Preview
DOORMAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Mar-12-2012 3:45 pm
Case Number: CGC-11-516344
Filing Date: Mar-12-2012 3:41
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03530458
COMPLAINT
SANSANEE SAEJEAR VS. KAMRAN ARDEBILCHI et al
001003530458
instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Mark Hooshmand, Esq. (SBN 194878)
Hooshmand Law Group
22 Battery Street, Ste. 610
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 318-5709
Fax: (415) 376-5897
on behalf of Others Similarly Situated
SANSANEE SAEJEAR, Individually
and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Ssituated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NICK VELANDO, KAMRAN
ARDEBILCHI, JAHANGIR
ARDEBILCHI, PRIME PACIFIC
INVESTMENTS, INC., SAM PATEL,
CSV HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT,
LLC., OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS, INC.,
HENRY KARNILOWICZ; LUIS FELIPE
MORAN DBA PRONTITO PLUMBING;
MELVIN MUNOZ MORAN DBA BLUE
LIGHT ELECTRIC, MELVIN ARTURO
MORAN DBA MEGA ELECTRIC;
|MARCO —- ANTONIO ENCINAS
|/BORQUEZ, AND ROES | THROUGH
100° - ;
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FILE
Superior Court of California
‘ounty of San Francisco
MAR 12 2012
CLERK OF THE COURT
Man Qe.
By: Deouty Clerk
Attomey for Plaintiff Sansanee Saejear, Individually and
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CASE: CGC-11-516344
CLASS ACTION
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
COMPLEX MATTER
Unlimited Jurisdiction (exceeds $25,000)
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFE SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEIEAR INDIVIDIAIT Y BROPlaintiff Sansanee Saejear, brings this action individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, against Defendants NICK VELANDO, KAMRAN ARDEBILCHI, JAHANGIR
ARDEBILCHI, PRIME PACIFIC INVESTMENTS, INC., SAM PATEL, CSV HOSPITALITY
MANAGEMENT, LLC., OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS, INC., HENRY KARNILOWICZ; LUIS
FELIPE MORAN DBA PRONTITO PLUMBING: MELVIN MUNOZ MORAN DBA BLUE
LIGHT ELECTRIC, MELVIN ARTURO MORAN DBA MEGA ELECTRIC; MARCO
ANTONIO ENCINAS BORQUEZ, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100. Plaintiff asserts this claim
on behalf of herself and as a class representative under the provisions of California Code of Civil
Procedure section 382,
1. Plaintiff Sansanee Saejear is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of San Francisco,
California.
2. Defendant NICK VELANDO is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco,
California, and was acting on behalf of himself and as an agent of Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi,
Defendant Jahangir Ardebilchi, and Defendant Prime Pacific Investments, Inc..
3. Defendant KAMRAN ARDEBILCHI is and at all relevant times was a resident of San
Francisco, California and is one of the owners of 629 Post Street, San Francisco, California (‘The
Property”).
4. Defendant JAHANGIR ARDEBILCHI is and at all relevant times was a resident of San
Francisco, California and is one of the owners of 629 Post Street, San Francisco, California.
5. Defendant PRIME PACIFIC INVESTMENTS, INC. (“PPI”) is and at all relevant times
was a business entity headquartered in San Francisco, California and is the alter ego of Defendant
Kamran Ardebilchi and Defendant J ahangir Ardebilchi.
6. There is a unity of interest and ownership between PPI and Kamran and Jahangir
Ardebilchi (the “Owner-Defendants”) such that the separate personalities of the corporation and
the Owner-Defendants do not in reality exist. It would be an inequitable result if the acts in
question of PPI are treated as those of the corporation alone, and also if the acts in question of
Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi and Defendant Jahangir Ardebilchi are treated as theirs alone and
not imputed to PPI.10
W
27
28
7. On information and belief PPI is the alter ego of Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi and
Defendant Jahangir Ardebilichi, PPI has held itself out to the Plaintiff and third parties as the
owner of The Property, PPI contracted as the owner with Defendant CSV Hospitality to undertake
the construction which was negligently managed, PPI received invoices and wrote checks as the
Owner to contractors for the renovation of The Property, PPI's business address was listed as the
business address for The Property, agents of PPI managed the room reservations and operations
of The Property, agents of PPI managed the renovation of The Property and other constructions
projects, agents of PPT emailed tenants and third parties as part of managing the operations of The
Property, agents of PPI acted on behalf of PPI with respect to the actions being complained of
including threatening the Plaintiff, moving tenants improperly and failing to safeguard their
health and safety and repairing Plaintiff's apartments.
8. In addition to the actions of the Owner-Defendants and Defendant Velando for which PPI
is responsible, Defendant PPI failed to obtain insurance as obligated by law precluding the
Plaintiff from an avenue of recovery, failed to properly manage the contractors including CSV
Hospitality and Sam Patel, failed to terminate the services of the contractors when it was clear
they were not addressing their work properly, failed to obtain building permits and other
necessary permits for the construction, and moved tenants without following the law requiring
permits, proper notice and payment.
9. PPI was utilized by Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi and Defendant Jahangir Ardebilchi as a
vehicle to attempt to improperly shield their personal liability while failing to maintain a
separateness of interest.
10. It is believed that PPI is in partnership or a joint venture with Defendant Kamran
Ardebilchi and Defendant Jahangir Ardebilchi in connection with their common plan to convert
the Property from long term tenants to shorter term visitors,
11. Defendant PPI is being sued as a separate and distinct Defendant for actions it took
through its agents, and it is also being sued for the actions of Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi,
Defendant Jahangir Ardebilchi, Defendant Nick Velando and their agents, taken directly in their
own names and in the name of PPI.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAN:
IEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS12. Defendant SAM PATEL is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco,
California and is the owner of CSV HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC (“CSV”).
13. Defendant CSV is and at all relevant times was a business entity headquartered in San
Francisco, California and is the alter ego of Defendant Sam Patel. CSV's own marketing material
advertises that it has been offering services since 1998, when CSV has formed in 2002.
