Preview
UMA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Nov-07-2011 9:07 am
Case Number: CUD-11-639244
Filing Date: Nov-07-2011 9:03
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03375659
ANSWER
TRAVIS CAMPBELL VS. KIMBERLY HATHAWAY et al
001003375659
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.UD-105
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and Address): TELEPHONE NO:
L. Kimberly Hathaway-Siegel, John Hoffman’ eta 415-563-5972
339 Lyon Street, #2
San Francisco, CA 94117
415-563-5972
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): in propria in personam
name or court: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
street aopress: City and County of San Francisco
mains aooress: 400 McAllister Street
crryanpzpcove: San Francisco, California 94102
BRANCH NAME:
piantiee, Travis L. Campbell
perenpant: Kimberly Hathaway-Siegel, John Hoffman et al
‘FOR COURT USE ONLY
FI
Superior Court of Califori
County oF San Fancioen
Nov 07 2011
CLERK OF THE COURT
BY: —finctef oats (2,
Deputy Cle}
ANSWER—Unlawful Detainer
‘CASE NUMBER:
CUD-11-636966
1. Defendant (names):
Kimberly Hathaway-Siegel, John Hoffman gab
answers the complaint as follows:
2. Check ONLY ONE of the next two boxes:
a. Defendant generally denies each statement of the complaint. (Do not check this box if the complaint demands more
than $1,000.
b. Defendant admits that all of the statements of the complaint are true EXCEPT
(1) Defendant claims the following statements of the complaint are false (use paragraph numbers from the complaint
or explain):
¥ | Continued on Attachment 2b (1).
(2) Defendant has no information or belief that the following statements of the complaint are true, so defendant denies
them (use paragraph numbers from the complaint or explain):
¥ ] Continued on Attachment 2b (2).
3. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (NOTE: For each box checked, you must state brief facts to support it in the space provided at
the top of page two (item 3))).
a. (nonpayment of rent only) Plaintiff has breached the warranty to provide habitable premises.
b. (nonpayment of rent only) Defendant made needed repairs and properly deducted the cost from the rent, and plaintiff did
not give proper credit.
c (nonpayment of rent only) On (date): before the notice to pay or quit expired, defendant
offered the rent due but plaintiff would not accept it.
d. Plaintiff waived, changed, or canceled the notice to quit.
7] Plaintiff served defendant with the notice to quit or filed the complaint to retaliate against defendant.
f. [¥] By serving defendant with the notice to quit or filing the complaint, plaintiff is arbitrarily discriminating against the
defendant in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or California.
g. [LZ Plaintiffs demand for possession violates the local rent control or eviction control ordinance of (city or county, title
of ordinance, and date of passage):
(Also, briefly state the facts showing violation of the ordinance in item 3j.)
City & County of San Francisco, Civil Code §1954; Civil Code §1 940.2(a)
h. Plaintiff accepted rent from defendant to cover a period of time after the date the notice to quit expired.
i. [4] Other affirmative defenses are stated in item 3).
Page 1 of 2
Form Approved by the Judicial
‘Council of California
‘UD-105 [Rev. January 1,207),
ANSWER—Unlawful Detainer
‘Civil Code, §1940 et seq.
Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12
‘www courtinfo.ca.govUD-105
| PLAINTIFF (Name): Travis L. Campbell CASE NUMBER:
DEFENDANT (Name): Kimberly Hathaway-Siegel, John Hoffman et al CUD-11-639244
3. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (cont'd)
j. Facts supporting affirmative defenses checked above (identify each item separately by its letter from page one):
Plaintiff is in violation of numerous requirements of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and
Arbitration Ordinance, including, but not limited to, egregious habitability defects.
(1) All the facts are stated in Attachment 3). (2) [4] Facts are continued in Attachment 3).
4, OTHER STATEMENTS
a. Defendant vacated the premises on (date):
b. The fair rental value of the premises alleged in the complaint is excessive (explain):
c. L¥] Other (specify):
Defendants ask the court to take judicial notice of EXHIBIT "B," in ATTACHMENT 2(b) 2.
5, DEFENDANT REQUESTS
a. that plaintiff take nothing requested in the complaint.
b. costs incurred in this proceeding.
c. [¥] reasonable attorney fees.
d. [¥] that plaintiff be ordered to (1) make repairs and correct the conditions that constitute a breach of the warranty to provide
habitable premises and (2) reduce the monthly rent to a reasonable rental value until the conditions are corrected.
e. Other (specify):
6. [2] Number of pages attached (specify): 10
UNLAWFUL DETAINER ASSISTANT (Business and Professions Code sections 6400- 6415)
7. (Must be completed in all cases) An unlawful detainer assistant ¥] didnot [ did for compensation give advice or
assistance with this form. (if defendant has received any help or advice for pay from an unlawful detainer assistant, state:
a. Assistant's name: b. Telephone No.: ~~
c. Street address, city, and ZIP:
d. County of registration: e. Registration No.:
Vimberytotiinudy-Sicze| >
Solar Keohane)
TPE OR PRT WANE)
(Each defendant for whom this answer is filed must be named in item 1 al
VERIFICATION
(Use a different verification form if the verification is by an attorney or for a corporation or partnership. )
1am the defendant in this proceeding and have read this answer. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date:
pires on (date):
ff
64 must sign this answer unbéSs Mfs or her attorney signs.)
Kimberly Hathaway-Siegel
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
Jol HOPPme,
‘UD-106 [Rev. January 1, 2007] ANSWER—Unlawful Ds
Page 2 of 2Attachment 33
CASE NAME: CAMPBELL v. HATHAWAY, et al.
CASE NO: CUD-11-639244
3a. Defects exist at the premises including, but not limited to,
the following: infestation of rodents; defective plumbing; falling
plaster/sheet rock; peeling paint; cracks; unsafe
stairways/railings; defective electrical system; inadequate heat;
inadequate security; holes in walls; floors in disrepair; windows
leak air, do not seal, and do not open properly; gaps around doors;
defective appliances. Plaintiff has had actual and/or constructive
notice of the defects but has failed to make needed repairs.
3b. The subject premises are subject to the San Francisco
Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance and
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the Rent
Ordinance in ways that include but are not limited to the
following: Plaintiff's dominant motive is not one allowed by the
Rent Ordinance, services have been decreased without a
corresponding decrease in rent.
3c.
3g. The subject premises are subject to the San Francisco
Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance and
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the Rent
Ordinance in ways that include but are not limited to the
following: Plaintiff's dominant motive is not one allowed by the
Rent Ordinance, services have been decreased without a
corresponding decrease in rent.CUD-11 639244
Campbell v. Hathaway-Siegel, Hoffman
Attachment 2b (2).
Plaintiff's allegations in THIRTY DAY NOTICE TO QUIT, dated September 29,
2011 and THREE DAY NOTICE TO PERFORM COVENANTS OR QUIT, dated
November 1, 2011 are false. The allegations in the complaint continue a course
of conduct by the law firm Walston Cross in providing poor counsel in Landlord-
Tenant law specific to the City and County of San Francisco to the building
owner, Travis Campbell, who resides in a nursing facility in Vallejo, California.
Plaintiff is using the courts to avoid needed remedies to
egregious issues of habitability within the unit that Tenant has
resided in for 24 years.
Defendant will provide the court, to a jury of her peers, numerous written
communications from Owner, Travis Campbell to Defendant.
