arrow left
arrow right
  • SAL CASTILLO VS. RALPH DAYAN CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • SAL CASTILLO VS. RALPH DAYAN CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • SAL CASTILLO VS. RALPH DAYAN CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • SAL CASTILLO VS. RALPH DAYAN CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • SAL CASTILLO VS. RALPH DAYAN CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • SAL CASTILLO VS. RALPH DAYAN CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • SAL CASTILLO VS. RALPH DAYAN CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • SAL CASTILLO VS. RALPH DAYAN CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
						
                                

Preview

WINONA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-08-2012 3:18 pm Case Number: CGC-11-516078 Filing Date: Mar-08-2012 3:12 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03526366 COMPLAINT SAL CASTILLO VS. RALPH DAYAN 00103526366 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.sujf Mark Hooshmand, Esq. (SBN 194878) ing PRL Cal D Marie-Helene Prinz, Esq. (SBN 264857) MAR “eo Hooshmand Law Group MAR 08 2012 22 Battery Street, Ste. 610 CLE, San Francisco, CA 94111 oy. EX OF THE Court Tel: (415) 318-5709 Fax: (415) 376-5897 Puy Clark Attorney for Plaintiffs Sal Castillo and Nancy Williamson, individually and on behalf of the Class SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAL CASTILLO and NANCY ) CASE: CGC-11-516078 WILLIAMSON, individually and on ) behalf of all similarly situated individuals, ) ) CLASS ACTION Plaintiff, ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF vs. ) PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY } WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON ) BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS ) 1090 EDDY ST, LLC, ADAM ) KOMOSA, individually and dba ) JASON ADAMS MANAGEMENT ) CO., RALPH DAYAN, TOM ) SWIERT and DOES 1 to 100, ; Defendants. ) COMPLEX DESIGNATION ° ) ) Unlimited Jurisdiction (exceeds $25,000) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 127 28 Plaintiffs Sal Castillo and Nancy Williamson bring this action individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, against Defendants. Plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of themselves and as class representatives under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. 1. Plaintiff Sal Castillo is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco, California. 2. Plaintiff Nancy Williamson is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco, California. 3. On information and belief, Defendant 1090 EDDY ST., LLC is and at all relevant times was a limited liability company organized in the City and County of San Francisco, California and an owner of 1090 Eddy Street, San Francisco, California (the “PROPERTY”). 4. On information and belief, Defendant ADAM KOMOSA INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA JASON ADAMS MANAGMENT CO. is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco, California. 5. On information and belief, Defendant RALPH DAYAN, is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco, California. 6. On information and belief, Defendant JASON ADAMS MANAGEMENT CO. is and at all relevant times was an entity form unknown located in the City and County of San Francisco, California. 7. On information and belief, Defendant TOM SWIERT is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco, California, 8. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names of Defendants listed as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and have therefore sued them by the foregoing names which are fictitious. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint by inserting the true names in lieu of said fictitious names, together with apt and proper charging words, when said true names are ascertained. Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is responsible and liable to Plaintiffs in some manner for the events, happenings, and contentions referred to in this Complaint. All references herein to “Defendant” or “Defendants” shall be FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 2a7 28 deemed to include all DOE Defendants. 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant, including DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, was and is the agent, employce, servant, subsidiary, partner, member, associate, or representative of each other Defendant, including DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and that all of the things alleged to have been done by said Defendants were done in the course and scope of said agency, employment, service, subsidiary, partnership, membership, association, or representative relationship and with the knowledge and consent of their respective principals, employers, masters, parent corporations, partners, members, associates, or representatives. Each and every Defendant has authorized, ratified, acknowledged, consented, acquiesced, and/or approved of all acts, conduct, and/or omissions by each and every other Defendant. 10. Plaintiffs allege that there exists, and at all times herein mentioned there existed, a unity of interest and ownership between the Defendants such that any individuality and separateness between defendants has ceased and that each Defendant is the alter ego of the other. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 11. Plaintiffs bring this action in their individual capacities, on behalf of all persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public as defined in Business and Professions Code section 17204, and that portion of the general public affected by Defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct. Such a representative action is necessary to prevent and remedy the deceptive, unlawful and unfair practices alleged herein. 