14. CSV acted as an agent for the Owner-Defendants and also as a contractor managing the
renovation of The Property. CSV HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC and Sam Patel both
acted as part of the group of the Owner-Defendants.
18. There is a unity of interest and ownership between CSV and Defendant Sam Patel such
that the separate personalities of the corporation and Sam Patel do not in reality exist. It would be
an inequitable result if the acts in question of CSV are treated as those of the corporation alone,
and also if the acts in question of Defendant Sam Patel is treated as his alone and not imputed to
CSV.
16. On information and belief, Sam Patel has held himself, as opposed to CSV, out to be an
agent for the Owner-Defendants and also as a contractor managing the renovation of The
Property. Defendant Sam Patel communicated to tenants and contractors of The Property in his
own name and not on behalf of CSV. Defendant Sam Patel solicited proposals for construction
work and invoices on behalf of himself and not on behalf of CSV.
17. Defendant HENRY KARNILOWICZ, aka Henry Kent is and at all relevant times was an
individual located in San Francisco, California and is the owner of OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS,
INC.
18. Defendant OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS, INC. is and at all relevant times was a business
entity headquartered in San Francisco, California and is the alter ego of Defendant HENRY
KARNILOWICZ.
19. There is a unity of interest and ownership between Defendant Occidental Express, Inc and
Defendant Henry Karnilowicz such that the separate personalities of the corporation and Henry
Karnilowicz do not in reality exist. It would be an inequitable result if the acts in question of
Occidental Express, Inc are treated as those of the corporation alone, and also if the acts in
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF ANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSquestion of Defendant Henry Karnilowicz is treated as his alone and not imputed to Occidental
Express, Inc.
20. On information and belief, Henry Karnilowicz incorporated Occidental Express, Inc. on
May 18, 1988 naming Henry Kent as the agent for service of process. Henry Kent is an alias that
Henry Karnilowicz frequently uses for business filings. Occidental Express, Inc has since been
suspended, but Henry Karnilowicz continues to do business as Occidental Express.
21. — There is such a unity of interest and ownership between CSV and Sam Patel, Occidental
Express and Henry Karnilowicz, and PPI and Kamran Ardebilichi and Jahangir Ardebilchi that
the separate personalities of these Corporations and their owners do not in reality exist.
22. It would be an inequitable result if the acts identified on behalf of CSV, Occidental
Express, and PPI are treated as those of the corporations alone.
23. In addition, Plaintiffs should be entitled to pierce the corporate veils of CSV, Occidental
Express and PPI as the owners did not maintain a separate corporate existence for these entities
and it would work an injustice against the Plaintiffs and Class Members to the extent that the veil
is not pierced and recovery allowed against the individual owners and shareholders.
24. Defendant LUIS FELIPE MORAN DBA PRONTITO PLUMBING is and at all relevant
times was an individual located in San Francisco, California.
25. Defendant MELVIN MUNOZ MORAN DBA BLUE LIGHT ELECTRIC is and at all
relevant times was an individual located in San Francisco, California.
26. Defendant MELVIN ARTURO MORAN DBA MEGA ELECTRIC, is and at all relevant
times was an individual located in San Francisco, California.
27. Defendant MARCO ANTONIO ENCINAS BORQUEZ, AKA ANTONIO ENCINAS is
and at all relevant times was an individual located in San Francisco, California.
28. 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. Plaintiff
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
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF ANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS27
28
is responsible and liable to Plaintiff in some manner for the events, happenings, and contentions
referred to in this Complaint. All references herein to “Defendant” or “Defendants” shall be
deemed to include all DOE Defendants.
29. Plaintiff are informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant, including
DOES 51 through 100, inclusive, was and is the agent, employee, servant, subsidiary, partner,
member, associate, or representative of each other Defendant, including DOES 51 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.
30. Venue is proper in San Francisco County as the real Property at issue is located in San
Francisco County and where the fraud and other torts occurred in the City and County of San
Francisco,
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
31. Plaintiff 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.
32. The class that the Plaintiff seek to Tepresent is composed of and defined as follows:
All persons who live or have lived at 629 Post Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 located in
the City and County of San Francisco (“The Property”) for 30 or more days since July 12,
2006 with the identities of these individuals and the exact ime of the construction to be
confirmed in discovery. (“The Class”)
33. Plaintiff reserve the right to amend or otherwise alter The Class's definition presented to
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF ISANEE SABJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS27
28
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.
34. The persons in The Class, as defined herein, are so numerous that joinder would be
impractical. The Property has approximately 64 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 more than 240 members. Plaintiff believe that
the exact number, identity and address of members of The Class can be obtained from
Defendants’ records. The Class, therefore, is sufficiently numerous.
35. The members of The Class are ascertainable and capable of being identified. The
disposition of their claims in a class actions is therefore a benefit to the parties and to the Court.
36. 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 drive the tenants out of the building in order to render the building vacant.
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 Plaintiff is typical of those of The Class, and the named
Plaintiff 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.
37. 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.
38. There exists numerous questions of law and fact common to representative Plaintiff 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 the Owner-Defendants as assisted by the Contractor-Defendants undertook a
campaign to drive all of the tenants from the building as evidenced by the Defendants’
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF AEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS27
28
confirmation that during the renovation of The Property forty-five (45) out of the sixty-four (64)
units were vacant.
b) Whether the Owner and Contractor-Defendants 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 Property;
c) Whether the Owner and Contractor-Defendants dominant motive for attempting to recover
possession of The Property was permissible under section 37.9(a) of the San Francisco
Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance;
d) Whether the Owner and Contractor-Defendants 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 Tequired by contract or by State, County or local housing,
health or safety laws; (4) Abuse the landlord's tight 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;
e) Whether the Owner and Contractor-Defendants 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.
f) Whether Owner and Contractor-Defendants acted with specific intent to cause Plaintiff's
living conditions to become so intolerable that she would be forced to vacate.