Defendant will provide the court, to a jury of her peers, numerous written
communications from Owner, Travis Campbell to previous tenants that include but
are not limited to:
Blaming tenants for building code violations, black mold, rodent infestations,
extensive water damage and leaks; threatening eviction when tenants secured a
roommate, even though leases clearly stated that the lease allowed for (2) adults.
Defendant will provide the court, to a jury of her peers, numerous written
communications from Owner, Travis Campbell, making disparaging remarks
about tenant’s housekeeping, overnight stays by companions, frequency ofovernight stays by male companions of female tenants, abusive language and
name-calling to Defendant, and current and previous tenants.
Defendant will provide the court, to a jury of her peers, numerous affidavits from
former tenants attesting to the fact that Owner, Travis Campbell, routinely
allowed the move-in of new tenants without any formal background or credit
checks, rarely cleaning, painting or upgrading the units which each successive
change in tenancy. Additionally, Owner, Travis Campbell, did not advise any
tenants of unit 4 that a death had occurred in the unit in 1997 for the mandated
six year period.
Defendant will provide the court, to a jury of her peers, numerous affidavits from
property owners and other relevant parties, attesting to the fact that Owner,
Travis Campbell, lived over 50-100 miles from his property at 339 Lyon Street,
San Francisco, California until securing the services of Authorized Agent,
Gaetani Real Estate, causing many building and neighborhood issues.
Owner has been labeled ‘slumlord’ with present and former homeowners.
Relevant parties will attest to the fact that Defendant served as an unpaid
property manager for many years, cleaning common areas, abating human feces and
crack pipes, painting, abating graffiti, landscaping, changing light bulbs and making
repairs, all without compensation or direction from Owner, Travis Campbell.
Defendant will file receipts and invoices submitted to Owner for approved repairs and
remodeling done in unit 2 by Defendant’s deceased fiancé, Alan McHugh of Applied
Concepts and Gitane Painting.
San Francisco Rent Control Board and San Francisco Human Rights
Commission documents will be filed that reflect Owner, Travis Campbell’s, illegal
rent increases and unauthorized capital improvement rental increases toDefendant and current and former tenants, reflecting a course of conduct that
caused great distress and re-allocating of time and resources to remedy.
Defendant has filed written communication from homeowners regarding the large
marijuana grow cooperative in unit 1 and the common areas of the building, and
Owner, Travis Campbell’s written response, tasking said homeowners to ‘catch
them selling’ so he can ‘make a move’ for eviction. This remains a concern to the
homeowners in several historic Victorians.
Plaintiff and Authorized Agent for the property of 339 Lyon Street, San Francisco,
CA, Gaetani Real Estate, have been advised of asbestos and related abatement
required by the Bay Area Quality Management, Case # 209506. Verifiable
laboratory testing was conducted prior to the filing of previous Unlawful Detainer
filed May 11, 2011 CUD-636966. Plaintiff's counsel dismissed this case during
the settlement conference. [EXHIBIT A, REGISTER OF ACTIONS, CUD-636966]
Regarding current Unlawful Detainer action, Walston Cross and Plaintiff are not
keeping Authorized Agent for the property of 339 Lyon Street, San Francisco,
CA, Gaetani Real Estate, apprised of filings, demands and false allegations filed
by Plaintiff. This has caused confusion for Defendant and Agent, and has
resulted in urgently needed repairs in unit 2 being prevented by Owner.
Defendant will ask the Court to clarify the accountability to a Tenant when acting
as an Authorized Agent for a Property Owner.
Plaintiff's counsel, Walston Cross, has repeatedly harassed Defendant by
requesting communications and documentation of habitability issues that have
been provided to Walston Cross by Gaetani Real Estate, Authorized Agent for
the property of 339 Lyon Street, San Francisco, CA. These include emails
to/from Justin Sisco, Property Manager for 339 Lyon Street, San Francisco,California, and documents that have been previously filed in this court of law
regarding CUD-636966, including laboratory reports filed by Defendant.
Plaintiffs counsel, Walston Cross, has repeatedly harassed Defendant by
demanding access and entry to 339 Lyon Street, Unit 2, San Francisco, CA,
while Defendant had possession of the unit and when monies for rent were
current. Said monies were accepted and stamped “RECEIVED” by Gaetani
Real Estate, Authorized Agent for the property of 339 Lyon Street, San
Francisco, CA, and owner, Travis Campbell.
Defendant responds to the false allegations in THIRTY DAY NOTICE TO QUIT
and THREE DAY NOTICE TO PERFORM COVENANTS OR QUIT:
1) “...repeatedly making false noise complaints about your fellow tenants to the San
Francisco Police Department...”
This is false.
There has been no history of Defendant’s making false noise complaints. Noise
complaints were made regarding the previous tenants of unit 4. San Francisco Police
Department responded to these complaints and verified the accuracy of these being
relevant, as most all occurrences were reported between the quiet time hours of 2:00 am
and 6:00 am.
Defendants’ comfort, safety and enjoyment of their unit was forfeited from the
period of late 2007 to September 2010, when unit 4’s former tenants surrendered
possession after numerous noise disturbances and two arrests.
Walston Cross was counsel to the former tenants in unit 4, and is well aware that these
incident’s include our door being battered down by a narcotics team (it is still in need
of repair), and the police performing a hair take down on Mr. Lester as he asked his
girlfriend to ‘get his gun’ and the handcuff key he carried on his personal keychain.
These incidents have been detailed in numerous pleadings and testimony the court is all
too familiar with, including a Confidential Stipulation Agreement, signed by all parties
July 3, 2010.2) Mr. Hoffman presents a CREDIBLE THREAT OF VIOLENCE and is mentally
unstable.
This is false.
The protection order granted the tenants of unit 1 was secured by false allegations,
perjury, third-party testimony and an unorganized presentation of the facts and
evidence by the former clients of Walston Cross, Mr. Christopher Dillon and Ms. Marisa
Beers (guardian ad litem for the minor child, Aiden Dillon Beers).
Because we could not afford counsel, Mr. Hoffman’s objections to the false testimony of
Andrew Lester, also a client of Walston Cross, were never heard or taken into account in
Judge Chaitin’s decision, among other travesties.
This decision was granted even though there have never been any THREATS OF
VIOLENCE or ANY PHYSICAL CONACT to any one on the part of Mr. Hoffman (or
myself).
It is assumed by the facts that the false allegations made to the courts regarding myself
and Mr. Hoffman are all in the interest of protecting the profitable marijuana growing
operation in the building.
Mr. Dillon and Ms. Beers repeatedly violate the 2-yard stay-away distance as well as
continue to mock and antagonize Mr. Hoffman. He has filed for a protection order against
Mr. Dillon after numerous incidents since April 13, 2011, culminating in Mr. Dillon
yelling that he (Mr. Hoffman) was going to “go to jail” for “looking” at him.
This order is based on Mr. Hoffman not saying anything, but ‘looking’ at the alleged
victims.
A hearing is scheduled for November 16, 2011.
“you have claimed in open Court.....that you are the guardian ad litem for Mr.
Hoffman.”
This statement is false.
Mr. Hoffman is my partner of 14 years. I have stated that I am his caretaker, who
accompanies him on his medical appointments as he has issues with memory and
retention due to his traumatic brain injury.
Previous court documents filed have never indicated mental instability.
They HAVE stated the effects of numerous noise disturbances, sleep deprivation,
antagonism on the part of Mr. Andrew Lester calling him ‘retarded’ and ‘mentally ill.’
We are still dealing with healing from the disruption in our lives of having to sleep at
other homes and in other accommodations to escape the terrorism and deliberate and
repeated disturbances from the former tenants in unit 4.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO NOISE DISTURBANCES SINCE THE FORMER
TENANTS SURRENDERED POSSESSION.
