS
12 stemming from DEFENDANTS’ improper and negligent maintenance of PLAINTIFFS’ leased
13 premises, commonly referred to as 2034 Argyle Ave. Unit #103, Los Angeles, CA 90068
14 (hereinafter “PREMISES”).
15 2. This case involves uninhabitable conditions of a rental property and claims of slum
16 housing conditions including: the lack of smoke detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water
17 leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors,
18 all found in the PREMISES, in violation of Civil Code §§1941 and 1942, Health and Safety Code
19 17920, and related subsections.
20 3. In addition, due to the negligent repairs and/or intentional failure to make repairs,
21 DEFENDANTS have caused further exacerbation of the previously stated issues upon the
22 PREMISES.
23 4. The PREMISES is designated as a multi-family residence. PLAINTIFFS believe,
24 and thereupon allege, that the PREMISES is owned, co-owned, operated, managed and maintained
25 by DEFENDANTS.
26 5. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ failure to properly maintain the PREMISES,
27 PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in slum-conditions, suffered personal injury, emotional distress,
28 loss of personal property, and loss in the value of their leasehold as a result of these conditions.
-2-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 6. DEFENDANTS ignored PLAINTIFFS’ repeated complaints and multiple Code
2 Enforcement Reports prepared by agencies responsible for enforcing housing laws.
3 7. Although DEFENDANTS had actual and constructive notice and knowledge of
4 these untenantable conditions, DEFENDANTS nevertheless failed to repair and/or ameliorate the
5 conditions at the PREMISES.
6 8. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS failure to maintain the
7 PREMISES in a decent, safe, and habitable condition, and despite having ample notice and
8 opportunity to maintain the PREMISES, PLAINTIFFS have suffered personal injury, emotional
9 distress, loss of personal property, and loss in the value of their leasehold.
10 PARTIES
11 A. PLAINTIFFS
12 9. PLAINTIFF VERONIQUE is an adult individual and resident in the County of Los
13 Angeles, California and was injured in the County of Los Angeles, California.
14 10. PLAINTIFF SHAWN is an adult individual and resident in the County of Los
15 Angeles, California and was injured in the County of Los Angeles, California.
16 11. PLAINTIFF L.H. is a minor individual by and through her guardian SHAWN
17 HORNSBY and resident in the County of Los Angeles, California and was injured in the County
18 of Los Angeles, California.
19 B. DEFENDANTS
20 12. CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the SURVIVOR’S TRUST created under the
21 KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is an individual, and PLAINTIFF alleges on
22 information and belief, that CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the SURVIVOR’S TRUST created
23 under the KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is and/or was the owner, co-owner,
24 operator, agent, and/or property manager of the PREMISES at all times relevant to this complaint.
25 13. CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the MARITAL TRUST created under the KAPIN
26 LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is an individual, and PLAINTIFF alleges on
27 information and belief, that CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the MARITAL TRUST created under
28 the KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is and/or was the owner, co-owner,
-3-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 operator, agent, and/or property manager of the PREMISES at all times relevant to this complaint.
2 14. CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the EXEMPTION TRUST created under the
3 KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is an individual, and PLAINTIFF alleges on
4 information and belief, that CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the EXEMPTION TRUST created
5 under the KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is and/or was the owner, co-owner,
6 operator, agent, and/or property manager of the PREMISES at all times relevant to this complaint.
7 15. MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. was, and now is, a California
8 Corporation, existing under the laws of the State of California and located in the County of Los
9 Angeles, California. MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. is the owner and/or the property
10 manager of the PREMISES and managing agent for the owner of the PREMISES with authority to
11 act on behalf of the owner of the PREMISES.
12 16. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereupon allege DEFENDANTS
13 owned, controlled, managed, and/or operated the PREMISES at all times relevant to this claim.
14 17. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereupon allege that at all times
15 relevant hereto, the PREMISES was under DEFENDANTS control and power, and at the time of
16 PLAINTIFFS’ occupation of the PREMISES, DEFENDANTS had direct communication with
17 PLAINTIFFS by and through their managing agents and employees about the condition of the
18 PREMISES on multiple occasions.
19 18. The true identities and capacities of DEFENDANTS DOES 1 through 50 inclusive,
20 whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are presently unknown to PLAINTIFFS who
21 therefore sue DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil
22 Procedure §474. PLAINTIFFS contend that these DOE DEFENDANTS owned, rented, leased,
23 possessed, managed, operated, repaired, maintained, and controlled and/or supervised the subject
24 property at all relevant times herein. When their true names and capacities are ascertained,
25 PLAINTIFFS will amend this Complaint by asserting the true names and capacities of these DOE
26 DEFENDANTS.
27 19. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereupon allege, that at all times
28 pertinent to this complaint, that all the acts and failures to act alleged herein were duly performed
-4-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 and attributable to DEFENDANTS, acting as agents, under employee or under the direction and
2 control of the others. That the acts and failures to act herein alleged were within the scope of their
3 agency and/or employment, and DEFENDANTS ratified the acts and omissions by the other
4 DEFENDANTS. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any acts by
5 DEFENDANTS, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean the acts of each
6 DEFENDANT acting individually, jointly or severally.
7 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8 20. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to California Code of Civil
9 Procedure §410.10 because the actions forming the allegations contained herein occurred within
10 the County of Los Angeles.
11 21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over DEFENDANTS because PLAINTIFFS’
12 losses occurred in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and because the PREMISES
13 owned by DEFENDANTS is located in the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
14 22. Venue is proper because DEFENDANTS exist, transact business in, and/or
15 maintain the PREMISES in question in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, City of
16 Los Angeles.
17 FACTS
18 23. PLAINTIFFS commenced tenancy of the PREMISES on or about May 5, 2021
19 subject to a one-year lease agreement evidenced in writing.
20 24. PLAINTIFFS made payments on the lease until PLAINTIFFS were
21 constructively evicted on or about December 12, 2022.
22 25. The lease required PLAINTIFFS to pay $1,653.61 each month in exchange for
23 housing.
24 26. DEFENDANTS, as owner/s, and/or property manager/s of the PREMISES and/or
25 managing agent/s for the owner/s of the PREMISES with authority to act on behalf of the owner/s
26 of the PREMISES, executed the lease which was also signed by PLAINTIFFS. As such, both
27 parties agreed upon the terms stated therein.
28 27. PLAINTIFFS did not breach the contract, and paid rent on time each and every
-5-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 month since the lease was signed between the parties as agreed.
2 28. Because of this lease, DEFENDANTS, at all times relevant to this complaint,
3 owed a nondelegable duty of reasonable care to PLAINTIFFS to maintain the PREMISES in a
4 habitable condition.
5 29. A true and correct copy of this lease agreement between the parties is hereto
6 attached as "Exhibit A."
7 30. Throughout PLAINTIFFS’ tenancy, PLAINTIFFS put DEFENDANTS on notice
8 when PLAINTIFFS complained to DEFENDANTS about the uninhabitable conditions of the
9 property, including, but not limited to: the lack of smoke detectors, missing seal around tub spout,
10 water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged
11 doors.
12 31. Despite these complaints, DEFENDANTS either failed or did not try to abate the
13 uninhabitable conditions found in the PREMISES. DEFENDANTS constant disregard for these
14 complaints resulted in unbearable living conditions for PLAINTIFFS, in violation of the implied
15 warranty of habitability.
16 32. As a result, PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions in the
17 PREMISES which caused PLAINTIFFS emotional distress to the point where PLAINTIFFS had
18 trouble sleeping, and had very high levels of stress and anxiety which affected PLAINTIFFS’
19 normal daily activities.
20 33. DEFENDANTS actions and inactions perpetuated the nuisance that
21 DEFENDANTS created and allowed to endure as a result of their negligent maintenance of the
22 PREMISES and/or their intentional disregard for maintenance of the PREMISES.
23 34. PLAINTIFFS contacted the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD), a code
24 enforcement agency responsible for the enforcement of housing laws, because of the substandard
25 conditions created by DEFENDANTS, who repeatedly ignored PLAINTIFFS’ pleas that
26 DEFENDANTS abate these conditions.
27 35. PLAINTIFFS contacted the LAHD to complain of the uninhabitable and slum-like
28 conditions at the PREMISES.
-6-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 36. As a result, an inspection of the PREMISES was conducted on March 9, 2022 by
2 inspector Jonathan Antoon, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD.
3 37. In a written report prepared pursuant to that inspection, Jonathan Antoon, a code
4 enforcement agent with the LAHD, sent notice to DEFENDANTS regarding violations at the
5 PREMISES.
6 38. In the notice, DEFENDANTS were ordered to remedy a number of violations that
7 were found at the PREMISES including, but not limited to: the lack of smoke detectors, missing
8 seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub,
9 deteriorated and/or damaged doors.