39. Plaintiff's 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
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR. INDIVIDUALLY AND ON REUAI PORATED27
28
course of wrongful conduct as described herein.
40. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of The Class
members. Counsel who represents the Plaintiff is competent and capable of litigating complex,
multi-party litigation pertaining to Landlord and Tenant practices. The Plaintiff and her counsel
are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of The Class and have the financial
Tesources necessary to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interest adverse to those
of The Class.
41. 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
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 difficulties, conserves the
tesources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each Class member.
42. Should the Plaintiff 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, she 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 21 THROUGH 40
43. Plaintiff on behalf of herself and The Class members incorporate the foregoing allegations
into this Cause of Action.
44, In renting the subject premises to the Plaintiff and The Class members, Defendants
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAN‘
‘AR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSKAMRAN ARDEBILCHI, JAHANGIR ARDEBILCHI, PRIME PACIFIC INVESTMENTS,
INC. and NICK VELANDO, as Owners of The Property and agents for one another, (the
“Owner-Defendants”) impliedly undertook not to do anything to disturb Plaintiff's peaceful and
beneficial possession of The Property.
45. In renting the subject premises to the Plaintiff and The Class Members, the Owner-
Defendants impliedly undertook a duty to maintain The Property in a tenantable condition as
required by law,
46. By allowing the building to fall into disrepair, neglecting to make repairs, utilizing
unlicensed contractors, and negligently performing the construction and renovation, the Owner
Defendants interfered with Plaintiff's and The Class Members’ tenancy, Defendant PPI and the
Owner-Defendants contracted with Defendants CSV Hospitality and Sam Patel to renovate the
entire Property. After Defendants CSV Hospitality and Sam Patel performed part of the work,
their services were terminated, and Defendants PPI, Kamran Ardeblichi and Jahangir Ardebilchi
undertook the work and management of the work themselves without permits and without
licenses. Defendant PPI did not properly manage any of the Contractor-Defendants while CSV
Hospitality was employed and thereafter, failed to take precautionary measures, and also failed to
follow the law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members relocation fees.
47. The construction severely interfered with the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members' tenancies
where significant dust and debris was strewn throughout the building, the Plaintiffs’ and Class
Members’ were forced to move, toxic materials and other debris were stored in common areas
including the building lobby.
48. These actions of the Defendants and omissions, caused health problems for the Plaintiffs
and Class Members and created an uninhabitable living situation.
49. In severely interfering with Plaintiff tenancy and wrongfully attempting to evict Plaintiff,
the Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability of The Property.
50. In continuing to employ their non-licensed Property managers, the Defendants breached
the implied warranty of habitability of The Property.
51. The Owner-Defendants, directly and through SAM PATEL, CSV HOSPITALITY
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSMANAGEMENT, LLC., OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS, INC., HENRY KARNILOWICZ; LUIS
FELIPE MORAN DBA PRONTITO PLUMBING; MELVIN MUNOZ MORAN DBA BLUE
LIGHT ELECTRIC, MELVIN ARTURO MORAN DBA MEGA ELECTRIC; MARCO
ANTONIO ENCINAS BORQUEZ, AKA ANTONIO ENCINAS, and DOES 21 THROUGH 40
(the “Contractor-Defendants”), routinely entered Plaintiff's apartment without notice for the
purpose of inspecting Plaintiff's unit and not for any legitimate reason.
52. The Owner-Defendants, directly and through their agents and the Contractor-Defendants’,
attempted to utilize any means possible to harass and dispossess tenants.
53. Many defective conditions existed throughout the Sheldon Hotel during the time that the
Plaintiff 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 and routinely broken,
¢) Water systems not maintained in good working order,
d) Heating and Cooling systems not maintained in good working order,
e) Construction performed in an unsafe manner and lack of permits,
f) Lack of general maintenance, and failure to adequately repair or address ongoing
defective conditions, and
g) Unsanitary and poorly maintained common areas.
54, The defective conditions listed above affected the tenancies of the Plaintiff 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
occupancy in good repair and in a habitable condition,
55. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of each defective condition, and Plaintiff
and Class Members notified Defendants of the defects, but the Defendants failed and refused to
correct these defective conditions.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS56. Because of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, the
Defendants breached their duty to maintain The Property in a tenantable condition as required by
law.
57. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and the failure to address
the Plaintiff's complaints, Plaintiff suffered distress and anguish all to their general damage and in
an amount that exceeds $2,000,000. Plaintiff and The Class Members seek damages sounding in
both contract and tort.
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 Plaintiff.
Plaintiff are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 21 THROUGH 40
59. Plaintiff individually and on behalf of The Class incorporate into this cause of action the
allegations of the foregoing paragraphs.
60. By reason of the personal and fiduciary relationships between Plaintiff and Owner-
Defendants arising out of the lease agreement, Owner-Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to
exercise reasonable care in the ownership, operation, management, and control of The Property,
which included but was not limited to the following: the duty to comply with all applicable state
and local laws governing Plaintiff rights; the duty not to interfere with Plaintiff's and The Class
Members’ quiet enjoyment of The Property; the duty of the Defendants to manage their agents,
and the duty to refrain from attempting to wrongfully evict Plaintiff.
61. In addition, to the allegations contained in this case of action and the recitals hereto,
Defendant PPI owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty as a beneficial owner and where it
contracted as the owner of The Property to have work performed at The Property. As a result of
the role Defendant PPI undertook in managing and overseeing the construction at The Property, it
owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to ensure that the work not interfere with the
Plaintiff and Class Members use and enjoyment of The Property. This duty was breached when
Defendant PPI, its agents and affiliated owners, and the contractors it hired, conducted the
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS27
28
construction without permits and without taking any safeguards to protect the health and safety of
the Plaintiff and Class Members resulting in physical and mental damages to the Plaintiff and
Class Members.
62. Owner-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,
63. All of the Contractor-Defendants owed the Plaintiff a duty to conduct the renovation and
construction and repairs in a reasonable and proper manner by virtue of the work they performed
and their awareness that their actions directly affected the Plaintiff.