12. The class consists of any persons who have been in occupancy at the premises for thirty or more consecutive days during that period, or who were asked to leave before 30 days elapsed. This class of residents is the “Class”. The persons in the Class are so numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable where there are approximately forty-eight (48) units and where some units have and have had multiple residents. During the four year period prior to the date of filing of this Complaint, it is estimated that hundreds of persons have resided at the premises for thirty (30) days or more. The members of this class are ascertainable and capable of being identified. The disposition of their claims in a class action is therefore a benefit to the parties and FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 3to the Court and the class is sufficiently numerous. 13. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented in that every member of the Class has been subject to the same pattern of illegal conduct alleged below, every member has been subject to inconvenience, habitability issues, statutory damages, annoyance, and discomfort because of the Defendants' conduct meant to promote turnover in the building to drive ovt longer-term tenants. Proof of a common or single state of facts will establish the right of each member of the Class to recover. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Class, and the named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class. The questions of law and fact common to the Class are substantially similar and predominate over questions affecting the individual members of the Class. 14. This action is brought and may be properly maintained as a class action pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382. 15. The Class that the Plaintiffs seek to represent is composed of and defined as follows: “For the four year period prior to November 22, 2011, and while this lawsuit has been pending, all persons who live or have lived at 1090 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 located in the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter referred to as “the Subject Premises”) for more than thirty (30) consecutive days at any time during this period”, with the exact time period to be confirmed in discovery. 16. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or otherwise alter the Class definitions presented to the Court at the appropriate time, or propose or eliminate Sub-Classes, in response to facts learned through discovery, and legal arguments advanced by defendants or otherwise. 17. The potential members of the Class, as defined herein, are so numerous that joinder would be impractical, The Subject Premises has approximately forty-eight (48) units. Many of these units have more than one resident. A conservative estimate of the size of the class, using an average length of tenancy of one year and only one resident per unit, would be roughly 250 members. Plaintiffs believe that the exact number, identity and address of the Class members can be obtained from Defendants’ records. The class, therefore, is sufficiently numerous. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 427 28 18. There exists numerous questions of law and fact common to representative Plaintiffs and the Class. Those questions substantially predominate over any question that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Whether mold exists throughout the building, including in the common areas. b) Whether the Owners and Agents have a general policy of refusing to make repairs. c) Whether the Owners and Agents have a general policy of harassing tenants. d) Whether Owners and Agents have a general policy of retaliating against tenants who request repairs and otherwise asserted their rights directly or through notification to various governmental agencies. e) Whether the Owners and Agents have a general policy of refusing to follow the law as a pattern of causing longer term tenants to move out. f) Whether the Defendants refused to perform needed repairs at the PROPERTY throughout the entire building as part of a common plan in order to ensure regular turnover at the PROPERTY. 2) Whether the Owner and their agents took the actions alleged in the complaint, including construction and renovation in complete disregard of the effect on the tenants in an attempt to force them to leave the premises h) Whether the Owner and their agents' dominant motive for attempting to recover possession of the premises was permissible under section 37.9(a) of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance. i) Whether the Owner and their agents instituted a campaign that violated Proposition M and section Sec. 37.10B(a), which provides that “No landlord, and no agent, contractor, subcontractor or employee of the landlord shall do any of the following in bad faith or with ulterior motive or without honest intent:(1) Interrupt, terminate or fail to provide housing services required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws; (2) Fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws; (4) Abuse the landlord's right of access into a rental housing unit as that right is provided by law; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 524 25 28 (5) Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion; (10) Interfere with a tenants right to quiet use and enjoyment of a rental housing unit as that right is defined by California law; (11) Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant's lawful rent payment; or (13) Interfere with a tenant's right to privacy; j) Whether the Defendants and their agents violated their duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, operation, management, and control of the subject premises by refusing to honor their obligations including the failure to make repairs, delays in making repairs, and negligently performing repairs. k) Whether the Defendants acted with specific intent to cause Plaintiffs’ living conditions to become so intolerable that they would be forced to vacate. 