10 39. Jonathan Antoon, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD, gave notice in writing
11 to DEFENDANTS about the substandard conditions of the PREMISES.
12 40. DEFENDANTS did not take appropriate action in response to the notice provided
13 by the LAHD and made either insufficient attempts or no attempts to ameliorate the issues as
14 instructed by the LAHD.
15 41. As a result, PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions in the
16 PREMISES which caused PLAINTIFFS emotional distress to the point where PLAINTIFFS had
17 trouble sleeping, and had very high levels of stress and anxiety which affected PLAINTIFFS’
18 normal daily activities.
19 42. DEFENDANTS actions and inactions perpetuated the conditions that
20 DEFENDANTS created and allowed to endure as a result of their negligent maintenance of the
21 PREMISES and/or their intentional disregard for maintenance of the PREMISES.
22 43. As a result of DEFENDANTS continued and repeated failures, PLAINTIFFS were
23 forced to contact the LAHD again.
24 44. As a result, a reinspection of the PREMISES was conducted on April 20, 2022 by
25 inspector Jonathan Antoon, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD.
26 45. In a written report prepared pursuant to that inspection, Jonathan Antoon, a code
27 enforcement agent with the LAHD, sent notice to DEFENDANTS regarding violations at the
28 PREMISES.
-7-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 46. In the notice, DEFENDANTS were ordered to remedy a number of violations that
2 were found at the PREMISES including, but not limited to: missing seal around tub spout, water
3 leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors.
4 47. Among the violations DEFENDANTS were ordered to remedy were the still
5 outstanding violations from the previous inspection, performed on March 9, 2022, including, but
6 not limited to: missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint,
7 deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors. DEFENDANTS failure to repair the
8 water leaks despite DEFENDANTS being placed on notice was intentional, and DEFENDANTS
9 intentionally caused injury to PLAINTIFFS because DEFENDANTS knew, as any reasonable
10 landlord would, that water leaks is an uninhabitable and substandard housing condition that would
11 likely lead to mold, which would likely cause serious health effects to the inhabitants.
12 Additionally, DEFENDANTS failure to repair the excessive condensation is despicable conduct
13 that subjected PLAINTIFFS to cruel and unjust hardship, because PLAINTIFFS were forced to
14 live at the PREMISES as these conditions persisted. Therefore, DEFENDANTS’ actions were
15 willful, oppressive, and malicious, and DEFENDANTS acted with disregard for PLAINTIFFS’
16 rights as the water leaks persisted at the PREMISES, despite DEFENDANTS having notice by
17 PLAINTIFFS and/or the LAHD since on or about March 9, 2022.
18 48. Jonathan Antoon, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD, gave notice in writing
19 to DEFENDANTS about the substandard conditions of the PREMISES.
20 49. DEFENDANTS did not take appropriate action in response to the notice provided
21 by the LAHD and made either insufficient attempts or no attempts to ameliorate the issues as
22 instructed by the LAHD.
23 50. As a result, PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions in the
24 PREMISES which caused PLAINTIFFS emotional distress to the point where PLAINTIFFS had
25 trouble sleeping, and had very high levels of stress and anxiety which affected PLAINTIFFS’
26 normal daily activities.
27 51. DEFENDANTS actions and inactions perpetuated the conditions that
28 DEFENDANTS created and allowed to endure as a result of their negligent maintenance of the
-8-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 PREMISES and/or their intentional disregard for maintenance of the PREMISES.
2 52. As a result of DEFENDANTS continued and repeated failures, PLAINTIFFS were
3 forced to contact the LAHD again.
4 53. As a result, a reinspection of the PREMISES was conducted on July 1, 2022 by
5 inspector Brandon Vega, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD.
6 54. In a written report prepared pursuant to that inspection, Brandon Vega, a code
7 enforcement agent with the LAHD, sent notice to DEFENDANTS regarding violations at the
8 PREMISES.
9 55. In the notice, DEFENDANTS were ordered to remedy a number of violations that
10 were found at the PREMISES from the previous inspections, performed on March 9, 2022 and
11 April 20, 2022.
12 56. Brandon Vega, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD, gave notice in writing to
13 DEFENDANTS about the substandard conditions of the PREMISES.
14 57. DEFENDANTS did not take appropriate action in response to the notice provided
15 by the LAHD and made either insufficient attempts or no attempts to ameliorate the issues as
16 instructed by the LAHD.
17 58. As a result, PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions in the
18 PREMISES which caused PLAINTIFFS emotional distress to the point where PLAINTIFFS had
19 trouble sleeping, and had very high levels of stress and anxiety which affected PLAINTIFFS’
20 normal daily activities.
21 59. DEFENDANTS actions and inactions perpetuated the conditions that
22 DEFENDANTS created and allowed to endure as a result of their negligent maintenance of the
23 PREMISES and/or their intentional disregard for maintenance of the PREMISES.
24 60. As a result of DEFENDANTS continued and repeated failures, PLAINTIFFS were
25 forced to contact the LAHD again.
26 61. As a result, a reinspection of the PREMISES was conducted on July 7, 2022 by
27 inspector Grant Chang, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD.
28 62. In a written report prepared pursuant to that inspection, Grant Chang, a code
-9-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 enforcement agent with the LAHD, sent notice to DEFENDANTS regarding violations at the
2 PREMISES.
3 63. In the notice, DEFENDANTS were ordered to remedy a number of violations that
4 were found at the PREMISES from the previous inspections, performed on March 9, 2022, April
5 20, 2022, and July 1, 2022.
6 64. Grant Chang, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD, gave notice in writing to
7 DEFENDANTS about the substandard conditions of the PREMISES.
8 65. DEFENDANTS did not take appropriate action in response to the notice provided
9 by the LAHD and made either insufficient attempts or no attempts to ameliorate the issues as
10 instructed by the LAHD.
11 66. As a result, PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions in the
12 PREMISES which caused PLAINTIFFS emotional distress to the point where PLAINTIFFS had
13 trouble sleeping, and had very high levels of stress and anxiety which affected PLAINTIFFS’
14 normal daily activities.
15 67. DEFENDANTS actions and inactions perpetuated the conditions that
16 DEFENDANTS created and allowed to endure as a result of their negligent maintenance of the
17 PREMISES and/or their intentional disregard for maintenance of the PREMISES.
18 68. On or about July 26, 2022, text messages between PLAINTIFFS and
19 DEFENDANT reveal that DEFENDANTS had intentionally failed to repair the deteriorated
20 bathtub as the bathtub had still not been repaired.
21 69. DEFENDANTS did not act in good faith when ignoring PLAINTIFFS’ complaints
22 regarding the PREMISES’ uninhabitable conditions, which landlords are required to do by law
23 and contract. PLAINTIFFS continued to pay the full consideration of their lease contract, and paid
24 rent in full. However, DEFENDANTS completely and utterly ignored PLAINTIFFS’ requests to
25 the point that it is now clear that DEFENDANTS had no intention of making the PREMISES
26 habitable. DEFENDANTS breached their duty maliciously to provide a habitable PREMISES and
27 failed to act in good faith as a result.
28 70. DEFENDANTS had multiple opportunities to remedy the substandard conditions
- 10 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 found in the PREMISES, evidenced by the multiple written notices sent to DEFENDANTS by
2 PLAINTIFFS and/or code enforcement agencies on or about, but not limited to, the following
3 dates: March 9, 2022, April 20, 2022, July 1, 2022, July 7, 2022, and July 26, 2022.
4 71. For example, DEFENDANTS knew of the deteriorated bathtub because the LAHD
5 gave written notice to DEFENDANTS on or about March 9, 2022, April 20, 2022, July 1, 2022,
6 and July 7, 2022, and PLAINTIFFS gave written notice to DEFENDANTS through text messages
7 on or about July 26, 2022. DEFENDANTS failed to repair the deteriorated bathtub, instead,
8 elected to ignore PLAINTIFFS and/or code enforcement agencies. Due to DEFENDANTS failure
9 to repair the issues, the issues persisted throughout the PLAINTIFFS’ tenancy at the PREMISES.
10 DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned actions were willful, oppressive, and malicious, and
11 DEFENDANTS acted with disregard for PLAINTIFFS’ rights, evidenced by deteriorated bathtub
12 issue persisting for months throughout PLAINTIFFS’ tenancy at the PREMISES.
13 72. In addition to the bathtub issues at the PREMISES, DEFENDANTS failed to repair
14 the other issues at the PREMISES, including but not limited to: the lack of smoke detectors,
15 missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated and/or
16 damaged doors. This further evidences that DEFENDANTS’ actions were willful, oppressive, and
17 malicious, and DEFENDANTS acted with disregard for PLAINTIFFS’ rights. DEFENDANTS
18 failed to repair the uninhabitable conditions at the PREMISES despite being given multiple
19 written notices from March 2022 through July 2022 by PLAINTIFFS and/or code enforcement
20 agencies.