The current tenants of unit 4 work in the hospitality industry, as did Mr. Lester. The come
home often after the hours of 1:00 to 2:00 am, shower and go to bed.We have had no noise problems or other issues with them, just as it has been for 24 years
with all of the tenants who have lived above my unit.
3. “Interfering with the comfort, safety and enjoyment of your fellow tenants by
repeatedly making false and slanderous statements to third parties with regard to
their activities within their apartment.”
This statement is false.
The record will reflect that my private conversation regarding the growing and selling of
marijuana by current tenants was made to solely to Mr. David Habash. I have known Mr.
Habash for 24 years, and like I extended to Dillon/Beers, I have cared for his children
when they were between the ages of 3 and 6 years old in my home and have created
numerous community events with him and his business.
The false and slanderous statements made in the declarations of Mr. Dillon and Ms. Beers
were false [CCH-10-571680 and CCH-10-571678] such as stating that I called them
“gunrunners.” A mean-spirited ploy to discredit me and spread false rumors.
Mr. Habash submitted affidavits and verified under oath, that I was indeed assaulted by
Mr. Dillon on April 27, 2010, stating that Christopher Dillon said he ‘didn’t bump her
that hard.”]
The issues that interfere with the comfort, safety and enjoyment of our apartment are
traffic in and out of unit 1 and the building, and the repeated incidents of the front
gates and doors being left open by their ‘guests,’ which are a security issue to all of the
other tenants.
NO ATTORNEY FEES GRANTED TO DILLON/BEERS
NO PROTECTION ORDER GRANTED ON DEFENDANT HATHAWAY-
SIEGEL
Just as the Honorable Judge Ellyn Chaitin did not grant a protection order to Dillon/Beers
from me, the Honorable Judge Monica Wiley did not grant attorney fees when I did not
prevail in a TRO hearing regarding Mr. Dillon, even though I had actually been
physically assaulted by Mr. Dillon.
DEFIANCE OF CONFIDENTIAL STIPULATION AGREEMENT IS THE ROOT
OF ALL PROBLEMS THAT CONTINUE IN THIS BUILDING
Let the court note that Judge Wiley stated to Dillon and his counsel that ‘this matter
was originally resolved by a confidential stipulation agreement,’ which she noted,
the moving party decided not to abide. [March 7, 2011, CCH-11-570746].
4) “...harassing fellow tenants to the point they terminate their lease...and seek housing
elsewhere..”
This statement is also false. I have had wonderful and lasting relationships with a number
of past tenants here, many of which will attest to this in sworn affidavits.EXAMPLES OF ALLEGED HARRASSMENT ACTUALLY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT:
The former tenant of unit 1 was asked to leave by Mr. Campbell after destroying
property in 1997. He harassed other tenants, such as turning off their breaker when they
played music too loud. This interfered with his napping during the day, clearly not in
violation of the night time quiet hours of 10pm-7am.
As part of the aforementioned un-compensated managerial duties, I intervened in the
harassments he caused, at the urging of Mr. Campbell.
He came to my door after one instance, stating emphatically, “We have a problem!” 1
had referred this man and his boyfriend to rent the unit as I had previously knew him in
Los Angeles, and Mr. Campbell was spared an empty apartment and related loss of rental
revenue for a month.
As detailed in the last paragraph of page 1, Owner has repeatedly moved tenants in
and out of units in the absence of any background or reference checks.
Owner Campbell was rarely within 100 miles of his building in the early years of my
tenancy, and was unaware of some of the truly dangerous incidents that have occurred on
his property, including incidents with knife fights, broken glass, and, physical domestic
fights involving a minor child.
5) “...habitually paying the rent late...”
This statement is false.
In the early years of my tenancy, Mr. Campbell came to the property only about once a
month, to collect rent.
I frequently paid him in cash, and frequently made partial payments.
We left the rent in an envelope left inside our hallway, he would leave a hand-
written receipt. If there was a balance due, he simply indicated this on the receipt.
This was never an issue until the dot com years, which began in 1999.
The issues surrounding this period are well-documented in numerous filings with the
Rent Board and the Human Rights Commission.
If this was an issue, Mr. Campbell should have taken measures to evict at that time.
If this is an issue with Agent, Gactani Real Estate, they would have taken measures to
evict me, but have not.
They [Gaetani Real Estate] are very clear and adhere to the letter of the law in all
dealings with rental matters in San Francisco.SERVICE:
Walston cross filed documents stating that personal service had been completed on
Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 1:45 pm by Paul Cavallero.
[EXHIBIT “B”] POS-020 signed by Paul Cavallero of Walston Cross.
These documents were filed falsely in an attempt to default Defendants.
Actual personal service was completed on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011.
Response to notice served to Defendants on November 1, 2011:
THREE DAY NOTICE TO PERFORM COVENANTS OR QUIT
“You have violated Section 37.9(a)(2) in the following manner:
1) By violating the terms of your lease. Specifically, your lease with Mr. Campbell
states that “[t]he premises shall be used exclusively as a residence.”
It has come to Mr. Campbell’s attention, through your own admission, that you
are using the residence as your place of business. You have (3) days to amend this
problem by coming into compliance with the terms of your lease.”
It has been well-documented in numerous court filings and records with the San
Francisco Human Rights Commission that Mr. Campbell forced me into an
expensive commercial lease at the height of dot com, even though the tasks of my
profession are clearly within zoning guidelines.
I was not mandated by San Francisco zoning laws to move my business to an expensive
downtown office, but I did so from 1999 to May 2011.
Like tenant Ms. Alaska Yamada in unit 3, my professional tasks are all completed on a
computer or via telephone calls.
Any other business tasks required of my profession are conducted at client offices, event
venues, conference rooms, the campus of San Francisco State University or out of state or
out of the country.
1am in compliance with residential zoning in sitting in front of a computer within
my residence.
Apparently, unit 1 is in compliance and most likely compensating Owner, Travis
Campbell, with their large marijuana-growing operation and their unlicensed
contractor operation.
The marijuana growing is staged in 2 common-area storage rooms in the backyard and
directly above their unit, as well a closet grows within their unit.
They proceed with construction projects in the common areas of the hallways,
directly outside of our back door, in the professionally landscaped backyard and in
the streets and in front of the building.Recently, Mr. Dillon spray painted some object with silver paint, not bothering to lay
down a protective covering. The square outline of silver paint is glaringly obvious and
mars the building entry.
I consider this demand to amend ‘using the residence as your
place of business’ to be harassment and blatant discrimination
when considering activities of other tenants without sanction.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 4" day of November, 2011.
Kimberly Hathaway-SiegelEX Ir talCUD-11-636966 http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94 dll?AP...
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
Case Number: CUD-11-636966
Title: TRAVIS CAMPBELL VS. KIMBERLY HATHAWAY et al
Cause of Action: UNLAWFUL DETAINER - RESIDENTIAL
Generated: Nov-04-2011 8:19 am PST
Register of Actions Parties Attorneys Calendar Payments Documents
Register of Actions
Date Range: First Date May-10-2011 Last Date. Nov-04-2011 (Dates must be entered as
/ MMM-DD-YYYY)
{ Descending Date Sequence 4) CALL FILING TYPES OD
{ Submit }
Date Proceedings Document | Fee
G-12-2011 IREMOVED FROM MASTER JURY CALENDAR SET FOR
|AUG-15-2011 - DISMISSAL ON FILE.