64, The Contractor-Defendants breached their duties to the Plaintiff and Class Members by
negligently performing the construction work associated with the renovation of The Property:
actually threatened harm toward the Plaintiff and Class Members, intentionally and knowingly
entered the Plaintiff's and Class Members’ rooms without proper notice or permission, failed to
obtain permits to perform their work, failed to control the dust and debris from their construction
causing damages to Plaintiff's and Class Members’ health, left construction materials throughout
common areas of The Property, prevented access to Plaintiff's and Class Members’ rooms,
intentionally created substandard conditions throughout the building at the instruction of the
Owner-Defendants in violation of the Contractor-Defendaats' duties, on information and belief,
and assisted in relocating the Plaintiff and other Class Members even though the Contractor-
Defendants knew that proper notice had not been given and proper permission for relocation had
not been obtained. The Contractor-Defendants also breached their duty of not completing their
work in a timely fashion thereby causing Plaintiff and The Class Members additional damages to
their health and interference with their tenancy.
65. Defendant Melvin Arturo Moran dba Mega Electric (“MEGA”) failed to obtain a
proper and valid permit and performed work even though a valid permit did not exist. Defendant
MEGA had a duty to obtain a permit and perform work in a sanitary and proper manner after
obtaining permission for entry into the apartments and MEGA did not obtain permission for entry
and also performed work without permits in a substandard condition. MEGA knew permits were
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSnecessary and that the method and manner of the performance of its work was directly interfering
with the Plaintiff and Class Members’ rights and intended or consciously disregarded the harm
MEGA was causing. MEGA's actions were a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff
and The Class Members.
66, Defendant Melvin Munoz Moran dba Blue Light Electric (“BLUE LIGHT”) failed to
obtain a proper and valid permit and performed work even though a valid permit did not exist.
Defendant BLUE LIGHT had a duty to obtain a permit and perform work in a sanitary and proper
manner after obtaining permission for entry into the apartments and BLUE LIGHT did not obtain
permission for entry and also performed work without permits in a substandard condition. BLUE
LIGHT knew permits were necessary and that the method and manner of the performance of its
work was directly interfering with the Plaintiff and Class Members’ rights and intended or
consciously disregarded the harm BLUE LIGHT was causing. BLUE LIGHT'S actions were a
substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff and The Class Members.
67. Defendant Luis Moran dba Prontito Plumbing (“PRONTITO”) failed to obtain a proper
and valid permit and performed work even though a valid permit did not exist. Defendant
PRONTITO had a duty to obtain a permit and perform work ina sanitary and proper manner after
obtaining permission for entry into the apartments and PRONTITO did not obtain permission for
entry and also performed work without permits in a substandard condition. PRONTITO knew
permits were necessary and that the method and manner of the performance of its work was
directly interfering with the Plaintiff and Class Members' rights and intended or consciously
disregarded the harm PRONTITO was causing. PRONTITO'S actions were a substantial factor
in causing harm to the Plaintiff and The Class Members.
68. Defendants Henry Karnilowicz and Occidental Express (“OCCIDENTAL”) enabled
and allowed construction work for which a permit was needed to be performed without a permit.
OCCIDENTAL obtained a permit and then did not do the work under the permit. None of
OCCIDENTAL, the Owner-Defendants, MEGA ELECTRIC, BLUE LIGHT, PRONTITO or any
other contractor obtained valid permits, and none of these contractors notified the City of San
Francisco that contractors, other than the contractors that pulled permits, were performing the
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALE OF OTHERSwork under the permits. Defendant OCCIDENTAL had a duty to obtain a valid permit and
perform work in a sanitary and proper manner after obtaining permission for entry into the
apartments and OCCIDENTAL did not obtain permission for entry and enabled other individuals
to perform work illegally under the permit it pulled. OCCIDENTAL knew permits were
necessary and that the method and manner of the performance of the work being done was
directly interfering with the Plaintiff and Class Members’ rights and intended or consciously
disregarded the harm OCCIDENTAL’s actions were causing. OCCIDENTAL'S actions were a
substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff and The Class Members.
69. As a result of the actions of the Contractor-Defendants and Owner-Defendants, the
Plaintiff and Class Members actually suffered harm.
70. The actions of the Contractor-Defendants and Owner-Defendants were a substantial
factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff and Class Members.
71. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendants, Plaintiff
suffered general and special damages in an amount that exceeds $2,000,000.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF WARRANTY OF QUIET ENJOYMENT AS AGAINST ALL OWNER-
DEFENDANTS AND DOES 21 THROUGH 40
72. Plaintiff and The Class members incorporate into this cause of action the foregoing
allegations of this Complaint.
73. In renting the subject premises to the Plaintiff and the Class members, the Owner-
Defendants, including Defendant PPI, Kamran Ardebilchi, Jahangir Ardebilchi and Nick
Velando, impliedly undertook not to do anything to disturb Plaintiff peaceful and beneficial
possession of The Property.
74. In severely interfering with Plaintiff tenancy and creating harmful and unsafe conditions in
an attempt to cause the tenants to leave, the Owner Defendants breached the implied warranty of
quiet enjoyment of the Plaintiff and class members.
75. ‘These conditions included negligent supervision of the contractors and Property managers,
the failure to properly manage the Construction, the failure to move the Plaintiffs and Class
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR. INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALFE OF OTHERS27
28
y
Members during the construction and to compensate them for the relocation, the failure to
perform work without permits, the failure to complete the construction and renovation in a proper
and timely manner, the failure to fix the elevator so that it would work properly, the failure to
address required repairs, and repeated harassment and pressure to move out.