21 73. DEFENDANTS had multiple opportunities to remedy the substandard conditions
22 found in the PREMISES but failed to do so. Instead, DEFENDANTS elected to ignore
23 PLAINTIFFS and the LAHD.
24 74. PLAINTIFFS allege that the delay by DEFENDANTS in making repairs was
25 without good cause. PLAINTIFFS further allege that the DEFENDANTS had multiple
26 opportunities to remedy the substandard conditions found on the PREMISES, but failed to do so in
27 violation of their non-delegable duty.
28 75. In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1942.4, DEFENDANTS were not
- 11 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 permitted to demand rent from or collect rent from PLAINTIFFS at any time after thirty-five (35)
2 days had elapsed after the citations were served.
3 76. DEFENDANTS were notified in writing by the LAHD about substantial violations
4 regarding inspections of the PREMISES on or about March 9, 2022.
5 77. Subsequent correspondence between PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS, as well as
6 subsequently performed reinspections by the LAHD, show that DEFENDANTS failed to abate the
7 substandard conditions within the thirty-five (35) day period beyond the date of service of citation.
8 78. Notwithstanding such law, DEFENDANTS and their agents have violated Civil
9 Code Section 1942.4 by attempting to collect rent and actually collecting rent after these dates.
10 Therefore, DEFENDANTS must refund any such rent collected to PLAINTIFFS.
11 79. PLAINTIFFS, after months of living in the substandard conditions in the
12 PREMISES, were forced to abandon the premises on or about December 12, 2022.
13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14 PRIVATE NUISANCE
15 (By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive)
16 80. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in
17 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
18 81. DEFENDANTS caused, created, and/or maintained harmful conditions in the
19 PREMISES. These conditions, outlined in greater detail above, include, but are not limited to: the
20 lack of smoke detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged
21 paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors.
22 82. The dangerous and harmful conditions in the PLAINTIFFS’ PREMISES were and
23 are injurious to health and indecent and offensive to the senses and have interfered substantially
24 with PLAINTIFFS’ comfortable enjoyment of their PREMISES. DEFENDANTS failed to abate
25 these conditions despite notice of the conditions and a reasonable opportunity to abate them. These
26 dangerous and harmful conditions that the DEFENDANTS caused constitute a private nuisance
27 within, but not limited to, the meaning of California Civil Code Sections 3479 and 2481
28 83. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ creation and maintenance of
- 12 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 the nuisance, PLAINTIFFS have suffered and continues to suffer personal injury, emotional
2 distress, loss of personal property, and loss in the value of their leasehold in an amount to be
3 proven at trial but which amount is within the jurisdictional requirement of this court.
4 84. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and their corporate employees, representatives,
5 officers, affiliates, assigns, managing agents, and/or personnel at the managerial level ratified,
6 approved, and authorized the violative acts of DEFENDANTS’ statutory duties as alleged herein.
7 PLAINTIFFS complained and reported these violations to DEFENDANTS’ management
8 personnel via e-mail, text, and verbal correspondences but to no avail.
9 85. Specifically, even though DEFENDANTS were aware of the dangerous and
10 uninhabitable conditions existing at the PREMISES, some of which were directly affecting the
11 health of the PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS either intentionally or negligently failed to make
12 timely repairs.
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
14 NEGLIGENCE OF PREMISES
15 (By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive)
16 86. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in
17 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as set forth herein.
18 87. By owning the PREMISES, by entering into the leases, by otherwise assuming a
19 landlord-tenant relationship with PLAINTIFFS and their authorized tenants, and by managing the
20 PREMISES, DEFENDANTS owed PLAINTIFFS the duty to exercise reasonable care in
21 DEFENDANTS’ ownership, management, and control of the PREMISES.
22 88. The duties owed by DEFENDANTS to PLAINTIFFS, as landlord and/or manager,
23 to exercise reasonable care include, but are not limited to, the duty to provide safe and habitable
24 housing, and the duty to comply with all applicable state and municipal laws governing housing
25 standards and PLAINTIFFS’ rights as tenants, including, but not limited to, those standards set
26 forth in Sections 1941 and 1941.1 of the California Civil Code.
27 89. Despite notice and ability to abate the issues as described throughout this
28 Complaint, DEFENDANTS failed to abate the issues that existed within the PREMISES as
- 13 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 described throughout this Complaint.
2 90. DEFENDANTS continually ignored requests and orders from PLAINTIFFS and
3 Code Enforcement Agencies to remedy the problems they had created through their negligence.
4 91. DEFENDANTS failed to abate damage to property that they created through their
5 negligence when DEFENDANTS continued to use ineffective measures and/or made no attempts
6 to ameliorate the habitability issues present within the PREMESIS as described throughout this
7 Complaint.
8 92. DEFENDANTS so negligently and carelessly owned, operated, and managed the
9 PREMISES by failing to provide habitable premises, by failing to abate the dangerous and
10 harmful conditions at the PREMISES, by failing to protect PLAINTIFFS and their property from
11 physical damage and by failing to protect PLAINTIFFS’ quiet enjoyment of the PREMISES, as to
12 breach each of these duties owed to PLAINTIFFS.
13 93. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ breaches of duties,
14 PLAINTIFFS suffered and continue to suffer serious emotional and physical injury and emotional
15 distress. PLAINTIFFS have been damaged in an amount to be precisely determined according to
16 proof at trial.
17 94. PLAINTIFFS have suffered and continue to suffer special damages, general
18 damages, property damage, and economic loss caused by the lack of smoke detectors, missing seal
19 around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub,
20 deteriorated and/or damaged doors within the PREMSIES, such sum to be precisely determined
21 according to proof at trial.
22 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
23 BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
24 (By PLAINTIFFS for Breach of Warranty of Habitability against DEFENDANTS and Does
25 1 through 50, Inclusive)
26 95. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in
27 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
28 96. By entering into the lease described herein, and by otherwise assuming a landlord-
- 14 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 tenant relationship with PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS impliedly warranted that the PREMISES
2 was and would be habitable. Within residential premises, the warranty of habitability is wide-
3 reaching. It covers each tenant’s own dwelling unit, and also all common areas – including
4 hallways, stairways and the common grounds (Civil Code §1941.1)
5 97. The defective conditions alleged herein constitute violations of state and local
6 housing laws, pose severe health, safety and fire hazards, and breached the implied warranty of
7 habitability.
8 98. As alleged hereinabove, there have existed at the PREMISES materially defective
9 conditions affecting the habitability of the PREMISES. These conditions were not caused by the
10 wrongful or abnormal use of the PREMISES by PLAINTIFFS or anyone acting under their
11 authority. The presence of the lack of smoke detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water leaks,
12 deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors within
13 the PREMISES and the refusal to abate the defective conditions among other details stated above,
14 caused substandard, dangerous, and harmful conditions in the PREMISES.
15 99. As a consequence of these dangerous and harmful conditions in the PREMISES
16 and the failures of DEFENDANTS to maintain in good working condition, the PREMISES
17 occupied by PLAINTIFFS was uninhabitable and unfit for human occupation.
18 100. PLAINTIFFS were unaware of the materially defective conditions at the time she
19 took occupancy of the PREMISES, and in that effect on the habitability of the defective conditions
20 was not apparent upon reasonable inspection.
21 101. Notice of the materially defective conditions was given to DEFENDANTS within a
22 reasonable time after the PLAINTIFFS discovered the breaches of the warranty of habitability.
23 DEFENDANTS have had actual knowledge of the materially defective conditions affecting
24 habitability, and were given a reasonable time to correct them, but failed to remedy them.
25 102. DEFENDANTS had actual knowledge that the PREMISES had no smoke
26 detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint,
27 deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors. DEFENDANTS represented to
28 PLAINTIFFS that the PREMISES was habitable, knowing the unit was uninhabitable and
- 15 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 choosing not to take appropriate measures to make the unit habitable and fit for human occupation.
2 103. As such, DEFENDANTS knowingly placed PLAINTIFFS in an uninhabitable
3 apartment unit which DEFENDANTS knew would cause injury to the PLAINTIFFS.
4 104. DEFENDANTS refused to make proper repairs even after DEFENDANTS were
5 notified in writing by PLAINTIFFS and by the LAHD. By failing to remedy the conditions
6 described herein and above, or to respond to PLAINTIFFS’ repeated requests for repairs and
7 notifications of intolerable condition of the PREMISES, DEFENDANTS breached the implied
8 warranty of habitability implied in all rental contracts under California law.
9 105. As a direct and proximate consequence of the breaches by DEFENDANTS of this
10 covenant, the rental value of the apartment unit located at PREMISES was greatly, if not totally,
11 diminished, to PLAINTIFFS’ damage.
12 106. As a result, PLAINTIFFS have also paid rents in an amount that substantially
13 exceeds the fair rental value of the PREMISES in its uninhabitable condition.