[AUG-12-2011 [DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF COMPLAINT View |
UG-10-2011 INOTICE OF LIMITED SCOPE REPRESENTATION, U.D.
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT
HATHAWAY, KIMBERLY HOFFMAN, JOHN ANDREWS, LINDSEY
ASSIGNED TO REPRESENT PARTY FOR U. D. SETTLEMENT
|CONFERENCE
UG-10-2011 ISETTLEMENT CONFERENCE HELD, THOMAS O'BRIEN FOR
THE PLAINTIFF AND LINDSAY ANDREWS FOR THE
DEFENDANT. CASE DID NOT SETTLE. JUDGE KAY TSENIN,
CLERK KEVIN LEE, NOT ON THE RECORD, D303
UG-10-2011 [SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR AUG-10-2011 [
CONTINUED TO AUG-10-2011 AT 1:30 PM IN 303. NOT
IREPORTED (D514).
UG-05-2011 IFEE PAID ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF IFP
(OHN:
2
it
IGUARDIAN AD LITEM FILED BY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN,
IAUG-05-2011 [APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF REPORTER FEE PURSUANT TO
IG.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED
IBY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY-SIEGEL, KIMBERLY ORDER FOR
WAIVER OF REPORTER FEE GRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C.
68634 (E), CRC 3.52
|AUG-05-2011 [APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF JURY FEE AND EXPENSES
IPURSUANT TO G.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818
(CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY-SIEGEL,
KIMBERLY ORDER FOR WAIVER OF JURY FEE AND EXPENSES
IGRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52
|AUG-05-2011 [APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS [
IPURSUANT TO G.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818
(CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY-SIEGEL,
IKIMBERLY ORDER FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS
IGRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52
lof 3 1/4/11 8:18 AMCUD, 11-636966 http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?AP...
|AUG-01-2011 INOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE OF TRIAL AND SETTLEMENT View
IHEARING HEARING SET FOR AUG-10-2011 AT 01:30 PM IN
IDEPT 514
(09:00 AM IN DEPT 206 ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL: 2.0
UG-01-2011 IREQUEST TO SET CASE FOR JURY TRIAL FILED BY PLAINTIFF View
ICAMPBELL, TRAVIS JURY TRIAL SET FOR AUG-15-2011 AT
IDAYS
foL-22-2011 PPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF REPORTER FEE PURSUANT TO
IG.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED
IBY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN ORDER FOR WAIVER OF
IREPORTER FEE GRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC
3.52
UL-22-2011 APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF JURY FEE AND EXPENSES
[PURSUANT TO G.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818
(CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN
[ORDER FOR WAIVER OF JURY FEE AND EXPENSES GRANTED
PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52
ORDER FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS GRANTED
PURSUANT TO GC. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52
UL-22-2011 |AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT View
|HOFFMAN, JOHN HATHAWAY-SIEGEL, KIMBERLY
UL-18-2011 IDEMAND FOR JURY AND MANDATORY SETTLEMENT
|CONFERENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN
UL-18-2011 IDEMAND FOR JURY AND MANDATORY SETTLEMENT
|CONFERENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY-SIEGEL,
PUL-22-2011 APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS
IPURSUANT TO G.C, 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818
(CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN
KIMBERLY
JUN-24-2011 INVALID/RETURNED CHECK REDEEMED FOR TRANSACTION 225.00
1W2111524F042 FOR FIRST PAPER RESPONSE/PLEADING $2,500 -
$10,000
'UN-24-2011 INVALID/RETURNED CHECK REDEEMED FOR TRANSACTION 251.25
1W2111524F041 FOR FIRST PAPER RESPONSE/PLEADING $2,500 -
$10,000
IMAY-31-2011 IINVALID/RETURNED CHECK FOR TRANSACTION View
1W2111524F042 FOR FIRST PAPER RESPONSE/PLEADING $2,500 -
[$10,000
IMAY-31-2011 IINVALID/RETURNED CHECK FOR TRANSACTION View
|W2111524F041 FOR FIRST PAPER RESPONSE/PLEADING $2,500 -
$10,000
IMAY-24-2011 [ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN,
JOHN
IMAY-24-2011 [ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY- View 225.00
SIEGEL, KIMBERLY
IMAY- 18-2011 ISUMMONS ON COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF CAMPBELL, View
[TRAVIS SERVED MAY-17-2011, PERSONAL SERVICE ON
IDEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN
IMAY-18-2011 [SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF CAMPBELL, View
[TRAVIS SERVED MAY-17-2011, PERSONAL SERVICE ON
[DEFENDANT HATHAWAY, KIMBERLY
2 of 3 11/4/11 8:18 AMCUD; 11-636966 http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?AP...
IMAY-10-2011 INOTICE TO DEFENDANTS | View
IMAY-10-2011 UNLAWFUL DETAINER - RESIDENTIAL, COMPLAINT FILED BY View 240.00
PLAINTIFF CAMPBELL, TRAVIS AS TO DEFENDANT
HATHAWAY, KIMBERLY HOFFMAN, JOHN DOES 1 TO 20
ISUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER
SHEET FILED
3 of 3 11/4/11 8:18 AMcxaigit “8POS-020
[ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY ( FOR COURT USE ONLY
Wats A. Cross, SBN 250471
‘State Bar number
ALSTON CROSS, P.C.
35 Montgomery St., Ste. 250
\San Francisco, CA 94111
teveprone no. 415-926-9200 FAaxNo. (optoray 415-956-9205
E-MAK. ADDRESS (Ontona)
arTorNey For Name) Plaintiff Travis Campbell
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco
staeer aooress 400 McAllister St.
wane acoress 400 McAllister St.
ciry ano zie cove: San Francisco, CA 94102
eeanch wane. Civic Center Courthouse
PETITIONERPLAINTIFF: Travis Campbell
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:Kimberly Hathaway, John Hoffman
CASE NUMBER:
PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE—CIVIL
(Do not use this Proof of Service to show service of a Summons and Complaint.)
| am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
2. I served the following documents (specify):
Thirty Day Notice to Quit
The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Personal Service—Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-020(D)).
3. I personally served the following persons at the address, date, and time stated:
a. Name:Kimberly Hathaway, John Hoffman
b. Address:339 Lyon St., Apt. 2, San Francisco, CA 94117
c. Date-October 29, 2011
d. Time:1:45p.m.
The persons are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Personal Service—Civil (Persons Served) (form POS-020(P)).
4. lam
a. [7] nota registered California process server. e an employee or independent contractor of a
b. a registered California nrocess server. registered California process server.
J. ‘exempt from registration under Business & Professions
Code section 22350(b).
5. My name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number are (specify):
Paul Cavallero
Walston Cross, P.C
735 Montgomery St., Ste. 250
San Francisco, CA 94111
6. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
7. 1am a California sheriff or marshal and certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:November |, 2011
Paul Cavallero
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED THE PAPERS)
‘Socal Council Caton, PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE—CIVIL Coa a ce rovers $7001
PSEa0 ew Sonar 1 208ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nan, state bar number, and address):
myer LaHyacuae
Bea pen et eZ
SM Francs s¢é, CA qu let
ATTORNEY FOR (Name}: Defenucawir in Ho, bey—
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
‘CASE NUMBER:
CAMPBELL cud (679244
yo |E6EL EACLE PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
CCP 1013a, 2015.5
PAT HA WHA
DEFENDANT(S)
I declare that: ro.