76. In addition, to the allegations contained in this case of action and the recitals hereto,
Defendant PPI breached the warranty of quiet enjoyment owed to the Plaintiff and Class
Members a duty as a beneficial owner and where it contracted as the owner of The Property to
have work performed at the Property. Defendant PPI undertook an obligation to manage and
oversee the construction at the Property. Therefore the warranty of quiet enjoyment was
breached when Defendant PPI, its agents and affiliated owners, and the contractors it hired,
conducted the construction without permits, moved the Plaintiff and others without proper notice
and without legal justification, and without taking any safeguards to protect the health and safety
of the Plaintiff and Class Members resulting in physical and mental damages to the Plaintiff and
Class Members.
77. In continuing to employ their non-licensed Property managers, the Owner Defendants
breached the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment of The Property.
78. The Owner Defendants and their agents, the contractors, routinely entered Plaintiff's
apartment without notice for the purpose of inspecting Plaintiff's unit and not for any legitimate
Teason.
79. The Defendants intentionally harassed the Plaintiff and decreased services in an effort to
cause the Plaintiff and Class Members to move out of the building.
80. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and the failure to address
the Plaintiff's complaints, Plaintiff suffered distress and anguish all to their general damage and in
an amount according to proof.
81. The Plaintiff 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.
82. Plaintiff and The Class Members suffered damages in the loss of their rent, believed to be
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF ISANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSin excess of $500,000 during this time period and also emotional distress, moving costs and
repair costs for a total of over $2,000,000,
83. 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 Plaintiff.
84. Defendants conduct was malicious and oppressive and Plaintiff are entitled to punitive
damages in an amount according to proof.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AS AGAINST ALL OWNER-DEFENDANTS AND DOES
21 THROUGH 40
85. Plaintiff and The Class Members incorporate the foregoing allegations into this
cause of action.
86. By wrongfully serving interfering with Plaintiff's and The Class Members’
tenancies in violation of the Rent Ordinance and Proposition M, by allowing construction without
permits and in a manner that was unsanitary and disturbing, and utilizing unlicensed building
managers, the Defendants have engaged in unfair business practices within the term of Business
and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500, et seq.
87. —_ In addition, The Defendants failed to give proper notice to the Plaintiff and The
Class Members of the intended construction, failed to give proper notice and payment in
connection with the relocations and temporary move outs, failed to allow the tenants to move
back in after the construction, rented the rooms as long term rooms only to attempt to convert the
rooms to short term rentals, terminate the provision of amenities and other repairs in violation of
the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and California Laws including but not limited to CC 1941,
1941.1, 1942.4 and 1942.5 and CCP 789.3.
88. The Defendants also wrongfully interfered with Plaintiff's and The Class Members'
tenancies in violation of the Rent Ordinance and Proposition M, discriminated against them based
on their age and disability, allowed construction without permits and in a manner that was
unsanitary and disturbing, and utilized unlicensed building managers.
89. By ignoring Plaintiff letters and requests to address their complaints, and on
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSSe
information and belief the requests of The Class Members, the Defendants have engaged in unfair
business practices within the terms of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. and
17500, et seq.
90. The Plaintiff, who still resides in the Building, and on information and belief the
requests of The Class Members who still reside in the Building, have been harmed by Defendants’
actions.
91. Unless action is taken to stop the Defendants, members of the public will continue
to be harmed.
92. The foregoing actions and practices of the Defendants’ were unlawful, unfair and
fraudulent.
93. The Plaintiff and Class Members were damaged by the actions of the Defendants
where the Plaintiff and Class Members were physically harmed by the acts and practices and also
paid rent based on the foregoing fraudulent actions and the tepresentations that the Defendants
would 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 Plaintiff and Class
Members even though the Defendants had no intention of renting to them as long term tenants
after the construction began in 2008.
94, Members of the public are likely to be deceived by Defendants’ actions as were the
Plaintiff and Class Members.
95. Due to the great likelihood of additional harm to the Plaintiff, Class members, and
members of the public, Plaintiff 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 1 THROUGH 50
96. Plaintiff and The Class Members incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing
allegations.
97, The Owner-Defendants physically relocated tenants while they were away on vacation and
also told Class Members that they had to move and those Class Members did actually relinquish
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SA\
AEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS27
28
possession of their apartments.
98. The Owner-Defendants acted with specific intent to cause The Class Members’ living
conditions to become so intolerable that they would be forced to vacate and certain Class
Members did actually relinquish possession of their apartments.
99. On information and belief, the Contractor-Defendants at the request of the Owner-
Defendants, conducted the construction and renovation in such a manner as to assist the Owner-
Defendants with their plan of rendering the building vacant and vacant of the long-term rent
controlled tenants. The Owner-Defendants, on information and belief, instructed the Contractor-
Defendants to enter the rooms of tenants and to disregard the tenants' concerns. The Owner-
Defendants also failed in their duty to instruct the Contractor-Defendants to perform the
construction in a proper manner and to clean up the dust and debris they created, to remove toxic
and other harmful substances from the building during the construction, and to obtain valid
permits.
100. The Owner-Defendants, directly and through the failure of the Contractor-Defendants,
failed to obtain valid permits prior to beginning the construction despite being required to first
obtain permits before moving individuals and before beginning construction.
101. On information and belief, the Contractor-Defendants performed the construction and
renovation in such a manner that they consciously disregarded the harm they caused the Plaintiff
and Class members and that they were aware that their actions, taken as agents of the owners,
would result in tenants vacating the building
102. On information and belief, as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the
Owner- Defendants, certain Class Members have vacated The Property.
103. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff
have suffered general and special damages in an amount greater than $2,000,000, including but
limited to the loss of the value of their rent controlled tenancies and the cost of paying higher rent
elsewhere along with moving costs and the value of the loss of their belongings.
104, Defendants’ conduct was sufficiently malicious and oppressive and entitles Plaintiff to
punitive damages in an amount according to proof where the Defendants knew that their actions
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIF!
AEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSin harassing the Class Members and causing a complete remodeling of the Building without
taking precautions would cause severe emotional distress and a disruption to the Class Members
causing them to vacate the Building.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AS AGAINST ALL OWNER-
DEFENDANTS AND DOES 21 THROUGH 40
105. The named Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and other Class members, incorporate in
this cause of action the foregoing allegations.