1) Whether the Defendants conducted construction and improvements without necessary permits and without implementing reasonable safeguards. m) Whether the Defendants neglected their duties to make repairs. n) Whether the Defendants violated Local and State Law by failing to provide for amenities and services required by Local and State Law. 19. The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class members. Counsel who represents Plaintiffs are competent and capable of litigating complex, multi-party litigation pertaining to Landlord and Tenant practices. The Plaintiffs and their counsel are commilted to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class and have the financial resources necessary to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interest adverse to those of the Class. m) Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been similarly affected and harmed by Defendants’ common course of wrongful conduct as described herein. n) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy since individual joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable. Furthermore, the damages suffered by each individual member of the Class may be relatively small, and the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 627 28 for individual members of the Class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the court system of such individual adjudication would be substantial. Individualized litigation would also present the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system in multiple trials of identical factual issues. The conduct of this action as a class action presents fewer management difficultics, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each Class member. 20. Should the Plaintiffs prevail in this action for violations of San Francisco Residential Rent Ordinances, Breach of Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment, Negligence, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Unfair Business Practices, Constructive Eviction, Retaliatory Eviction and Elder Abuse, they and the Class members shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY AS AGAINST ALL OWNER- DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50 21. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Class members incorporate the foregoing allegations into this Cause of Action. 22. In renting the subject premises to the Plaintiffs and the Class members, Defendants impliedly undertook not to do anything to disturb Plaintiffs peaceful and beneficial possession of the premises. 23. In renting the subject premises to the Plaintiffs and the Class Members, the Defendants impliedly undertook a duty to maintain the premises in a tenantable condition as required by law. 24. The Defendants have refused to perform repairs to the building, allowed the building to fall into disrepair, failed to address the mold throughout the building, harassed the tenants, failed to fix the elevator, failed to fix many of the dilapidated conditions including the floors and ceilings, failed to fix the roof and exterior walls allowing water to seep into the building resulting in mold throughout the building. 25. In addition, the Defendants would turn off the electricity to the building, fail to provide heat, fail to replace broken windows, fail to repair and replace doors, failed to repair and place FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 727 28 holes in the walls, and failed to clean the carpets throughout the building. 26. By allowing the building to fall into disrepair, neglecting to make repairs, utilizing unlicensed contractors, and negligently performing the construction and renovation, the Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs' and the Class Members’ tenancy. 27. In severely interfering with Plaintiffs tenancy and wrongfully attempting to evict Plaintiffs through direct evictions, constructive evictions, and retaliatory evictions, including Plaintiff Sal Castillo, the Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability of the premises. 28. In continuing to employ their non-licensed property managers, the Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability of the premises. 29. The Defendants, directly and through their agents, routinely entered Plaintiffs’ apartment without notice for the purpose of inspecting Plaintiffs' unit and not for any legitimate reason. 30. The Defendants’ attempts to utilize any means possible to harass and dispossess tenants. 31. Many defective conditions existed throughout the building during the time that the Plaintiffs and other Class Members resided there, specifically including, but not limited to, the following: a) Electrical systems and wiring not maintained in good working order as required by law, b) Elevator not maintained in good working order, c) Heating and Cooling systems not maintained in good working order, d) Construction performed in an unsafe manner and without permit, e) Rampant mold throughout the building as a result of water intrusion into the building, 1) Peeling paint, g) Lack of general maintenance, and failure to adequately repair or address ongoing defective conditions, and h) Unsanitary and poorly maintained common areas. 38. The defective conditions listed above affected the tenancies of the Plaintiffs and other Class members. The above conditions have existed contrary to sections of the California Civil Code, California case law, municipal codes and certain health, fire, and safety and building codes that require the Defendants to maintain the common areas and dwellings intended for human FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 810 W 27 28 occupancy in good repair and in a habitable condition. 39. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of each defective condition, and Plaintiffs and Class Members notified Defendants of the defects, but the Defendants failed and refused to correct these defective conditions. 