14 107. As further direct and proximate consequence of the breaches by DEFENDANTS of
15 this covenant, PLAINTIFFS suffered special damages, general damages, property damage and
16 economic loss, including loss of enjoyment caused by the substandard conditions at the
17 PREMISES.
18 108. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and their corporate employees, representatives,
19 officers, affiliates, assigns, managing agents, and/or personnel at the managerial level ratified,
20 approved, and authorized the violative acts of DEFENDANTS’ statutory duties as alleged herein.
21 PLAINTIFFS complained and reported these violations to DEFENDANTS verbally and in
22 writing, but to no avail.
23 109. DEFENDANTS at all times had written and verbal notices of the substandard
24 conditions of the PREMISES, had the means, opportunity and ability to abate the substandard
25 conditions, and failed to do so despite knowledge of the impact and effect on the tenant residing
26 therein.
27 ///
28 ///
- 16 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOF FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
3 (By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive)
4 110. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in
5 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as set forth herein.
6 111. In every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by each
7 party not to do anything that will deprive the other parties of the benefits of the contract, and a
8 breach of this covenant by failure to deal fairly or in good faith gives rise to an action for damages.
9 Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., 53 Cal. App. 4th 299, 314, 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d
10 614 (1997); Harm v. Fraser, 181 Cal. App. 2d 405, 415, 5 Cal. Rptr. 367, 373 (1960); Seaman’s
11 Direct Buying Serv., Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 36 Cal. 3d 752, 206 Cal. Rptr. 354 (1984), overruled
12 on other grounds, Freeman & Mills Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co., 11 Cal. 4th 85, 102-03, 44 Cal. Rptr.
13 420 (1995).
14 112. PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS entered into a residential lease agreement
15 whereby PLAINTIFFS obtained possession and enjoyment of the PREMISES as a tenant of their
16 landlord.
17 113. The purpose of the agreement was for PLAINTIFFS to obtain a habitable residence
18 from DEFENDANTS in return for payment of a monthly sum. Therefore, the contract
19 presupposed that DEFENDANTS would put the PREMISES in a condition suitable for a habitable
20 residence, in compliance with all ordinances and code regulations existing at the time.
21 114. PLAINTIFFS fulfilled all, or substantially all, of the requirements under the
22 contract.
23 115. DEFENDANTS did not fulfill their obligations. DEFENDANTS took substandard
24 measures to mend the deficiencies on the PREMISES. In addition, DEFENDANTS were informed
25 multiple times of a breach in contract, but continued to take little to no action to remedy these
26 breaches. Lastly, the DEFENDANTS had opportunity to make repairs to breaches in contract but
27 failed to do so in a timely manner.
28 116. By failing to provide PLAINTIFFS with a habitable residence and failing to repair,
- 17 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 maintain, and remediate the non-compliant aspects of the PREMISES, DEFENDANTS, and each
2 of them, breached the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
3 117. Due to DEFENDANTS’ breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
4 PLAINTIFFS have suffered personal injuries, emotional distress, loss of personal property, and
5 loss in the value of their leasehold in an amount to be proven at trial, but which amount is within
6 the jurisdictional requirement of this court.
7 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENENT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
9 (By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive)
10 118. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in
11 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as set forth herein.
12 119. PLAINTIFFS put DEFENDANTS on notice of the issues regarding the
13 untenantable conditions found at the PREMISES, as describe in detail above, and as incorporated
14 into this cause of action.
15 120. PLAINTIFFS gave notice to DEFENDANTS complaints of the lack of smoke
16 detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint,
17 deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors sending notices (via Code Enforcement
18 Agencies), calling, texting, and meeting with DEFENDANTS and or DEFENDANTS’ agents.
19 121. These habitability problems created a continuing nuisance and interference with
20 PLAINTIFFS’ use and enjoyment of the PREMISES.
21 122. The lack of smoke detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water leaks,
22 deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors within
23 the PREMISES caused emotional distress and were safety hazards for PLAINTIFFS.
24 123. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ acts and omissions as alleged herein, PLAINTIFFS
25 were deprived of the utility, quiet enjoyment, and expected benefits of living peaceably and safely
26 in PLAINTIFFS’ PREMISES and of PLAINTIFFS’ legal right to habitable living quarters.
27 124. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned willful acts
28 and omission, PLAINTIFFS lost the substantial use and quiet enjoyment of their dwelling,
- 18 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 suffering damages and losses.
2 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 VIOLATION OF CA CIVIL CODE §1941; CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
4 (By PLAINTIFFS Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive)
5 125. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in
6 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
7 126. When repair issues force a tenant to abandon a property, the tenant can file a cause
8 of action for constructive eviction. Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d at 921, citing Groh v.
9 Kover’s Bull Pen, Inc., 221 Cal. App. 2d 611 (1963). The property must be in such ill repair that it
10 is unfit for use. Id.
11 127. Because of their acts and omissions, including but not limited to failing to make
12 timely repairs, failing to make effective repairs, and/or failing to make any attempts at repair in a
13 timely fashion DEFENDANTS maintenance of the PREMISES fell fall below the requisite
14 standard of care required to maintain habitability. As a result, the PREMISES was in such ill
15 repair that it was unfit for use.
16 128. Because of the substandard and unlivable conditions of the PREMISES,
17 PLAINTIFFS abandoned the PREMISES. Because PLAINTIFFS were forced to abandon the
18 PREMISES, PLAINTIFFS incurred damages.
19 129. For these reasons, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS as set
20 forth herein below, as provided within CA Civil Code Section 1941.
21 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 WRONGFUL RENT COLLECTION/INCRESE, AND/OR NOTICE TO PAY OR QUIT
23 (By PLAINTIFFS for Violation of California Civil Code §1942.4 Against DEFENDANTS
24 and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive)
25 130. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in
26 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.
27 131. CA Civil Code Section 1942.4 provides in part, “A landlord of a dwelling may not
28 demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of rent increase, or issue a three (3) day notice to pay rent
- 19 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 or quit pursuant to subdivision (2) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if all of the
2 following conditions exist prior to the landlord’s demand or notice:
3 • (1) The dwelling substantially lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics
4 listed in Section 1941.1 violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, or is
5 deemed and declared substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety
6 Code because conditions listed in that section exist to an extent that endangers life, limb,
7 health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling.
8 • (2) A public officer or employee who is responsible for the enforcement of any
9 housing law, after inspecting the premises, has notified the landlord or the landlord’s agent in
10 writing of his or her obligations to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard conditions.
11 • (3) The conditions have existed and have not been abated thirty-five (35) days
12 beyond the date of service of the notice specified in the paragraph (2) and the delay is without
13 good cause. For purposes of this subdivision, service shall be complete at the time of deposit
14 in the United States mail.
15 • (4) The conditions were not caused by an act or omission of the tenant or lessee in
16 violation of Section 1929 or 1941.2”
17 132. PLAINTIFFS allege, and the reports prepared by the appropriate code-enforcement
18 agency show, that the PREMISES lacked any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in
19 Section 1941.1 and/or violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, and/or is deemed
20 and declared substantially substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety
21 Code because conditions in the PREMISES exist to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health,
22 property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling.
23 133. A public employee from the LAHD, who is responsible for the enforcement of
24 housing laws, inspected the PREMISES and notified the landlord or the landlord’s agent, in
25 writing, of his or her obligations to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard conditions on or
26 about.
