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