Sau Fvana sce omni
| am (a resident offemployed in) the county of , Califomia
(County where mailing occurred)
| am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my (business/residence) address is:
A50 DURC Avo, Bd FULLY, L4A-
On e
(ome) Trial and Mandatory Settlement Confeuna—
onthe plaah tt
in said cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at
Sau Francs A
addressed as follows: Ove. StC. oS CO VOSS /
125 wlovtgOUuesry St Ste. ATO
Seu Finds sid, CA #¢UC
' declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on
at . California
mel | Wi “Ga Fauci CA
Wilder Wwucelay
‘San Francisco Superior Court PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Efrectve Date: danucry 1, W94
Martin Dean's Essential Forms™
, | served the within Answer ~ Unlawful beter, Defendant's Demand fn Jury
(Signature;
C8
Preview
UMA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Nov-07-2011 9:07 am Case Number: CUD-11-639244 Filing Date: Nov-07-2011 9:03 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03375659 ANSWER TRAVIS CAMPBELL VS. KIMBERLY HATHAWAY et al 001003375659 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.UD-105 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and Address): TELEPHONE NO: L. Kimberly Hathaway-Siegel, John Hoffman’ eta 415-563-5972 339 Lyon Street, #2 San Francisco, CA 94117 415-563-5972 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): in propria in personam name or court: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA street aopress: City and County of San Francisco mains aooress: 400 McAllister Street crryanpzpcove: San Francisco, California 94102 BRANCH NAME: piantiee, Travis L. Campbell perenpant: Kimberly Hathaway-Siegel, John Hoffman et al ‘FOR COURT USE ONLY FI Superior Court of Califori County oF San Fancioen Nov 07 2011 CLERK OF THE COURT BY: —finctef oats (2, Deputy Cle} ANSWER—Unlawful Detainer ‘CASE NUMBER: CUD-11-636966 1. Defendant (names): Kimberly Hathaway-Siegel, John Hoffman gab answers the complaint as follows: 2. Check ONLY ONE of the next two boxes: a. Defendant generally denies each statement of the complaint. (Do not check this box if the complaint demands more than $1,000. b. Defendant admits that all of the statements of the complaint are true EXCEPT (1) Defendant claims the following statements of the complaint are false (use paragraph numbers from the complaint or explain): ¥ | Continued on Attachment 2b (1). (2) Defendant has no information or belief that the following statements of the complaint are true, so defendant denies them (use paragraph numbers from the complaint or explain): ¥ ] Continued on Attachment 2b (2). 3. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (NOTE: For each box checked, you must state brief facts to support it in the space provided at the top of page two (item 3))). a. (nonpayment of rent only) Plaintiff has breached the warranty to provide habitable premises. b. (nonpayment of rent only) Defendant made needed repairs and properly deducted the cost from the rent, and plaintiff did not give proper credit. c (nonpayment of rent only) On (date): before the notice to pay or quit expired, defendant offered the rent due but plaintiff would not accept it. d. Plaintiff waived, changed, or canceled the notice to quit. 7] Plaintiff served defendant with the notice to quit or filed the complaint to retaliate against defendant. f. [¥] By serving defendant with the notice to quit or filing the complaint, plaintiff is arbitrarily discriminating against the defendant in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or California. g. [LZ Plaintiffs demand for possession violates the local rent control or eviction control ordinance of (city or county, title of ordinance, and date of passage): (Also, briefly state the facts showing violation of the ordinance in item 3j.) City & County of San Francisco, Civil Code §1954; Civil Code §1 940.2(a) h. Plaintiff accepted rent from defendant to cover a period of time after the date the notice to quit expired. i. [4] Other affirmative defenses are stated in item 3). Page 1 of 2 Form Approved by the Judicial ‘Council of California ‘UD-105 [Rev. January 1,207), ANSWER—Unlawful Detainer ‘Civil Code, §1940 et seq. Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12 ‘www courtinfo.ca.govUD-105 | PLAINTIFF (Name): Travis L. Campbell CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT (Name): Kimberly Hathaway-Siegel, John Hoffman et al CUD-11-639244 3. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (cont'd) j. Facts supporting affirmative defenses checked above (identify each item separately by its letter from page one): Plaintiff is in violation of numerous requirements of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance, including, but not limited to, egregious habitability defects. (1) All the facts are stated in Attachment 3). (2) [4] Facts are continued in Attachment 3). 4, OTHER STATEMENTS a. Defendant vacated the premises on (date): b. The fair rental value of the premises alleged in the complaint is excessive (explain): c. L¥] Other (specify): Defendants ask the court to take judicial notice of EXHIBIT "B," in ATTACHMENT 2(b) 2. 5, DEFENDANT REQUESTS a. that plaintiff take nothing requested in the complaint. b. costs incurred in this proceeding. c. [¥] reasonable attorney fees. d. [¥] that plaintiff be ordered to (1) make repairs and correct the conditions that constitute a breach of the warranty to provide habitable premises and (2) reduce the monthly rent to a reasonable rental value until the conditions are corrected. e. Other (specify): 6. [2] Number of pages attached (specify): 10 UNLAWFUL DETAINER ASSISTANT (Business and Professions Code sections 6400- 6415) 7. (Must be completed in all cases) An unlawful detainer assistant ¥] didnot [ did for compensation give advice or assistance with this form. (if defendant has received any help or advice for pay from an unlawful detainer assistant, state: a. Assistant's name: b. Telephone No.: ~~ c. Street address, city, and ZIP: d. County of registration: e. Registration No.: Vimberytotiinudy-Sicze| > Solar Keohane) TPE OR PRT WANE) (Each defendant for whom this answer is filed must be named in item 1 al VERIFICATION (Use a different verification form if the verification is by an attorney or for a corporation or partnership. ) 1am the defendant in this proceeding and have read this answer. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: pires on (date): ff 64 must sign this answer unbéSs Mfs or her attorney signs.) Kimberly Hathaway-Siegel (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Jol HOPPme, ‘UD-106 [Rev. January 1, 2007] ANSWER—Unlawful Ds Page 2 of 2Attachment 33 CASE NAME: CAMPBELL v. HATHAWAY, et al. CASE NO: CUD-11-639244 3a. Defects exist at the premises including, but not limited to, the following: infestation of rodents; defective plumbing; falling plaster/sheet rock; peeling paint; cracks; unsafe stairways/railings; defective electrical system; inadequate heat; inadequate security; holes in walls; floors in disrepair; windows leak air, do not seal, and do not open properly; gaps around doors; defective appliances. Plaintiff has had actual and/or constructive notice of the defects but has failed to make needed repairs. 