27 134. Jonathan Antoon from the LAHD, who is responsible for the enforcement of
28 housing laws, found and cited DEFENDANTS, in writing, for the following violations: the lack of
Preview
1 HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq., SBN: 278622 2 haig@hbklawyers.com Raffi Tapanian, Esq., SBN: 345246 3 raffi@hbklawyers.com 801 N. BRAND BLVD., SUITE 970 4 GLENDALE, CA 91203 Phone: 1-818-696-2306 5 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 10 VERONIQUE WILLIAMS, an individual; Case No. SHAWN HORNSBY, an individual; L.H., a 11 minor by and through her guardian SHAWN COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND HORNSBY, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 12 (1) PRIVATE NUISANCE 13 PLAINTIFFS, (2) NEGLIGENCE 14 v. (3) BREACH OF WARRANTY OF 15 HABITABILITY 16 CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the (4) BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD SURVIVOR’S TRUST created under the FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 17 KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011; CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the (5) BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT 18 MARITAL TRUST created under the KAPIN OF QUIET ENJOYMENT LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011; 19 CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the (6) VIOLATION OF CA CIVIL CODE EXEMPTION TRUST created under the 20 KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, §1941; CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION 2011; MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 21 (7) VIOLATION OF CA CIVIL CODE INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 §1942.4; WRONGFUL RENT through 50, Inclusive 22 COLLECTION/INCRESE, AND/OR NOTICE TO PAY OR QUIT 23 DEFENDANTS. (8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 24 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 25 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 26 27 28 -1- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 COMES NOW PLAINTIFFS VERONIQUE WILLIAMS, SHAWN HORNSBY, L.H. 2 (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF VERONIQUE, PLAINTIFF SHAWN, PLAINTIFF L.H.” and 3 collectively, “PLAINTIFFS”) with complaints against above-named CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee 4 of the SURVIVOR’S TRUST created under the KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 5 2011; CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the MARITAL TRUST created under the KAPIN LIVING 6 TRUST dated September 9, 2011; CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the EXEMPTION TRUST 7 created under the KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011; MOSS MANAGEMENT 8 SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive, (hereinafter 9 collectively “DEFENDANTS” or “LANDLORDS”) and alleges as follows: 10 INTRODUCTION 11 1. In this action, PLAINTIFFS seek monetary damages against DEFENDANTS 12 stemming from DEFENDANTS’ improper and negligent maintenance of PLAINTIFFS’ leased 13 premises, commonly referred to as 2034 Argyle Ave. Unit #103, Los Angeles, CA 90068 14 (hereinafter “PREMISES”). 15 2. This case involves uninhabitable conditions of a rental property and claims of slum 16 housing conditions including: the lack of smoke detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water 17 leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors, 18 all found in the PREMISES, in violation of Civil Code §§1941 and 1942, Health and Safety Code 19 17920, and related subsections. 20 3. In addition, due to the negligent repairs and/or intentional failure to make repairs, 21 DEFENDANTS have caused further exacerbation of the previously stated issues upon the 22 PREMISES. 23 4. The PREMISES is designated as a multi-family residence. PLAINTIFFS believe, 24 and thereupon allege, that the PREMISES is owned, co-owned, operated, managed and maintained 25 by DEFENDANTS. 26 5. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ failure to properly maintain the PREMISES, 27 PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in slum-conditions, suffered personal injury, emotional distress, 28 loss of personal property, and loss in the value of their leasehold as a result of these conditions. -2- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 6. DEFENDANTS ignored PLAINTIFFS’ repeated complaints and multiple Code 2 Enforcement Reports prepared by agencies responsible for enforcing housing laws. 3 7. Although DEFENDANTS had actual and constructive notice and knowledge of 4 these untenantable conditions, DEFENDANTS nevertheless failed to repair and/or ameliorate the 5 conditions at the PREMISES. 6 8. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS failure to maintain the 7 PREMISES in a decent, safe, and habitable condition, and despite having ample notice and 8 opportunity to maintain the PREMISES, PLAINTIFFS have suffered personal injury, emotional 9 distress, loss of personal property, and loss in the value of their leasehold. 10 PARTIES 11 A. PLAINTIFFS 12 9. PLAINTIFF VERONIQUE is an adult individual and resident in the County of Los 13 Angeles, California and was injured in the County of Los Angeles, California. 14 10. PLAINTIFF SHAWN is an adult individual and resident in the County of Los 15 Angeles, California and was injured in the County of Los Angeles, California. 16 11. PLAINTIFF L.H. is a minor individual by and through her guardian SHAWN 17 HORNSBY and resident in the County of Los Angeles, California and was injured in the County 18 of Los Angeles, California. 19 B. DEFENDANTS 20 12. CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the SURVIVOR’S TRUST created under the 21 KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is an individual, and PLAINTIFF alleges on 22 information and belief, that CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the SURVIVOR’S TRUST created 23 under the KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is and/or was the owner, co-owner, 24 operator, agent, and/or property manager of the PREMISES at all times relevant to this complaint. 25 13. CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the MARITAL TRUST created under the KAPIN 26 LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is an individual, and PLAINTIFF alleges on 27 information and belief, that CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the MARITAL TRUST created under 28 the KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is and/or was the owner, co-owner, -3- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 operator, agent, and/or property manager of the PREMISES at all times relevant to this complaint. 2 14. CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the EXEMPTION TRUST created under the 3 KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is an individual, and PLAINTIFF alleges on 4 information and belief, that CLARE LITHGOW, Trustee of the EXEMPTION TRUST created 5 under the KAPIN LIVING TRUST dated September 9, 2011, is and/or was the owner, co-owner, 6 operator, agent, and/or property manager of the PREMISES at all times relevant to this complaint. 7 15. MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. was, and now is, a California 8 Corporation, existing under the laws of the State of California and located in the County of Los 9 Angeles, California. MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. is the owner and/or the property 10 manager of the PREMISES and managing agent for the owner of the PREMISES with authority to 11 act on behalf of the owner of the PREMISES. 12 16. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereupon allege DEFENDANTS 13 owned, controlled, managed, and/or operated the PREMISES at all times relevant to this claim. 14 17. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereupon allege that at all times 15 relevant hereto, the PREMISES was under DEFENDANTS control and power, and at the time of 16 PLAINTIFFS’ occupation of the PREMISES, DEFENDANTS had direct communication with 17 PLAINTIFFS by and through their managing agents and employees about the condition of the 18 PREMISES on multiple occasions. 19 18. The true identities and capacities of DEFENDANTS DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, 20 whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are presently unknown to PLAINTIFFS who 21 therefore sue DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil 22 Procedure §474. PLAINTIFFS contend that these DOE DEFENDANTS owned, rented, leased, 23 possessed, managed, operated, repaired, maintained, and controlled and/or supervised the subject 24 property at all relevant times herein. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, 25 PLAINTIFFS will amend this Complaint by asserting the true names and capacities of these DOE 26 DEFENDANTS. 27 19. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereupon allege, that at all times 28 pertinent to this complaint, that all the acts and failures to act alleged herein were duly performed -4- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 and attributable to DEFENDANTS, acting as agents, under employee or under the direction and 2 control of the others. That the acts and failures to act herein alleged were within the scope of their 3 agency and/or employment, and DEFENDANTS ratified the acts and omissions by the other 4 DEFENDANTS. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any acts by 5 DEFENDANTS, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean the acts of each 6 DEFENDANT acting individually, jointly or severally. 7 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8 20. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to California Code of Civil 9 Procedure §410.10 because the actions forming the allegations contained herein occurred within 10 the County of Los Angeles. 11 21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over DEFENDANTS because PLAINTIFFS’ 12 losses occurred in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and because the PREMISES 13 owned by DEFENDANTS is located in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. 14 22. Venue is proper because DEFENDANTS exist, transact business in, and/or 15 maintain the PREMISES in question in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, City of 16 Los Angeles. 17 FACTS 18 23. PLAINTIFFS commenced tenancy of the PREMISES on or about May 5, 2021 19 subject to a one-year lease agreement evidenced in writing. 20 24. PLAINTIFFS made payments on the lease until PLAINTIFFS were 21 constructively evicted on or about December 12, 2022. 22 25. The lease required PLAINTIFFS to pay $1,653.61 each month in exchange for 23 housing. 24 26. DEFENDANTS, as owner/s, and/or property manager/s of the PREMISES and/or 25 managing agent/s for the owner/s of the PREMISES with authority to act on behalf of the owner/s 26 of the PREMISES, executed the lease which was also signed by PLAINTIFFS. As such, both 27 parties agreed upon the terms stated therein. 