106. The Owner-Defendants, including Defendant PPI, 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.
107. 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 fees and whatever
other relief the court deems appropriate.
108. 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.
109. Defendants, directly and through their agents, violated the above referenced sections of the
San Francisco Rent Ordinance and Proposition M where they harassed the Plaintiff and Class
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSAN SABJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS10
n
27
28
Members, entered their rooms without proper notices, attempted to force them to vacate without
just cause, interfered with their rights to quiet use and enjoyment, failed to repair items, failed to
replace the elevator and retaliated against the Plaintiff and Class Members.
110. The Owner-Defendants took the foregoing actions in retaliation against the Plaintiff and
The Class members to attempt to force them to leave The Property, including Defendant PPI,
took the foregoing actions in retaliation against the Plaintiff and ‘The Class members to attempt to
force them to leave The Property. Defendant PPI also contracted for and oversaw the
construction in such a manner as to lessen the services and quality of enjoyment to force the
Plaintiff and Class Members to leave.
111. 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 Property, nor had Defendants informed Plaintiff in writing, as
required by Sec. 37.9(c) of the Rent Ordinance of valid grounds under which they were seeking
possession,
112. As a proximate result of Owner-Defendants' wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiff and The
Class members have incurred damages which include legal costs and attorney’s fees. In addition,
Plaintiff have suffered inconvenience, annoyance, and severe emotional distress, all to their
damage in an amount exceeding $2,000,000.
113. Plaintiff and The Class members have incurred and will continue to incur attorney's fees as
a result of prosecuting this action.
114. Plaintiff and The Class members are entitled to not tess than three times the amount of
money damages and the recovery of attomey’s fees for prosecuting this cause of action as
provided for in section 37.9(f) of the Rent Ordinance.
115. Defendants conduct was malicious and oppressive and Plaintiff and The Class members
are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof, and to the trebling of damages
awarded for Plaintiff emotional distress.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANS.
SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSSEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS AGAINST THE OWNER-
DEFENDANTS AND DOES 21 THROUGH 40
116. Plaintiff and The Class Members incorporate into this cause of action the foregoing
allegations of this Complaint.
117, Defendants have a duty to the Plaintiff and Class Members by virtue of the landlord tenant
relationship that exists between the Defendants and the tenants.
118. The Owner-Defendants, directly and through their agents, refused to make repairs and at
other times had contractors improperly pull permits pursuant to which different individuals
performed the work in a negligent manner and after the permits had expired.
119. The Owner-Defendants, directly and through their agents including the Contractor
Defendants, continuously enter Plaintiff's apartment without notice, have forced the resident
managers to threaten the Plaintiff, and falsely allege that Plaintiff are disturbing the other tenants.
The Defendants have not taken any corrective actions.
120. The Owner Defendants are liable for the Contractor-Defendants negligent performance of
the renovation, construction and repairs in breach of their duty where they performed work
without permits, without taking protective measures to control dust and debris, improper
scheduling of the work to be performed, and did not timely complete the work.
121. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions on the part of
Defendants, Plaintiff, 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.
122. Plaintiff, and
Preview
DOORMAN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-12-2012 3:45 pm Case Number: CGC-11-516344 Filing Date: Mar-12-2012 3:41 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03530458 COMPLAINT SANSANEE SAEJEAR VS. KAMRAN ARDEBILCHI et al 001003530458 instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Mark Hooshmand, Esq. (SBN 194878) Hooshmand Law Group 22 Battery Street, Ste. 610 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 318-5709 Fax: (415) 376-5897 on behalf of Others Similarly Situated SANSANEE SAEJEAR, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Ssituated, Plaintiff, vs. NICK VELANDO, KAMRAN ARDEBILCHI, JAHANGIR ARDEBILCHI, PRIME PACIFIC INVESTMENTS, INC., SAM PATEL, CSV HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC., OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS, INC., HENRY KARNILOWICZ; LUIS FELIPE MORAN DBA PRONTITO PLUMBING; MELVIN MUNOZ MORAN DBA BLUE LIGHT ELECTRIC, MELVIN ARTURO MORAN DBA MEGA ELECTRIC; |MARCO —- ANTONIO ENCINAS |/BORQUEZ, AND ROES | THROUGH 100° - ; Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILE Superior Court of California ‘ounty of San Francisco MAR 12 2012 CLERK OF THE COURT Man Qe. By: Deouty Clerk Attomey for Plaintiff Sansanee Saejear, Individually and SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CASE: CGC-11-516344 CLASS ACTION FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED COMPLEX MATTER Unlimited Jurisdiction (exceeds $25,000) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFE SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEIEAR INDIVIDIAIT Y BROPlaintiff Sansanee Saejear, brings this action individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, against Defendants NICK VELANDO, KAMRAN ARDEBILCHI, JAHANGIR ARDEBILCHI, PRIME PACIFIC INVESTMENTS, INC., SAM PATEL, CSV HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC., OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS, INC., HENRY KARNILOWICZ; LUIS FELIPE MORAN DBA PRONTITO PLUMBING: MELVIN MUNOZ MORAN DBA BLUE LIGHT ELECTRIC, MELVIN ARTURO MORAN DBA MEGA ELECTRIC; MARCO ANTONIO ENCINAS BORQUEZ, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100. Plaintiff asserts this claim on behalf of herself and as a class representative under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, 1. Plaintiff Sansanee Saejear is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of San Francisco, California. 2. Defendant NICK VELANDO is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco, California, and was acting on behalf of himself and as an agent of Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi, Defendant Jahangir Ardebilchi, and Defendant Prime Pacific Investments, Inc.. 3. Defendant KAMRAN ARDEBILCHI is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco, California and is one of the owners of 629 Post Street, San Francisco, California (‘The Property”). 4. Defendant JAHANGIR ARDEBILCHI is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco, California and is one of the owners of 629 Post Street, San Francisco, California. 5. Defendant PRIME PACIFIC INVESTMENTS, INC. (“PPI”) is and at all relevant times was a business entity headquartered in San Francisco, California and is the alter ego of Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi and Defendant J ahangir Ardebilchi. 