40. Because of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, the Defendants breached their duty to maintain the premises in a tenantable condition as required by law. 41. Asa direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and the failure to address the Plaintiffs’ complaints, Plaintiffs suffered distress and anguish all to their general damage and in an amount that exceeds $3,000,000. 42. Defendants’ acts and omissions were knowing, intentional, willful and done with full knowledge of the discomfort and annoyance that such acts and omissions would cause Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50 43. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of the Class incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs. 44. By reason of the personal and fiduciary relationships between Plaintiffs and Defendants arising out of the lease agreement, Defendants owed Plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, operation, management, and control of the subject premises, which included but was not limited to the following: the duty to comply with all applicable state and local laws governing Plaintiffs rights; the duty not to interfere with Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members' quiet enjoyment of the premises; the duty of the Defendants to manage their agents, and the duty to refrain from attempting to wrongfully evict Plaintiffs. 45, Defendants, by their conduct as alleged herein, negligently and carelessly operated and managed the subject premises, and thereby breached duties owed to Plaintiff, including those listed in the paragraph immediately above. 46. All of the individuals and entities that participated in the management and ownership of the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 927 28 PROPERTY, owed the Plaintiffs a duty to address tenants' complaints, perform repairs, refrain from harassment, address the mold, take steps to prevent water intrusion, and to properly discharge their obligations under the law. The Defendants negligently failed to repair the holes in the walls and the windows throughout the building, negligently allowed mold to enter the building, allowed trespassers to enter the building and attack tenants, and performed work without permits and in a negligent fashion. 47. The Plaintiffs and Class members suffered physical injury and emotional distress damages where the defective conditions harmed them physically and where the existing problems caused them to lose sleep, suffer anxiety, stress, depression, and out of pocket costs to address the problems. 48. Asa direct and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages in an amount that exceeds $3,000,000. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF WARRANTY OF QUIET ENJOYMENT AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50 49. Plaintiffs and the Class members incorporate into this cause of action the foregoing allegations of this Complaint. 50. In renting the subject premises to the Plaintiffs and the Class members, the Defendants impliedly undertook not to do anything to disturb Plaintiffs peaceful and beneficial possession of the premises. 51. Im severely interfering with Plaintiffs tenancy, intentionally harassing the Plaintiffs and Class Members, many of whom are elderly and disabled, failing ot perform repairs, and creating harmful and unsafe conditions in an attempt to cause the tenants to leave, the Defendants breached the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment of the Plaintiffs and class members. 52, The harassment of the tenants, entries into their room without permission or legitimate reasons, refusal to provide proper secured locks and doors, enabling trespassers and others to enter the property and attack the Plaintiffs, all resulted in breaches of the quiet enjoyment of the Plaintiffs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 1012 13 14 53. Other conditions included construction without proper permits, performing work without permits, the failure to complete the construction and renovation in a proper and timely manner, and the failure to address required repairs. 54. In continuing to employ their non-licensed property managers who were operating below the standard of care and negligently, the Defendants breached the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment of the premises. 55. Asa direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and the failure to address the Plaintiffs’ complaints, Plaintiffs suffered distress and anguish all to their general damage and in an amount according to proof. 56. The Plaintiffs and Class Members also did not receive the benefit of their rental payments where they paid rent but did not receive an apartment that they could live in free from reasonable disturbances and they seek to recover their rent. 57. Plaintiffs and the Class Members suffered damages in the loss of their rent, believed to be in excess of $1,000,000 during this time period and also emotional distress, moving costs and repair costs for a total of over $3,500,000. 58. Defendants’ acts and omissions were knowing, intentional, willful and done with full knowledge of the discomfort and annoyance that such acts and omissions would cause Plaintiffs. 59. Defendants conduct was malicious and oppressive and Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof where the Defendants intended to harm the Plaintiffs in an effort to ensure regular turnover, or they disregarded the likelihood of harm to the Plaintiffs which was malicious, fraudulent and oppressive. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50 60. Plaintiffs and the Class Members incorporate the foregoing allegations into this cause of action. 61. Section 17200 defines unfair competition as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 1112 13 14 27 28 [the false advertising law (§ 17500 et seq.)].” Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17200. A business act or practice need only meet one of the three criteria - unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent - to be considered unfair competition under the UCL. The “unlawful” act prong includes anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law. The UCL thus makes violations of other laws independently actionable as unfair competitive practices. A practice may also "be deemed unfair even if not specifically proscribed by some other law.” A practice can therefore be "unfair" or "deceptive" even if not "unlawful", and vice versa. 62. Defendants failed to properly make repairs when requested, failed to keep the property in a habitable condition, failed to obtain permits when conducting construction and performed construction in unsanitary and unsafe ways using unlicensed contractors and managers, performed evictions without just cause, and otherwise committed business practices in violation of the unlawful and unfair prongs of the UCL where such actions violated, among other statutes, the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and Proposition M as well as state laws including Civil Code 1940.1, 1941, 1941.1, 1942.4 and 1942.5 and 789.3. 63. By wrongfully interfering with Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' tenancies in violation of the Rent Ordinance and Proposition M, by neglecting repairs, by allowing construction in a manner that was unsanitary and disturbing, and utilizing unlicensed building managers that harass the tenants, the Defendants have engaged in unfair business practices within the term of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500, et seq. 64. In advertising and holding themselves out to the general public as an apartment building that provided a clean and legal apartment that performed repairs timely and complied with state and local laws including but not limited to the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and Proposition M, Defendants agreed to abide by the provisions of the California Unfair Business Practices Act, Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500, et seq. ("Unfair Competition Law" or "UCL") 65. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were damaged by the actions of the Defendants where the Plaintiffs and Class Members were physically harmed by the acts and practices and also paid rent based on the foregoing fraudulent actions and the representations that the Defendants would FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 1227 28 provide a clean apartment with amenities when in reality the Defendants had no intention of providing these amenities and also continued to accept rent from the Plaintiffs and Class Members even though the Defendants had no intention of changing their unfair and unlawful business practices. 66. The Plaintiffs, and on information and belief the requests of the Class Members, have been harmed by Defendants’ actions. Members of the public are likely to be deceived by defendants’ actions in the same way that Plaintiffs and Class Members were harmed. Uniess action is taken to stop the Defendants, members of the public will continue to be harmed. 67. Due to the great likelihood of additional harm, Plaintiffs request an injunction against the Defendants and their agents, restraining them from taking these actions. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 51 THROUGH 100 68, Plaintiffs and the Class Members incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations. 69. On information and belief, as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, certain Class Members have vacated the premises. 70. The Defendants acted with specific intent to cause the Class Members’ living conditions to become so intolerable that they would be forced to vacate. 71. The Defendants refused to make repairs, refused to address the rampant mold throughout the building, intentionally harassed any tenants that complained, failed to fix the roof, failed to fix the front door, failed to regularly clean the building, failed to address ceilings that collapsed and failed to address tenant complaints. 72. The Defendants’ failures and harassment actually forced some Plaintiffs to vacate so as to cause them to lose their protected tenant status and then they would in some instances have the same Plaintiffs move back in. 73. On information and belief, the Defendants and their agents conducted the construction and renovation in such a manner as to assist the Defendants with the plan of promoting turnover in the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 1327 28 building and driving out the Jong-term rent controlled tenants. 74. On information and belief, the their agents performed the construction and renovation in such a manner that they consciously disregarded the harm they caused the Plaintiffs and Class members and that they were aware that their actions, taken as agents of the owners, would result in tenants vacating the building 75. The Defendants required that some of the Plaintiffs move out of the building before 30 days elapsed in an effort to avoid the tenants obtaining protected status. 76. Asa direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of the Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages in an amount greater than $3,000,000. 77. Defendants’ conduct was sufficiently malicious and oppressive and entitles Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount according to proof where the Defendants’ intended the Plaintiffs and Class Members suffer harm as a result of the failure to make repairs and harassment, and consciously disregarded the significant risk that the Plaintiffs and Class Members would suffer harm. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 51 THROUGH 100 78. The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other Class members, incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations. 