28 27. PLAINTIFFS did not breach the contract, and paid rent on time each and every -5- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 month since the lease was signed between the parties as agreed. 2 28. Because of this lease, DEFENDANTS, at all times relevant to this complaint, 3 owed a nondelegable duty of reasonable care to PLAINTIFFS to maintain the PREMISES in a 4 habitable condition. 5 29. A true and correct copy of this lease agreement between the parties is hereto 6 attached as "Exhibit A." 7 30. Throughout PLAINTIFFS’ tenancy, PLAINTIFFS put DEFENDANTS on notice 8 when PLAINTIFFS complained to DEFENDANTS about the uninhabitable conditions of the 9 property, including, but not limited to: the lack of smoke detectors, missing seal around tub spout, 10 water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged 11 doors. 12 31. Despite these complaints, DEFENDANTS either failed or did not try to abate the 13 uninhabitable conditions found in the PREMISES. DEFENDANTS constant disregard for these 14 complaints resulted in unbearable living conditions for PLAINTIFFS, in violation of the implied 15 warranty of habitability. 16 32. As a result, PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions in the 17 PREMISES which caused PLAINTIFFS emotional distress to the point where PLAINTIFFS had 18 trouble sleeping, and had very high levels of stress and anxiety which affected PLAINTIFFS’ 19 normal daily activities. 20 33. DEFENDANTS actions and inactions perpetuated the nuisance that 21 DEFENDANTS created and allowed to endure as a result of their negligent maintenance of the 22 PREMISES and/or their intentional disregard for maintenance of the PREMISES. 23 34. PLAINTIFFS contacted the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD), a code 24 enforcement agency responsible for the enforcement of housing laws, because of the substandard 25 conditions created by DEFENDANTS, who repeatedly ignored PLAINTIFFS’ pleas that 26 DEFENDANTS abate these conditions. 27 35. PLAINTIFFS contacted the LAHD to complain of the uninhabitable and slum-like 28 conditions at the PREMISES. -6- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 36. As a result, an inspection of the PREMISES was conducted on March 9, 2022 by 2 inspector Jonathan Antoon, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD. 3 37. In a written report prepared pursuant to that inspection, Jonathan Antoon, a code 4 enforcement agent with the LAHD, sent notice to DEFENDANTS regarding violations at the 5 PREMISES. 6 38. In the notice, DEFENDANTS were ordered to remedy a number of violations that 7 were found at the PREMISES including, but not limited to: the lack of smoke detectors, missing 8 seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, 9 deteriorated and/or damaged doors. 10 39. Jonathan Antoon, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD, gave notice in writing 11 to DEFENDANTS about the substandard conditions of the PREMISES. 12 40. DEFENDANTS did not take appropriate action in response to the notice provided 13 by the LAHD and made either insufficient attempts or no attempts to ameliorate the issues as 14 instructed by the LAHD. 15 41. As a result, PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions in the 16 PREMISES which caused PLAINTIFFS emotional distress to the point where PLAINTIFFS had 17 trouble sleeping, and had very high levels of stress and anxiety which affected PLAINTIFFS’ 18 normal daily activities. 19 42. DEFENDANTS actions and inactions perpetuated the conditions that 20 DEFENDANTS created and allowed to endure as a result of their negligent maintenance of the 21 PREMISES and/or their intentional disregard for maintenance of the PREMISES. 22 43. As a result of DEFENDANTS continued and repeated failures, PLAINTIFFS were 23 forced to contact the LAHD again. 24 44. As a result, a reinspection of the PREMISES was conducted on April 20, 2022 by 25 inspector Jonathan Antoon, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD. 26 45. In a written report prepared pursuant to that inspection, Jonathan Antoon, a code 27 enforcement agent with the LAHD, sent notice to DEFENDANTS regarding violations at the 28 PREMISES. -7- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 46. In the notice, DEFENDANTS were ordered to remedy a number of violations that 2 were found at the PREMISES including, but not limited to: missing seal around tub spout, water 3 leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors. 4 47. Among the violations DEFENDANTS were ordered to remedy were the still 5 outstanding violations from the previous inspection, performed on March 9, 2022, including, but 6 not limited to: missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, 7 deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors. DEFENDANTS failure to repair the 8 water leaks despite DEFENDANTS being placed on notice was intentional, and DEFENDANTS 9 intentionally caused injury to PLAINTIFFS because DEFENDANTS knew, as any reasonable 10 landlord would, that water leaks is an uninhabitable and substandard housing condition that would 11 likely lead to mold, which would likely cause serious health effects to the inhabitants. 12 Additionally, DEFENDANTS failure to repair the excessive condensation is despicable conduct 13 that subjected PLAINTIFFS to cruel and unjust hardship, because PLAINTIFFS were forced to 14 live at the PREMISES as these conditions persisted. Therefore, DEFENDANTS’ actions were 15 willful, oppressive, and malicious, and DEFENDANTS acted with disregard for PLAINTIFFS’ 16 rights as the water leaks persisted at the PREMISES, despite DEFENDANTS having notice by 17 PLAINTIFFS and/or the LAHD since on or about March 9, 2022. 18 48. Jonathan Antoon, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD, gave notice in writing 19 to DEFENDANTS about the substandard conditions of the PREMISES. 20 49. DEFENDANTS did not take appropriate action in response to the notice provided 21 by the LAHD and made either insufficient attempts or no attempts to ameliorate the issues as 22 instructed by the LAHD. 23 50. As a result, PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions in the 24 PREMISES which caused PLAINTIFFS emotional distress to the point where PLAINTIFFS had 25 trouble sleeping, and had very high levels of stress and anxiety which affected PLAINTIFFS’ 26 normal daily activities. 27 51. DEFENDANTS actions and inactions perpetuated the conditions that 28 DEFENDANTS created and allowed to endure as a result of their negligent maintenance of the -8- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 PREMISES and/or their intentional disregard for maintenance of the PREMISES. 2 52. As a result of DEFENDANTS continued and repeated failures, PLAINTIFFS were 3 forced to contact the LAHD again. 4 53. As a result, a reinspection of the PREMISES was conducted on July 1, 2022 by 5 inspector Brandon Vega, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD. 6 54. In a written report prepared pursuant to that inspection, Brandon Vega, a code 7 enforcement agent with the LAHD, sent notice to DEFENDANTS regarding violations at the 8 PREMISES. 9 55. In the notice, DEFENDANTS were ordered to remedy a number of violations that 10 were found at the PREMISES from the previous inspections, performed on March 9, 2022 and 11 April 20, 2022. 12 56. Brandon Vega, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD, gave notice in writing to 13 DEFENDANTS about the substandard conditions of the PREMISES. 14 57. DEFENDANTS did not take appropriate action in response to the notice provided 15 by the LAHD and made either insufficient attempts or no attempts to ameliorate the issues as 16 instructed by the LAHD. 17 58. As a result, PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions in the 18 PREMISES which caused PLAINTIFFS emotional distress to the point where PLAINTIFFS had 19 trouble sleeping, and had very high levels of stress and anxiety which affected PLAINTIFFS’ 20 normal daily activities. 21 59. DEFENDANTS actions and inactions perpetuated the conditions that 22 DEFENDANTS created and allowed to endure as a result of their negligent maintenance of the 23 PREMISES and/or their intentional disregard for maintenance of the PREMISES. 24 60. As a result of DEFENDANTS continued and repeated failures, PLAINTIFFS were 25 forced to contact the LAHD again. 26 61. As a result, a reinspection of the PREMISES was conducted on July 7, 2022 by 27 inspector Grant Chang, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD. 28 62. In a written report prepared pursuant to that inspection, Grant Chang, a code -9- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 enforcement agent with the LAHD, sent notice to DEFENDANTS regarding violations at the 2 PREMISES. 3 63. In the notice, DEFENDANTS were ordered to remedy a number of violations that 4 were found at the PREMISES from the previous inspections, performed on March 9, 2022, April 5 20, 2022, and July 1, 2022. 6 64. Grant Chang, a code enforcement agent with the LAHD, gave notice in writing to 7 DEFENDANTS about the substandard conditions of the PREMISES. 8 65. DEFENDANTS did not take appropriate action in response to the notice provided 9 by the LAHD and made either insufficient attempts or no attempts to ameliorate the issues as 10 instructed by the LAHD. 11 66. As a result, PLAINTIFFS were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions in the 12 PREMISES which caused PLAINTIFFS emotional distress to the point where PLAINTIFFS had 13 trouble sleeping, and had very high levels of stress and anxiety which affected PLAINTIFFS’ 14 normal daily activities. 15 67. DEFENDANTS actions and inactions perpetuated the conditions that 16 DEFENDANTS created and allowed to endure as a result of their negligent maintenance of the 17 PREMISES and/or their intentional disregard for maintenance of the PREMISES. 18 68. On or about July 26, 2022, text messages between PLAINTIFFS and 19 DEFENDANT reveal that DEFENDANTS had intentionally failed to repair the deteriorated 20 bathtub as the bathtub had still not been repaired. 21 69. DEFENDANTS did not act in good faith when ignoring PLAINTIFFS’ complaints 22 regarding the PREMISES’ uninhabitable conditions, which landlords are required to do by law 23 and contract. PLAINTIFFS continued to pay the full consideration of their lease contract, and paid 24 rent in full. However, DEFENDANTS completely and utterly ignored PLAINTIFFS’ requests to 25 the point that it is now clear that DEFENDANTS had no intention of making the PREMISES 26 habitable. DEFENDANTS breached their duty maliciously to provide a habitable PREMISES and 27 failed to act in good faith as a result. 28 70. DEFENDANTS had multiple opportunities to remedy the substandard conditions - 10 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 found in the PREMISES, evidenced by the multiple written notices sent to DEFENDANTS by 2 PLAINTIFFS and/or code enforcement agencies on or about, but not limited to, the following 3 dates: March 9, 2022, April 20, 2022, July 1, 2022, July 7, 2022, and July 26, 2022. 