6. There is a unity of interest and ownership between PPI and Kamran and Jahangir Ardebilchi (the “Owner-Defendants”) such that the separate personalities of the corporation and the Owner-Defendants do not in reality exist. It would be an inequitable result if the acts in question of PPI are treated as those of the corporation alone, and also if the acts in question of Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi and Defendant Jahangir Ardebilchi are treated as theirs alone and not imputed to PPI.10 W 27 28 7. On information and belief PPI is the alter ego of Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi and Defendant Jahangir Ardebilichi, PPI has held itself out to the Plaintiff and third parties as the owner of The Property, PPI contracted as the owner with Defendant CSV Hospitality to undertake the construction which was negligently managed, PPI received invoices and wrote checks as the Owner to contractors for the renovation of The Property, PPI's business address was listed as the business address for The Property, agents of PPI managed the room reservations and operations of The Property, agents of PPI managed the renovation of The Property and other constructions projects, agents of PPT emailed tenants and third parties as part of managing the operations of The Property, agents of PPI acted on behalf of PPI with respect to the actions being complained of including threatening the Plaintiff, moving tenants improperly and failing to safeguard their health and safety and repairing Plaintiff's apartments. 8. In addition to the actions of the Owner-Defendants and Defendant Velando for which PPI is responsible, Defendant PPI failed to obtain insurance as obligated by law precluding the Plaintiff from an avenue of recovery, failed to properly manage the contractors including CSV Hospitality and Sam Patel, failed to terminate the services of the contractors when it was clear they were not addressing their work properly, failed to obtain building permits and other necessary permits for the construction, and moved tenants without following the law requiring permits, proper notice and payment. 9. PPI was utilized by Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi and Defendant Jahangir Ardebilchi as a vehicle to attempt to improperly shield their personal liability while failing to maintain a separateness of interest. 10. It is believed that PPI is in partnership or a joint venture with Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi and Defendant Jahangir Ardebilchi in connection with their common plan to convert the Property from long term tenants to shorter term visitors, 11. Defendant PPI is being sued as a separate and distinct Defendant for actions it took through its agents, and it is also being sued for the actions of Defendant Kamran Ardebilchi, Defendant Jahangir Ardebilchi, Defendant Nick Velando and their agents, taken directly in their own names and in the name of PPI. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAN: IEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS12. Defendant SAM PATEL is and at all relevant times was a resident of San Francisco, California and is the owner of CSV HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC (“CSV”). 13. Defendant CSV is and at all relevant times was a business entity headquartered in San Francisco, California and is the alter ego of Defendant Sam Patel. CSV's own marketing material advertises that it has been offering services since 1998, when CSV has formed in 2002. 14. CSV acted as an agent for the Owner-Defendants and also as a contractor managing the renovation of The Property. CSV HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC and Sam Patel both acted as part of the group of the Owner-Defendants. 18. There is a unity of interest and ownership between CSV and Defendant Sam Patel such that the separate personalities of the corporation and Sam Patel do not in reality exist. It would be an inequitable result if the acts in question of CSV are treated as those of the corporation alone, and also if the acts in question of Defendant Sam Patel is treated as his alone and not imputed to CSV. 16. On information and belief, Sam Patel has held himself, as opposed to CSV, out to be an agent for the Owner-Defendants and also as a contractor managing the renovation of The Property. Defendant Sam Patel communicated to tenants and contractors of The Property in his own name and not on behalf of CSV. Defendant Sam Patel solicited proposals for construction work and invoices on behalf of himself and not on behalf of CSV. 17. Defendant HENRY KARNILOWICZ, aka Henry Kent is and at all relevant times was an individual located in San Francisco, California and is the owner of OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS, INC. 18. Defendant OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS, INC. is and at all relevant times was a business entity headquartered in San Francisco, California and is the alter ego of Defendant HENRY KARNILOWICZ. 19. There is a unity of interest and ownership between Defendant Occidental Express, Inc and Defendant Henry Karnilowicz such that the separate personalities of the corporation and Henry Karnilowicz do not in reality exist. It would be an inequitable result if the acts in question of Occidental Express, Inc are treated as those of the corporation alone, and also if the acts in FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF ANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSquestion of Defendant Henry Karnilowicz is treated as his alone and not imputed to Occidental Express, Inc. 20. On information and belief, Henry Karnilowicz incorporated Occidental Express, Inc. on May 18, 1988 naming Henry Kent as the agent for service of process. Henry Kent is an alias that Henry Karnilowicz frequently uses for business filings. Occidental Express, Inc has since been suspended, but Henry Karnilowicz continues to do business as Occidental Express. 21. — There is such a unity of interest and ownership between CSV and Sam Patel, Occidental Express and Henry Karnilowicz, and PPI and Kamran Ardebilichi and Jahangir Ardebilchi that the separate personalities of these Corporations and their owners do not in reality exist. 22. It would be an inequitable result if the acts identified on behalf of CSV, Occidental Express, and PPI are treated as those of the corporations alone. 23. In addition, Plaintiffs should be entitled to pierce the corporate veils of CSV, Occidental Express and PPI as the owners did not maintain a separate corporate existence for these entities and it would work an injustice against the Plaintiffs and Class Members to the extent that the veil is not pierced and recovery allowed against the individual owners and shareholders. 24. Defendant LUIS FELIPE MORAN DBA PRONTITO PLUMBING is and at all relevant times was an individual located in San Francisco, California. 25. Defendant MELVIN MUNOZ MORAN DBA BLUE LIGHT ELECTRIC is and at all relevant times was an individual located in San Francisco, California. 26. Defendant MELVIN ARTURO MORAN DBA MEGA ELECTRIC, is and at all relevant times was an individual located in San Francisco, California. 27. Defendant MARCO ANTONIO ENCINAS BORQUEZ, AKA ANTONIO ENCINAS is and at all relevant times was an individual located in San Francisco, California. 28. 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. Plaintiff 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 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF ANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS27 28 is responsible and liable to Plaintiff in some manner for the events, happenings, and contentions referred to in this Complaint. All references herein to “Defendant” or “Defendants” shall be deemed to include all DOE Defendants. 29. Plaintiff are informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant, including DOES 51 through 100, inclusive, was and is the agent, employee, servant, subsidiary, partner, member, associate, or representative of each other Defendant, including DOES 51 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. 