79. The Defendants threatened some of the Plaintiffs, required other Plaintiffs to move out without just cause, refused to make repairs and also decreased services for the Plaintiffs by failing to address complaints over heat, mold, the lack of repairs, harassed some Plaintiffs, and refused rent checks from Plaintiffs. 80. The Defendants took the foregoing actions in retaliation against the Plaintiffs and the Class members to attempt to force them to leave the premises. 81. The Defendants failed to make repairs as a method of acquiring possession of premises without just cause so that the tenants would regularly move out so that the Plaintiffs and Class Members would not acquire protection of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 1482. At the time the Defendants took the foregoing actions alleged in this Complaint, none of the grounds for recovering possession listed in section 37.9(a) of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance were Defendants’ dominant motive for attempting to recover possessions of the premises, nor had Defendants informed Plaintiffs in writing, as required by Sec. 37.9(c) of the Rent Ordinance of valid grounds under which they were secking possession. 83. The Defendants unilaterally moved some of the tenants without properly first evicting them to perform capital improvements or necessary repairs, and without paying them a proper relocation fee. 84. Section 37.9(f) of the Rent Ordinance provides that whenever a landlord unsuccessfully endeavors to recover possession of a dwelling unit in violation of Section 37.9 of said Ordinance, the tenant may sue for not less than three times the actual damages, attorney’s tees and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. 85. Proposition M and section Sec. 37.10B(a), Tenant Harassment, provides that “No landlord, and no agent, contractor, subcontractor or employee of the landlord shall do any of the following in bad faith or with ulterior motive or without honest intent:(1) Interrupt, terminate or fail to provide housing services required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws; (2) Fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws; (4) Abuse the landlord's right of access into a rental housing unit as that right is provided by law; (5) Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion; (10) Interfere with a tenants right to quiet use and enjoyment of a rental housing unit as that right is defined by California law; (11) Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant's lawful rent payment; or (13) Interfere with a tenant's right to privacy. 86. Defendants, directly and through their agents, violated the above referenced sections of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and Proposition M. 87. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the Class members have incurred damages which include legal costs and attorney’s fees. In addition, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 1515 16 7 Plaintiffs have suffered inconvenience, annoyance, and severe emotional distress, all to their damage in an amount exceeding $3,000,000. 88. Plaintiffs and the Class members have incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees as a result of prosecuting this action and the Class members are entitled to not less than three times the amount of money damages and the recovery of attorney’s fees for prosecuting this cause of action as provided for in section 37.9(f) of the Rent Ordinance. 89. Defendants conduct was malicious and oppressive and Plaintiffs and the Class members are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof, and to the trebling of damages awarded for Plaintiffs’ emotional distress, where the Defendants intentionally violated the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and knew that the Plaintiffs and Class Members would suffer severe emotional distress, and to the extent the Defendants did not intend the harm, they consciously disregarded the risk that this harm would result. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 51 THROUGH 100 90. Plaintiffs and the Class Members incorporate into this cause of action the foregoing allegations of this Complaint. 91. Defendants have a duty to the Plaintiffs and Class Members by virtue of the landlord tenant relationship that exists between the Defendants and the tenants. 92. Defendants, directly and through their agents, refused to make repairs throughout the building and intentionally harassed the tenants. The failure to make repairs and repair the roof resulted in mold throughout the building which caused health problems and personal injury. 93. The Defendants, directly and through their agents, continuously enter Plaintiffs’ apartment without notice, have forced the resident managers to threaten the Plaintiffs, and falsely allege that Plaintiffs are disturbing the other tenants. The Defendants have not taken any corrective actions. 94. The harassment and failure to make repairs directly caused the Plaintiffs and Class Members to suffer severe emotional distress. 95. Asa direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions on the part of FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 16Defendants, Plaintiffs, and on information and belief the Class Members, have suffered and continue to suffer from stress, nightmares, depression, anxiety, insomnia and paranoia for which medication has been required in addition to multiple doctors and counseling sessions. 96. Plaintiffs, and on information and belief the Class Members, are living in fear and are constantly concerned that they may be subject to physical harm and continued harassment. 97. Said conduct on the part of the Defendants did cause and would have caused a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional and physical distress. 98. Asa direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts by Defendants, resulting in Plaintiffs, and on information and belief the Class Members, having suffered emotional and physical distress, Plaintiffs have been and continue to be generally and specially damaged in an amount according to proof, which amount exceeds $3,000,000. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 51 THROUGH 100 99. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class Members, incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations. 100. The acts and omissions taken by Defendants were intentionally done to cause harm to Plaintiffs and the Class members. 101. The Defendants intended to harm or consciously disregarded the serious risk of harm to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs and Class members. For example, the intentional threats made by the Defendants toward the Plaintiffs of physical and emotional harm the Defendants intended to cause them and that the Defendants intended to retaliate against the Plaintiffs for requesting repairs and assistance, were intended to harm the Plaintiffs and the Class Members. 102. The Defendants and their agents also threatened harm to the Plaintiffs and and also intentionally and illegally entered Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ rooms. Defendants intended to harm or consciously disregarded the serious risk of harm to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs and the Class Members. 103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 1727 28 extreme mental distress, all to their general damage in an amount according to proof, in an amount that exceeds $3,000,000. 104. Defendants’ conduct was knowing and willful. Defendants had full knowledge or substantial certainty of the extreme mental distress that their conduct would cause Plaintiffs and the Class members. 105. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive, and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages as the Defendants intended their actions to cause severe emotional distress when they directed their threats of harm toward the Plaintiffs and Class Members. Defendants’ actions would cause a reasonable person to suffer the emotional distress that did in fact result from their actions. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATORY EVICTION AS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS AND DOES 51 THROUGH 100 106. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class Members, incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations of this Complaint. 107. Plaintiffs and Class Members notified the City and County of San Francisco regarding the need for repairs. 108. The Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiffs as a result of the Plaintiffs’ notifications to the Department of Building and Inspection, Plaintiffs’ insistence that their rights be acknowledged, and the refusal to be berated and verbally abused by Defendants. 109. Asa direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages in an amount to be proven, which amounts exceed $3,000,000. 110. Asa result of their notification to the City of San Francisco Department of Building and Inspection, requests for repairs, and complaints about the conditions in the building, the Defendants further refused to provide services to the Plaintiffs and harassed the Plaintiffs. 111. Asa direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages in an amount to be proven, which amounts exceed FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 18a7 28 $2,000,000. 112. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive where they targeted the Plaintiffs and Class Members, many of whom are disabled and elderly, after they made complaints in an effort to promote turnover and drive out longer-term tenants for financial gain. Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof because the Defendants intended to cause the Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional harm by evicting them and harassing them in response to their requests for repairs, or the knew that severe emotional distress would result from their harassment and they consciously disregarded this risk. 113. By reason of the foregoing and pursuant to California Civil Code § 1942.5, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to recovery of actual damages in an amount to be proven at tial, $3,000.00 for each act of retaliatory eviction, and reasonable attomey’s fees. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ELDER ABUSE ON BEHALF OF ALL CLASS MEMBERS OVER THE AGE OF 65_AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 114. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class Members, incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations of this Complaint. 115. Plaintiff Nancy Williamson is over the age of 65 and it is believed that some Class Members may also be over the age of 65. 116. Some of the actions committed by the Defendants and their agents occurred at a time when Plaintiff Williamson and some of the Class Members were over the age of 65. 117. The Defendants retaliated against, harassed, and failed to accommodate Plaintiff Williamson and the Class Members who were over the age of 65 at the time of the actions by refusing to address their complaints. 118. The Defendants also failed to address their obligations to the Class Members over the age of 65 in order to force the tenants to move out of the building despite the fact that these tenants are more susceptible to the harm, as well as Defendants’ and their agents' threats, intimidation and other wrongdoings. 119. The Defendants failed to address their obligations to the Class Members over the age of 65 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 19by refusing to clean the common areas, failing to make repairs throughout the building, turning off the electricity and water without notice, in order to force the tenants to move out of the building despite the fact that these tenants are more susceptible to the harm and dust from the negligent construction, as well as Defendants' and their agents’ threats, intimidation and other wrongdoings. 120. The Class Members over the age of 65 were harmed as a result of the actions of the Defendants and their agents. 121. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm to the Ptaintiffs and the Class Members. 122. The Class Members suffered harm in an amount that exceeds $3,000,000. 123. Defendants’ acts and omissions were knowing, intentional, willful and done with full knowledge of the discomfort and annoyance that such acts and omissions would cause Plaintiffs and the Class Members. Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ON BEHALF OF ALL CLASS MEMBERS WHO ARE DISABLED AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 124. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class Members, incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations of this Complaint. 125. Plaintiffs, and on information and belief the Class Members, suffer from disabilities. 126. The actions committed by the Defendants occurred at a time when Plaintiffs, and on information and belief some of the Class Members, were disabled. 127. The Defendants failed to address their obligations to the Plaintiffs and the Class Members who were disabled in order to force the tenants to move out of the building despite the fact that these tenants are more susceptible to harm, the increased security problems, as well as Defendants’ and their agents’ threats, intimidation and other wrongdoing in refusing to make repairs to the building, including fixing the elevator and other appurtenances, was done in order to prevent the Plaintiffs and Class Members with disabilities from being able to utilize the amenities of the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 20Property in violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights as tenants. 128. The Defendants failed to address their obligations to the Plaintiffs and the Class Members who were disabled in order to force the tenants to move out of the building despite the fact that these tenants are more susceptible to the harm and dust from the negligent construction, as well as Defendants’ and their agents' threats, intimidation and other wrongdoings. 129. Plaintiffs and Class Members were harassed, intimidated and physically threatened by the Defendants and their agents in violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. 130. The Defendants, directly and through their agents, intentionally created substandard conditions throughout the building, entered Plaintiffs' rooms without proper notice or permission, failed to obtain permits, performed work without the necessary permits, failed to properly execute and oversee the construction, prevented access to Plaintiffs' and Class Members’ rooms and common areas, yelled at, threatened, illegally monitored, harassed, and tried to evict the Plaintiffs and the Class Members without just cause. 131. The Defendants also failed to make accommodations for the Plaintiffs by refusing to make repairs for them which prevented them from being able to use their apartments and the common areas as a non-disabled person would. 132. The Plaintiffs and the Class members were harmed as a result of the actions of the Defendants in an amount that exceeds $2,000,000. 133. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiffs and the Class members’ harm. Defendants’ acts and omissions were knowing, intentional, willful and done with full knowledge of the discomfort and annoyance that such acts and omissions would cause Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof where they knew that these elderly Plaintiffs were more susceptible to harm and the actions were taken in order to drive out the tenants and harm them based on their susceptibility, Punitive damages are warranted since Defendants knew that many of the tenants were elderly and weaker than other tenants and unable to defend themselves and to stand up for their rights including restricting and refusing access to their rooms, withstanding the threats and constant room entrics, withstanding FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAL CASTILLO AND NANCY WILLIAMSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED CLASS 2115 16 7 27 28 the substandard conditions caused by the Defendants and their agents. Defendants knew of the susceptibility of the elderly Class Members and Plaintiffs and they still took these actions with wanton disregard for the health and safety of these Class Members and Plaintiffs even though they knew they were causing them harm. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NUISANCE AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 134, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class members incorporate into this cause of action the foregoing allegations of this Complaint. 135. The Plaintiffs and members of the Class, by virtue of their rental of the subject premises, had, at all relevant times, a property interest in the subject premises. 136. The Defendants’ conduct in Owner-Defendants’ conduct in failing to maintain the subject premises in a habitable condition, failing to make repairs, failing to respond to complaints and threatening the tenants, was injurious to the health of the named Plaintiff and other Class members, offensive to their senses, and interfered with their comfortable enjoyment of life, and their interest in the premises. 137. The Defendants' and their agents' conduct included negligent supervision of the property managers, the failure to repair the roof, the failure to address the rampant mold in the building. Defendants’ conduct in maintaining the subject premises in the manner described above, was injurious to the health of the named Plaintiffs and other Class members, offensive to their senses, and interfered with their comfortable enjoyment of life, and their interest in the premises. 138. The Defendants and their agents failed to maintain and repair the premises, including but not limited to failing to maintain electrical system and wiring in good working order, failing to maintain and repair the elevator, failing to maintain heating, cooling, and water sy