4 71. For example, DEFENDANTS knew of the deteriorated bathtub because the LAHD 5 gave written notice to DEFENDANTS on or about March 9, 2022, April 20, 2022, July 1, 2022, 6 and July 7, 2022, and PLAINTIFFS gave written notice to DEFENDANTS through text messages 7 on or about July 26, 2022. DEFENDANTS failed to repair the deteriorated bathtub, instead, 8 elected to ignore PLAINTIFFS and/or code enforcement agencies. Due to DEFENDANTS failure 9 to repair the issues, the issues persisted throughout the PLAINTIFFS’ tenancy at the PREMISES. 10 DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned actions were willful, oppressive, and malicious, and 11 DEFENDANTS acted with disregard for PLAINTIFFS’ rights, evidenced by deteriorated bathtub 12 issue persisting for months throughout PLAINTIFFS’ tenancy at the PREMISES. 13 72. In addition to the bathtub issues at the PREMISES, DEFENDANTS failed to repair 14 the other issues at the PREMISES, including but not limited to: the lack of smoke detectors, 15 missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated and/or 16 damaged doors. This further evidences that DEFENDANTS’ actions were willful, oppressive, and 17 malicious, and DEFENDANTS acted with disregard for PLAINTIFFS’ rights. DEFENDANTS 18 failed to repair the uninhabitable conditions at the PREMISES despite being given multiple 19 written notices from March 2022 through July 2022 by PLAINTIFFS and/or code enforcement 20 agencies. 21 73. DEFENDANTS had multiple opportunities to remedy the substandard conditions 22 found in the PREMISES but failed to do so. Instead, DEFENDANTS elected to ignore 23 PLAINTIFFS and the LAHD. 24 74. PLAINTIFFS allege that the delay by DEFENDANTS in making repairs was 25 without good cause. PLAINTIFFS further allege that the DEFENDANTS had multiple 26 opportunities to remedy the substandard conditions found on the PREMISES, but failed to do so in 27 violation of their non-delegable duty. 28 75. In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1942.4, DEFENDANTS were not - 11 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 permitted to demand rent from or collect rent from PLAINTIFFS at any time after thirty-five (35) 2 days had elapsed after the citations were served. 3 76. DEFENDANTS were notified in writing by the LAHD about substantial violations 4 regarding inspections of the PREMISES on or about March 9, 2022. 5 77. Subsequent correspondence between PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS, as well as 6 subsequently performed reinspections by the LAHD, show that DEFENDANTS failed to abate the 7 substandard conditions within the thirty-five (35) day period beyond the date of service of citation. 8 78. Notwithstanding such law, DEFENDANTS and their agents have violated Civil 9 Code Section 1942.4 by attempting to collect rent and actually collecting rent after these dates. 10 Therefore, DEFENDANTS must refund any such rent collected to PLAINTIFFS. 11 79. PLAINTIFFS, after months of living in the substandard conditions in the 12 PREMISES, were forced to abandon the premises on or about December 12, 2022. 13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 14 PRIVATE NUISANCE 15 (By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive) 16 80. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in 17 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein. 18 81. DEFENDANTS caused, created, and/or maintained harmful conditions in the 19 PREMISES. These conditions, outlined in greater detail above, include, but are not limited to: the 20 lack of smoke detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged 21 paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors. 22 82. The dangerous and harmful conditions in the PLAINTIFFS’ PREMISES were and 23 are injurious to health and indecent and offensive to the senses and have interfered substantially 24 with PLAINTIFFS’ comfortable enjoyment of their PREMISES. DEFENDANTS failed to abate 25 these conditions despite notice of the conditions and a reasonable opportunity to abate them. These 26 dangerous and harmful conditions that the DEFENDANTS caused constitute a private nuisance 27 within, but not limited to, the meaning of California Civil Code Sections 3479 and 2481 28 83. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ creation and maintenance of - 12 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 the nuisance, PLAINTIFFS have suffered and continues to suffer personal injury, emotional 2 distress, loss of personal property, and loss in the value of their leasehold in an amount to be 3 proven at trial but which amount is within the jurisdictional requirement of this court. 4 84. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and their corporate employees, representatives, 5 officers, affiliates, assigns, managing agents, and/or personnel at the managerial level ratified, 6 approved, and authorized the violative acts of DEFENDANTS’ statutory duties as alleged herein. 7 PLAINTIFFS complained and reported these violations to DEFENDANTS’ management 8 personnel via e-mail, text, and verbal correspondences but to no avail. 9 85. Specifically, even though DEFENDANTS were aware of the dangerous and 10 uninhabitable conditions existing at the PREMISES, some of which were directly affecting the 11 health of the PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS either intentionally or negligently failed to make 12 timely repairs. 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 14 NEGLIGENCE OF PREMISES 15 (By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive) 16 86. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in 17 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as set forth herein. 18 87. By owning the PREMISES, by entering into the leases, by otherwise assuming a 19 landlord-tenant relationship with PLAINTIFFS and their authorized tenants, and by managing the 20 PREMISES, DEFENDANTS owed PLAINTIFFS the duty to exercise reasonable care in 21 DEFENDANTS’ ownership, management, and control of the PREMISES. 22 88. The duties owed by DEFENDANTS to PLAINTIFFS, as landlord and/or manager, 23 to exercise reasonable care include, but are not limited to, the duty to provide safe and habitable 24 housing, and the duty to comply with all applicable state and municipal laws governing housing 25 standards and PLAINTIFFS’ rights as tenants, including, but not limited to, those standards set 26 forth in Sections 1941 and 1941.1 of the California Civil Code. 27 89. Despite notice and ability to abate the issues as described throughout this 28 Complaint, DEFENDANTS failed to abate the issues that existed within the PREMISES as - 13 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 described throughout this Complaint. 2 90. DEFENDANTS continually ignored requests and orders from PLAINTIFFS and 3 Code Enforcement Agencies to remedy the problems they had created through their negligence. 4 91. DEFENDANTS failed to abate damage to property that they created through their 5 negligence when DEFENDANTS continued to use ineffective measures and/or made no attempts 6 to ameliorate the habitability issues present within the PREMESIS as described throughout this 7 Complaint. 8 92. DEFENDANTS so negligently and carelessly owned, operated, and managed the 9 PREMISES by failing to provide habitable premises, by failing to abate the dangerous and 10 harmful conditions at the PREMISES, by failing to protect PLAINTIFFS and their property from 11 physical damage and by failing to protect PLAINTIFFS’ quiet enjoyment of the PREMISES, as to 12 breach each of these duties owed to PLAINTIFFS. 13 93. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ breaches of duties, 14 PLAINTIFFS suffered and continue to suffer serious emotional and physical injury and emotional 15 distress. PLAINTIFFS have been damaged in an amount to be precisely determined according to 16 proof at trial. 17 94. PLAINTIFFS have suffered and continue to suffer special damages, general 18 damages, property damage, and economic loss caused by the lack of smoke detectors, missing seal 19 around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, 20 deteriorated and/or damaged doors within the PREMSIES, such sum to be precisely determined 21 according to proof at trial. 22 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 23 BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 24 (By PLAINTIFFS for Breach of Warranty of Habitability against DEFENDANTS and Does 25 1 through 50, Inclusive) 26 95. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in 27 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein. 28 96. By entering into the lease described herein, and by otherwise assuming a landlord- - 14 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 tenant relationship with PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS impliedly warranted that the PREMISES 2 was and would be habitable. Within residential premises, the warranty of habitability is wide- 3 reaching. It covers each tenant’s own dwelling unit, and also all common areas – including 4 hallways, stairways and the common grounds (Civil Code §1941.1) 5 97. The defective conditions alleged herein constitute violations of state and local 6 housing laws, pose severe health, safety and fire hazards, and breached the implied warranty of 7 habitability. 8 98. As alleged hereinabove, there have existed at the PREMISES materially defective 9 conditions affecting the habitability of the PREMISES. These conditions were not caused by the 10 wrongful or abnormal use of the PREMISES by PLAINTIFFS or anyone acting under their 11 authority. The presence of the lack of smoke detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, 12 deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors within 13 the PREMISES and the refusal to abate the defective conditions among other details stated above, 14 caused substandard, dangerous, and harmful conditions in the PREMISES. 15 99. As a consequence of these dangerous and harmful conditions in the PREMISES 16 and the failures of DEFENDANTS to maintain in good working condition, the PREMISES 17 occupied by PLAINTIFFS was uninhabitable and unfit for human occupation. 18 100. PLAINTIFFS were unaware of the materially defective conditions at the time she 19 took occupancy of the PREMISES, and in that effect on the habitability of the defective conditions 20 was not apparent upon reasonable inspection. 21 101. Notice of the materially defective conditions was given to DEFENDANTS within a 22 reasonable time after the PLAINTIFFS discovered the breaches of the warranty of habitability. 23 DEFENDANTS have had actual knowledge of the materially defective conditions affecting 24 habitability, and were given a reasonable time to correct them, but failed to remedy them. 25 102. DEFENDANTS had actual knowledge that the PREMISES had no smoke 26 detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, 27 deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors. DEFENDANTS represented to 28 PLAINTIFFS that the PREMISES was habitable, knowing the unit was uninhabitable and - 15 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 choosing not to take appropriate measures to make the unit habitable and fit for human occupation. 