3b. The subject premises are subject to the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the Rent Ordinance in ways that include but are not limited to the following: Plaintiff's dominant motive is not one allowed by the Rent Ordinance, services have been decreased without a corresponding decrease in rent. 3c. 3g. The subject premises are subject to the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the Rent Ordinance in ways that include but are not limited to the following: Plaintiff's dominant motive is not one allowed by the Rent Ordinance, services have been decreased without a corresponding decrease in rent.CUD-11 639244 Campbell v. Hathaway-Siegel, Hoffman Attachment 2b (2). Plaintiff's allegations in THIRTY DAY NOTICE TO QUIT, dated September 29, 2011 and THREE DAY NOTICE TO PERFORM COVENANTS OR QUIT, dated November 1, 2011 are false. The allegations in the complaint continue a course of conduct by the law firm Walston Cross in providing poor counsel in Landlord- Tenant law specific to the City and County of San Francisco to the building owner, Travis Campbell, who resides in a nursing facility in Vallejo, California. Plaintiff is using the courts to avoid needed remedies to egregious issues of habitability within the unit that Tenant has resided in for 24 years. Defendant will provide the court, to a jury of her peers, numerous written communications from Owner, Travis Campbell to Defendant. Defendant will provide the court, to a jury of her peers, numerous written communications from Owner, Travis Campbell to previous tenants that include but are not limited to: Blaming tenants for building code violations, black mold, rodent infestations, extensive water damage and leaks; threatening eviction when tenants secured a roommate, even though leases clearly stated that the lease allowed for (2) adults. Defendant will provide the court, to a jury of her peers, numerous written communications from Owner, Travis Campbell, making disparaging remarks about tenant’s housekeeping, overnight stays by companions, frequency ofovernight stays by male companions of female tenants, abusive language and name-calling to Defendant, and current and previous tenants. Defendant will provide the court, to a jury of her peers, numerous affidavits from former tenants attesting to the fact that Owner, Travis Campbell, routinely allowed the move-in of new tenants without any formal background or credit checks, rarely cleaning, painting or upgrading the units which each successive change in tenancy. Additionally, Owner, Travis Campbell, did not advise any tenants of unit 4 that a death had occurred in the unit in 1997 for the mandated six year period. Defendant will provide the court, to a jury of her peers, numerous affidavits from property owners and other relevant parties, attesting to the fact that Owner, Travis Campbell, lived over 50-100 miles from his property at 339 Lyon Street, San Francisco, California until securing the services of Authorized Agent, Gaetani Real Estate, causing many building and neighborhood issues. Owner has been labeled ‘slumlord’ with present and former homeowners. Relevant parties will attest to the fact that Defendant served as an unpaid property manager for many years, cleaning common areas, abating human feces and crack pipes, painting, abating graffiti, landscaping, changing light bulbs and making repairs, all without compensation or direction from Owner, Travis Campbell. Defendant will file receipts and invoices submitted to Owner for approved repairs and remodeling done in unit 2 by Defendant’s deceased fiancé, Alan McHugh of Applied Concepts and Gitane Painting. San Francisco Rent Control Board and San Francisco Human Rights Commission documents will be filed that reflect Owner, Travis Campbell’s, illegal rent increases and unauthorized capital improvement rental increases toDefendant and current and former tenants, reflecting a course of conduct that caused great distress and re-allocating of time and resources to remedy. Defendant has filed written communication from homeowners regarding the large marijuana grow cooperative in unit 1 and the common areas of the building, and Owner, Travis Campbell’s written response, tasking said homeowners to ‘catch them selling’ so he can ‘make a move’ for eviction. This remains a concern to the homeowners in several historic Victorians. Plaintiff and Authorized Agent for the property of 339 Lyon Street, San Francisco, CA, Gaetani Real Estate, have been advised of asbestos and related abatement required by the Bay Area Quality Management, Case # 209506. Verifiable laboratory testing was conducted prior to the filing of previous Unlawful Detainer filed May 11, 2011 CUD-636966. Plaintiff's counsel dismissed this case during the settlement conference. [EXHIBIT A, REGISTER OF ACTIONS, CUD-636966] Regarding current Unlawful Detainer action, Walston Cross and Plaintiff are not keeping Authorized Agent for the property of 339 Lyon Street, San Francisco, CA, Gaetani Real Estate, apprised of filings, demands and false allegations filed by Plaintiff. This has caused confusion for Defendant and Agent, and has resulted in urgently needed repairs in unit 2 being prevented by Owner. Defendant will ask the Court to clarify the accountability to a Tenant when acting as an Authorized Agent for a Property Owner. Plaintiff's counsel, Walston Cross, has repeatedly harassed Defendant by requesting communications and documentation of habitability issues that have been provided to Walston Cross by Gaetani Real Estate, Authorized Agent for the property of 339 Lyon Street, San Francisco, CA. These include emails to/from Justin Sisco, Property Manager for 339 Lyon Street, San Francisco,California, and documents that have been previously filed in this court of law regarding CUD-636966, including laboratory reports filed by Defendant. Plaintiffs counsel, Walston Cross, has repeatedly harassed Defendant by demanding access and entry to 339 Lyon Street, Unit 2, San Francisco, CA, while Defendant had possession of the unit and when monies for rent were current. Said monies were accepted and stamped “RECEIVED” by Gaetani Real Estate, Authorized Agent for the property of 339 Lyon Street, San Francisco, CA, and owner, Travis Campbell. Defendant responds to the false allegations in THIRTY DAY NOTICE TO QUIT and THREE DAY NOTICE TO PERFORM COVENANTS OR QUIT: 1) “...repeatedly making false noise complaints about your fellow tenants to the San Francisco Police Department...” This is false. There has been no history of Defendant’s making false noise complaints. Noise complaints were made regarding the previous tenants of unit 4. San Francisco Police Department responded to these complaints and verified the accuracy of these being relevant, as most all occurrences were reported between the quiet time hours of 2:00 am and 6:00 am. Defendants’ comfort, safety and enjoyment of their unit was forfeited from the period of late 2007 to September 2010, when unit 4’s former tenants surrendered possession after numerous noise disturbances and two arrests. Walston Cross was counsel to the former tenants in unit 4, and is well aware that these incident’s include our door being battered down by a narcotics team (it is still in need of repair), and the police performing a hair take down on Mr. Lester as he asked his girlfriend to ‘get his gun’ and the handcuff key he carried on his personal keychain. These incidents have been detailed in numerous pleadings and testimony the court is all too familiar with, including a Confidential Stipulation Agreement, signed by all parties July 3, 2010.2) Mr. Hoffman presents a CREDIBLE THREAT OF VIOLENCE and is mentally unstable. This is false. The protection order granted the tenants of unit 1 was secured by false allegations, perjury, third-party testimony and an unorganized presentation of the facts and evidence by the former clients of Walston Cross, Mr. Christopher Dillon and Ms. Marisa Beers (guardian ad litem for the minor child, Aiden Dillon Beers). Because we could not afford counsel, Mr. Hoffman’s objections to the false testimony of Andrew Lester, also a client of Walston Cross, were never heard or taken into account in Judge Chaitin’s decision, among other travesties. This decision was granted even though there have never been any THREATS OF VIOLENCE or ANY PHYSICAL CONACT to any one on the part of Mr. Hoffman (or myself). It is assumed by the facts that the false allegations made to the courts regarding myself and Mr. Hoffman are all in the interest of protecting the profitable marijuana growing operation in the building. Mr. Dillon and Ms. Beers repeatedly violate the 2-yard stay-away distance as well as continue to mock and antagonize Mr. Hoffman. He has filed for a protection order against Mr. Dillon after numerous incidents since April 13, 2011, culminating in Mr. Dillon yelling that he (Mr. Hoffman) was going to “go to jail” for “looking” at him. This order is based on Mr. Hoffman not saying anything, but ‘looking’ at the alleged victims. A hearing is scheduled for November 16, 2011. “you have claimed in open Court.....that you are the guardian ad litem for Mr. Hoffman.” This statement is false. Mr. Hoffman is my partner of 14 years. I have stated that I am his caretaker, who accompanies him on his medical appointments as he has issues with memory and retention due to his traumatic brain injury. Previous court documents filed have never indicated mental instability. They HAVE stated the effects of numerous noise disturbances, sleep deprivation, antagonism on the part of Mr. Andrew Lester calling him ‘retarded’ and ‘mentally ill.’ We are still dealing with healing from the disruption in our lives of having to sleep at other homes and in other accommodations to escape the terrorism and deliberate and repeated disturbances from the former tenants in unit 4. THERE HAVE BEEN NO NOISE DISTURBANCES SINCE THE FORMER TENANTS SURRENDERED POSSESSION. The current tenants of unit 4 work in the hospitality industry, as did Mr. Lester. The come home often after the hours of 1:00 to 2:00 am, shower and go to bed.We have had no noise problems or other issues with them, just as it has been for 24 years with all of the tenants who have lived above my unit. 3. “Interfering with the comfort, safety and enjoyment of your fellow tenants by repeatedly making false and slanderous statements to third parties with regard to their activities within their apartment.” This statement is false. The record will reflect that my private conversation regarding the growing and selling of marijuana by current tenants was made to solely to Mr. David Habash. I have known Mr. Habash for 24 years, and like I extended to Dillon/Beers, I have cared for his children when they were between the ages of 3 and 6 years old in my home and have created numerous community events with him and his business. The false and slanderous statements made in the declarations of Mr. Dillon and Ms. Beers were false [CCH-10-571680 and CCH-10-571678] such as stating that I called them “gunrunners.” A mean-spirited ploy to discredit me and spread false rumors. Mr. Habash submitted affidavits and verified under oath, that I was indeed assaulted by Mr. Dillon on April 27, 2010, stating that Christopher Dillon said he ‘didn’t bump her that hard.”] The issues that interfere with the comfort, safety and enjoyment of our apartment are traffic in and out of unit 1 and the building, and the repeated incidents of the front gates and doors being left open by their ‘guests,’ which are a security issue to all of the other tenants. NO ATTORNEY FEES GRANTED TO DILLON/BEERS NO PROTECTION ORDER GRANTED ON DEFENDANT HATHAWAY- SIEGEL Just as the Honorable Judge Ellyn Chaitin did not grant a protection order to Dillon/Beers from me, the Honorable Judge Monica Wiley did not grant attorney fees when I did not prevail in a TRO hearing regarding Mr. Dillon, even though I had actually been physically assaulted by Mr. Dillon. DEFIANCE OF CONFIDENTIAL STIPULATION AGREEMENT IS THE ROOT OF ALL PROBLEMS THAT CONTINUE IN THIS BUILDING Let the court note that Judge Wiley stated to Dillon and his counsel that ‘this matter was originally resolved by a confidential stipulation agreement,’ which she noted, the moving party decided not to abide. [March 7, 2011, CCH-11-570746]. 4) “...harassing fellow tenants to the point they terminate their lease...and seek housing elsewhere..” This statement is also false. I have had wonderful and lasting relationships with a number of past tenants here, many of which will attest to this in sworn affidavits.EXAMPLES OF ALLEGED HARRASSMENT ACTUALLY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: The former tenant of unit 1 was asked to leave by Mr. Campbell after destroying property in 1997. He harassed other tenants, such as turning off their breaker when they played music too loud. This interfered with his napping during the day, clearly not in violation of the night time quiet hours of 10pm-7am. As part of the aforementioned un-compensated managerial duties, I intervened in the harassments he caused, at the urging of Mr. Campbell. He came to my door after one instance, stating emphatically, “We have a problem!” 1 had referred this man and his boyfriend to rent the unit as I had previously knew him in Los Angeles, and Mr. Campbell was spared an empty apartment and related loss of rental revenue for a month. As detailed in the last paragraph of page 1, Owner has repeatedly moved tenants in and out of units in the absence of any background or reference checks. Owner Campbell was rarely within 100 miles of his building in the early years of my tenancy, and was unaware of some of the truly dangerous incidents that have occurred on his property, including incidents with knife fights, broken glass, and, physical domestic fights involving a minor child. 5) “...habitually paying the rent late...” This statement is false. In the early years of my tenancy, Mr. Campbell came to the property only about once a month, to collect rent. I frequently paid him in cash, and frequently made partial payments. We left the rent in an envelope left inside our hallway, he would leave a hand- written receipt. If there was a balance due, he simply indicated this on the receipt. This was never an issue until the dot com years, which began in 1999. The issues surrounding this period are well-documented in numerous filings with the Rent Board and the Human Rights Commission. If this was an issue, Mr. Campbell should have taken measures to evict at that time. If this is an issue with Agent, Gactani Real Estate, they would have taken measures to evict me, but have not. They [Gaetani Real Estate] are very clear and adhere to the letter of the law in all dealings with rental matters in San Francisco.SERVICE: Walston cross filed documents stating that personal service had been completed on Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 1:45 pm by Paul Cavallero. [EXHIBIT “B”] POS-020 signed by Paul Cavallero of Walston Cross. These documents were filed falsely in an attempt to default Defendants. Actual personal service was completed on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011. Response to notice served to Defendants on November 1, 2011: THREE DAY NOTICE TO PERFORM COVENANTS OR QUIT “You have violated Section 37.9(a)(2) in the following manner: 1) By violating the terms of your lease. Specifically, your lease with Mr. Campbell states that “[t]he premises shall be used exclusively as a residence.” It has come to Mr. Campbell’s attention, through your own admission, that you are using the residence as your place of business. You have (3) days to amend this problem by coming into compliance with the terms of your lease.” It has been well-documented in numerous court filings and records with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission that Mr. Campbell forced me into an expensive commercial lease at the height of dot com, even though the tasks of my profession are clearly within zoning guidelines. I was not mandated by San Francisco zoning laws to move my business to an expensive downtown office, but I did so from 1999 to May 2011. Like tenant Ms. Alaska Yamada in unit 3, my professional tasks are all completed on a computer or via telephone calls. Any other business tasks required of my profession are conducted at client offices, event venues, conference rooms, the campus of San Francisco State University or out of state or out of the country. 1am in compliance with residential zoning in sitting in front of a computer within my residence. Apparently, unit 1 is in compliance and most likely compensating Owner, Travis Campbell, with their large marijuana-growing operation and their unlicensed contractor operation. The marijuana growing is staged in 2 common-area storage rooms in the backyard and directly above their unit, as well a closet grows within their unit. They proceed with construction projects in the common areas of the hallways, directly outside of our back door, in the professionally landscaped backyard and in the streets and in front of the building.Recently, Mr. Dillon spray painted some object with silver paint, not bothering to lay down a protective covering. The square outline of silver paint is glaringly obvious and mars the building entry. I consider this demand to amend ‘using the residence as your place of business’ to be harassment and blatant discrimination when considering activities of other tenants without sanction. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 4" day of November, 2011. Kimberly Hathaway-SiegelEX Ir talCUD-11-636966 http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94 dll?AP... Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Case Number: CUD-11-636966 Title: TRAVIS CAMPBELL VS. KIMBERLY HATHAWAY et al Cause of Action: UNLAWFUL DETAINER - RESIDENTIAL Generated: Nov-04-2011 8:19 am PST Register of Actions Parties Attorneys Calendar Payments Documents Register of Actions Date Range: First Date May-10-2011 Last Date. Nov-04-2011 (Dates must be entered as / MMM-DD-YYYY) { Descending Date Sequence 4) CALL FILING TYPES OD { Submit } Date Proceedings Document | Fee G-12-2011 IREMOVED FROM MASTER JURY CALENDAR SET FOR |AUG-15-2011 - DISMISSAL ON FILE. [AUG-12-2011 [DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF COMPLAINT View | UG-10-2011 INOTICE OF LIMITED SCOPE REPRESENTATION, U.D. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY, KIMBERLY HOFFMAN, JOHN ANDREWS, LINDSEY ASSIGNED TO REPRESENT PARTY FOR U. D. SETTLEMENT |CONFERENCE UG-10-2011 ISETTLEMENT CONFERENCE HELD, THOMAS O'BRIEN FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND LINDSAY ANDREWS FOR THE DEFENDANT. CASE DID NOT SETTLE. JUDGE KAY TSENIN, CLERK KEVIN LEE, NOT ON THE RECORD, D303 UG-10-2011 [SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR AUG-10-2011 [ CONTINUED TO AUG-10-2011 AT 1:30 PM IN 303. NOT IREPORTED (D514). UG-05-2011 IFEE PAID ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF IFP (OHN: 2 it IGUARDIAN AD LITEM FILED BY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN, IAUG-05-2011 [APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF REPORTER FEE PURSUANT TO IG.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED IBY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY-SIEGEL, KIMBERLY ORDER FOR WAIVER OF REPORTER FEE GRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52 |AUG-05-2011 [APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF JURY FEE AND EXPENSES IPURSUANT TO G.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY-SIEGEL, KIMBERLY ORDER FOR WAIVER OF JURY FEE AND EXPENSES IGRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52 |AUG-05-2011 [APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS [ IPURSUANT TO G.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY-SIEGEL, IKIMBERLY ORDER FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS IGRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52 lof 3 1/4/11 8:18 AMCUD, 11-636966 http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?AP... |AUG-01-2011 INOTICE OF TIME AND PLACE OF TRIAL AND SETTLEMENT View IHEARING HEARING SET FOR AUG-10-2011 AT 01:30 PM IN IDEPT 514 (09:00 AM IN DEPT 206 ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL: 2.0 UG-01-2011 IREQUEST TO SET CASE FOR JURY TRIAL FILED BY PLAINTIFF View ICAMPBELL, TRAVIS JURY TRIAL SET FOR AUG-15-2011 AT IDAYS foL-22-2011 PPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF REPORTER FEE PURSUANT TO IG.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED IBY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN ORDER FOR WAIVER OF IREPORTER FEE GRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52 UL-22-2011 APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF JURY FEE AND EXPENSES [PURSUANT TO G.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN [ORDER FOR WAIVER OF JURY FEE AND EXPENSES GRANTED PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52 ORDER FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS GRANTED PURSUANT TO GC. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52 UL-22-2011 |AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT View |HOFFMAN, JOHN HATHAWAY-SIEGEL, KIMBERLY UL-18-2011 IDEMAND FOR JURY AND MANDATORY SETTLEMENT |CONFERENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN UL-18-2011 IDEMAND FOR JURY AND MANDATORY SETTLEMENT |CONFERENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY-SIEGEL, PUL-22-2011 APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS IPURSUANT TO G.C, 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN KIMBERLY JUN-24-2011 INVALID/RETURNED CHECK REDEEMED FOR TRANSACTION 225.00 1W2111524F042 FOR FIRST PAPER RESPONSE/PLEADING $2,500 - $10,000 'UN-24-2011 INVALID/RETURNED CHECK REDEEMED FOR TRANSACTION 251.25 1W2111524F041 FOR FIRST PAPER RESPONSE/PLEADING $2,500 - $10,000 IMAY-31-2011 IINVALID/RETURNED CHECK FOR TRANSACTION View 1W2111524F042 FOR FIRST PAPER RESPONSE/PLEADING $2,500 - [$10,000 IMAY-31-2011 IINVALID/RETURNED CHECK FOR TRANSACTION View |W2111524F041 FOR FIRST PAPER RESPONSE/PLEADING $2,500 - $10,000 IMAY-24-2011 [ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN IMAY-24-2011 [ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT HATHAWAY- View 225.00 SIEGEL, KIMBERLY IMAY- 18-2011 ISUMMONS ON COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF CAMPBELL, View [TRAVIS SERVED MAY-17-2011, PERSONAL SERVICE ON IDEFENDANT HOFFMAN, JOHN IMAY-18-2011 [SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF CAMPBELL, View [TRAVIS SERVED MAY-17-2011, PERSONAL SERVICE ON [DEFENDANT HATHAWAY, KIMBERLY 2 of 3 11/4/11 8:18 AMCUD; 11-636966 http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?AP... IMAY-10-2011 INOTICE TO DEFENDANTS | View IMAY-10-2011 UNLAWFUL DETAINER - RESIDENTIAL, COMPLAINT FILED BY View 240.00 PLAINTIFF CAMPBELL, TRAVIS AS TO DEFENDANT HATHAWAY, KIMBERLY HOFFMAN, JOHN DOES 1 TO 20 ISUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED 3 of 3 11/4/11 8:18 AMcxaigit “8POS-020 [ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY ( FOR COURT USE ONLY Wats A. Cross, SBN 250471 ‘State Bar number ALSTON CROSS, P.C. 35 Montgomery St., Ste. 250 \San Francisco, CA 94111 teveprone no. 415-926-9200 FAaxNo. (optoray 415-956-9205 E-MAK. ADDRESS (Ontona) arTorNey For Name) Plaintiff Travis Campbell SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco staeer aooress 400 McAllister St. wane acoress 400 McAllister St. ciry ano zie cove: San Francisco, CA 94102 eeanch wane. Civic Center Courthouse PETITIONERPLAINTIFF: Travis Campbell RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:Kimberly Hathaway, John Hoffman CASE NUMBER: PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE—CIVIL (Do not use this Proof of Service to show service of a Summons and Complaint.) | am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. I served the following documents (specify): Thirty Day Notice to Quit The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Personal Service—Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-020(D)). 3. I personally served the following persons at the address, date, and time stated: a. Name:Kimberly Hathaway, John Hoffman b. Address:339 Lyon St., Apt. 2, San Francisco, CA 94117 c. Date-October 29, 2011 d. Time:1:45p.m. The persons are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Personal Service—Civil (Persons Served) (form POS-020(P)). 4. lam a. [7] nota registered California process server. e an employee or independent contractor of a b. a registered California nrocess server. registered California process server. J. ‘exempt from registration under Business & Professions Code section 22350(b). 5. My name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number are (specify): Paul Cavallero Walston Cross, P.C 735 Montgomery St., Ste. 250 San Francisco, CA 94111 6. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 7. 1am a California sheriff or marshal and certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date:November |, 2011 Paul Cavallero (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED THE PAPERS) ‘Socal Council Caton, PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE—CIVIL Coa a ce rovers $7001 PSEa0 ew Sonar 1 208ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nan, state bar number, and address): myer LaHyacuae Bea pen et eZ SM Francs s¢é, CA qu let ATTORNEY FOR (Name}: Defenucawir in Ho, bey— SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ‘CASE NUMBER: CAMPBELL cud (679244 yo |E6EL EACLE PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL CCP 1013a, 2015.5 PAT HA WHA DEFENDANT(S) I declare that: ro. Sau Fvana sce omni | am (a resident offemployed in) the county of , Califomia (County where mailing occurred) | am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my (business/residence) address is: A50 DURC Avo, Bd FULLY, L4A- On e (ome) Trial and Mandatory Settlement Confeuna— onthe plaah tt in said cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Sau Francs A addressed as follows: Ove. StC. oS CO VOSS / 125 wlovtgOUuesry St Ste. ATO Seu Finds sid, CA #¢UC ' declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on at . California mel | Wi “Ga Fauci CA Wilder Wwucelay ‘San Francisco Superior Court PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL Efrectve Date: danucry 1, W94 Martin Dean's Essential Forms™ , | served the within Answer ~ Unlawful beter, Defendant's Demand fn Jury (Signature; C8