2 103. As such, DEFENDANTS knowingly placed PLAINTIFFS in an uninhabitable 3 apartment unit which DEFENDANTS knew would cause injury to the PLAINTIFFS. 4 104. DEFENDANTS refused to make proper repairs even after DEFENDANTS were 5 notified in writing by PLAINTIFFS and by the LAHD. By failing to remedy the conditions 6 described herein and above, or to respond to PLAINTIFFS’ repeated requests for repairs and 7 notifications of intolerable condition of the PREMISES, DEFENDANTS breached the implied 8 warranty of habitability implied in all rental contracts under California law. 9 105. As a direct and proximate consequence of the breaches by DEFENDANTS of this 10 covenant, the rental value of the apartment unit located at PREMISES was greatly, if not totally, 11 diminished, to PLAINTIFFS’ damage. 12 106. As a result, PLAINTIFFS have also paid rents in an amount that substantially 13 exceeds the fair rental value of the PREMISES in its uninhabitable condition. 14 107. As further direct and proximate consequence of the breaches by DEFENDANTS of 15 this covenant, PLAINTIFFS suffered special damages, general damages, property damage and 16 economic loss, including loss of enjoyment caused by the substandard conditions at the 17 PREMISES. 18 108. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and their corporate employees, representatives, 19 officers, affiliates, assigns, managing agents, and/or personnel at the managerial level ratified, 20 approved, and authorized the violative acts of DEFENDANTS’ statutory duties as alleged herein. 21 PLAINTIFFS complained and reported these violations to DEFENDANTS verbally and in 22 writing, but to no avail. 23 109. DEFENDANTS at all times had written and verbal notices of the substandard 24 conditions of the PREMISES, had the means, opportunity and ability to abate the substandard 25 conditions, and failed to do so despite knowledge of the impact and effect on the tenant residing 26 therein. 27 /// 28 /// - 16 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOF FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 3 (By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive) 4 110. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in 5 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as set forth herein. 6 111. In every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by each 7 party not to do anything that will deprive the other parties of the benefits of the contract, and a 8 breach of this covenant by failure to deal fairly or in good faith gives rise to an action for damages. 9 Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., 53 Cal. App. 4th 299, 314, 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 10 614 (1997); Harm v. Fraser, 181 Cal. App. 2d 405, 415, 5 Cal. Rptr. 367, 373 (1960); Seaman’s 11 Direct Buying Serv., Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 36 Cal. 3d 752, 206 Cal. Rptr. 354 (1984), overruled 12 on other grounds, Freeman & Mills Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co., 11 Cal. 4th 85, 102-03, 44 Cal. Rptr. 13 420 (1995). 14 112. PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS entered into a residential lease agreement 15 whereby PLAINTIFFS obtained possession and enjoyment of the PREMISES as a tenant of their 16 landlord. 17 113. The purpose of the agreement was for PLAINTIFFS to obtain a habitable residence 18 from DEFENDANTS in return for payment of a monthly sum. Therefore, the contract 19 presupposed that DEFENDANTS would put the PREMISES in a condition suitable for a habitable 20 residence, in compliance with all ordinances and code regulations existing at the time. 21 114. PLAINTIFFS fulfilled all, or substantially all, of the requirements under the 22 contract. 23 115. DEFENDANTS did not fulfill their obligations. DEFENDANTS took substandard 24 measures to mend the deficiencies on the PREMISES. In addition, DEFENDANTS were informed 25 multiple times of a breach in contract, but continued to take little to no action to remedy these 26 breaches. Lastly, the DEFENDANTS had opportunity to make repairs to breaches in contract but 27 failed to do so in a timely manner. 28 116. By failing to provide PLAINTIFFS with a habitable residence and failing to repair, - 17 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 maintain, and remediate the non-compliant aspects of the PREMISES, DEFENDANTS, and each 2 of them, breached the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 3 117. Due to DEFENDANTS’ breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, 4 PLAINTIFFS have suffered personal injuries, emotional distress, loss of personal property, and 5 loss in the value of their leasehold in an amount to be proven at trial, but which amount is within 6 the jurisdictional requirement of this court. 7 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENENT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT 9 (By PLAINTIFFS against DEFENDANTS and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive) 10 118. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in 11 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as set forth herein. 12 119. PLAINTIFFS put DEFENDANTS on notice of the issues regarding the 13 untenantable conditions found at the PREMISES, as describe in detail above, and as incorporated 14 into this cause of action. 15 120. PLAINTIFFS gave notice to DEFENDANTS complaints of the lack of smoke 16 detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, deteriorated and/or damaged paint, 17 deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors sending notices (via Code Enforcement 18 Agencies), calling, texting, and meeting with DEFENDANTS and or DEFENDANTS’ agents. 19 121. These habitability problems created a continuing nuisance and interference with 20 PLAINTIFFS’ use and enjoyment of the PREMISES. 21 122. The lack of smoke detectors, missing seal around tub spout, water leaks, 22 deteriorated and/or damaged paint, deteriorated bathtub, deteriorated and/or damaged doors within 23 the PREMISES caused emotional distress and were safety hazards for PLAINTIFFS. 24 123. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ acts and omissions as alleged herein, PLAINTIFFS 25 were deprived of the utility, quiet enjoyment, and expected benefits of living peaceably and safely 26 in PLAINTIFFS’ PREMISES and of PLAINTIFFS’ legal right to habitable living quarters. 27 124. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ aforementioned willful acts 28 and omission, PLAINTIFFS lost the substantial use and quiet enjoyment of their dwelling, - 18 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 suffering damages and losses. 2 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 3 VIOLATION OF CA CIVIL CODE §1941; CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION 4 (By PLAINTIFFS Against DEFENDANTS and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive) 5 125. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in 6 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein. 7 126. When repair issues force a tenant to abandon a property, the tenant can file a cause 8 of action for constructive eviction. Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d at 921, citing Groh v. 9 Kover’s Bull Pen, Inc., 221 Cal. App. 2d 611 (1963). The property must be in such ill repair that it 10 is unfit for use. Id. 11 127. Because of their acts and omissions, including but not limited to failing to make 12 timely repairs, failing to make effective repairs, and/or failing to make any attempts at repair in a 13 timely fashion DEFENDANTS maintenance of the PREMISES fell fall below the requisite 14 standard of care required to maintain habitability. As a result, the PREMISES was in such ill 15 repair that it was unfit for use. 16 128. Because of the substandard and unlivable conditions of the PREMISES, 17 PLAINTIFFS abandoned the PREMISES. Because PLAINTIFFS were forced to abandon the 18 PREMISES, PLAINTIFFS incurred damages. 19 129. For these reasons, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS as set 20 forth herein below, as provided within CA Civil Code Section 1941. 21 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 WRONGFUL RENT COLLECTION/INCRESE, AND/OR NOTICE TO PAY OR QUIT 23 (By PLAINTIFFS for Violation of California Civil Code §1942.4 Against DEFENDANTS 24 and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive) 25 130. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in 26 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein. 27 131. CA Civil Code Section 1942.4 provides in part, “A landlord of a dwelling may not 28 demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of rent increase, or issue a three (3) day notice to pay rent - 19 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 or quit pursuant to subdivision (2) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if all of the 2 following conditions exist prior to the landlord’s demand or notice: 3 • (1) The dwelling substantially lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics 4 listed in Section 1941.1 violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, or is 5 deemed and declared substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety 6 Code because conditions listed in that section exist to an extent that endangers life, limb, 7 health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling. 8 • (2) A public officer or employee who is responsible for the enforcement of any 9 housing law, after inspecting the premises, has notified the landlord or the landlord’s agent in 10 writing of his or her obligations to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard conditions. 11 • (3) The conditions have existed and have not been abated thirty-five (35) days 12 beyond the date of service of the notice specified in the paragraph (2) and the delay is without 13 good cause. For purposes of this subdivision, service shall be complete at the time of deposit 14 in the United States mail. 15 • (4) The conditions were not caused by an act or omission of the tenant or lessee in 16 violation of Section 1929 or 1941.2” 17 132. PLAINTIFFS allege, and the reports prepared by the appropriate code-enforcement 18 agency show, that the PREMISES lacked any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in 19 Section 1941.1 and/or violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, and/or is deemed 20 and declared substantially substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety 21 Code because conditions in the PREMISES exist to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, 22 property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling. 23 133. A public employee from the LAHD, who is responsible for the enforcement of 24 housing laws, inspected the PREMISES and notified the landlord or the landlord’s agent, in 25 writing, of his or her obligations to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard conditions on or 26 about. 27 134. Jonathan Antoon from the LAHD, who is responsible for the enforcement of 28 housing laws, found and cited DEFENDANTS, in writing, for the following violations: the lack of