30. Venue is proper in San Francisco County as the real Property at issue is located in San Francisco County and where the fraud and other torts occurred in the City and County of San Francisco, CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 31. Plaintiff 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. 32. The class that the Plaintiff seek to Tepresent is composed of and defined as follows: All persons who live or have lived at 629 Post Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 located in the City and County of San Francisco (“The Property”) for 30 or more days since July 12, 2006 with the identities of these individuals and the exact ime of the construction to be confirmed in discovery. (“The Class”) 33. Plaintiff reserve the right to amend or otherwise alter The Class's definition presented to FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF ISANEE SABJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS27 28 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. 34. The persons in The Class, as defined herein, are so numerous that joinder would be impractical. The Property has approximately 64 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 more than 240 members. Plaintiff believe that the exact number, identity and address of members of The Class can be obtained from Defendants’ records. The Class, therefore, is sufficiently numerous. 35. The members of The Class are ascertainable and capable of being identified. The disposition of their claims in a class actions is therefore a benefit to the parties and to the Court. 36. 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 drive the tenants out of the building in order to render the building vacant. 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 Plaintiff is typical of those of The Class, and the named Plaintiff 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. 37. 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. 38. There exists numerous questions of law and fact common to representative Plaintiff 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 the Owner-Defendants as assisted by the Contractor-Defendants undertook a campaign to drive all of the tenants from the building as evidenced by the Defendants’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF AEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS27 28 confirmation that during the renovation of The Property forty-five (45) out of the sixty-four (64) units were vacant. b) Whether the Owner and Contractor-Defendants 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 Property; c) Whether the Owner and Contractor-Defendants dominant motive for attempting to recover possession of The Property was permissible under section 37.9(a) of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance; d) Whether the Owner and Contractor-Defendants 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 Tequired by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws; (4) Abuse the landlord's tight 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; e) Whether the Owner and Contractor-Defendants 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. f) Whether Owner and Contractor-Defendants acted with specific intent to cause Plaintiff's living conditions to become so intolerable that she would be forced to vacate. 39. Plaintiff's 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 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR. INDIVIDUALLY AND ON REUAI PORATED27 28 course of wrongful conduct as described herein. 40. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of The Class members. Counsel who represents the Plaintiff is competent and capable of litigating complex, multi-party litigation pertaining to Landlord and Tenant practices. The Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of The Class and have the financial Tesources necessary to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interest adverse to those of The Class. 41. 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 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 difficulties, conserves the tesources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each Class member. 42. Should the Plaintiff 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, she 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 21 THROUGH 40 43. Plaintiff on behalf of herself and The Class members incorporate the foregoing allegations into this Cause of Action. 44, In renting the subject premises to the Plaintiff and The Class members, Defendants FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SAN‘ ‘AR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSKAMRAN ARDEBILCHI, JAHANGIR ARDEBILCHI, PRIME PACIFIC INVESTMENTS, INC. and NICK VELANDO, as Owners of The Property and agents for one another, (the “Owner-Defendants”) impliedly undertook not to do anything to disturb Plaintiff's peaceful and beneficial possession of The Property. 45. In renting the subject premises to the Plaintiff and The Class Members, the Owner- Defendants impliedly undertook a duty to maintain The Property in a tenantable condition as required by law, 46. By allowing the building to fall into disrepair, neglecting to make repairs, utilizing unlicensed contractors, and negligently performing the construction and renovation, the Owner Defendants interfered with Plaintiff's and The Class Members’ tenancy, Defendant PPI and the Owner-Defendants contracted with Defendants CSV Hospitality and Sam Patel to renovate the entire Property. After Defendants CSV Hospitality and Sam Patel performed part of the work, their services were terminated, and Defendants PPI, Kamran Ardeblichi and Jahangir Ardebilchi undertook the work and management of the work themselves without permits and without licenses. Defendant PPI did not properly manage any of the Contractor-Defendants while CSV Hospitality was employed and thereafter, failed to take precautionary measures, and also failed to follow the law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members relocation fees. 47. The construction severely interfered with the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members' tenancies where significant dust and debris was strewn throughout the building, the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ were forced to move, toxic materials and other debris were stored in common areas including the building lobby. 48. These actions of the Defendants and omissions, caused health problems for the Plaintiffs and Class Members and created an uninhabitable living situation. 49. In severely interfering with Plaintiff tenancy and wrongfully attempting to evict Plaintiff, the Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability of The Property. 50. In continuing to employ their non-licensed Property managers, the Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability of The Property. 51. The Owner-Defendants, directly and through SAM PATEL, CSV HOSPITALITY FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSMANAGEMENT, LLC., OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS, INC., HENRY KARNILOWICZ; LUIS FELIPE MORAN DBA PRONTITO PLUMBING; MELVIN MUNOZ MORAN DBA BLUE LIGHT ELECTRIC, MELVIN ARTURO MORAN DBA MEGA ELECTRIC; MARCO ANTONIO ENCINAS BORQUEZ, AKA ANTONIO ENCINAS, and DOES 21 THROUGH 40 (the “Contractor-Defendants”), routinely entered Plaintiff's apartment without notice for the purpose of inspecting Plaintiff's unit and not for any legitimate reason. 52. The Owner-Defendants, directly and through their agents and the Contractor-Defendants’, attempted to utilize any means possible to harass and dispossess tenants. 53. Many defective conditions existed throughout the Sheldon Hotel during the time that the Plaintiff 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 and routinely broken, ¢) Water systems not maintained in good working order, d) Heating and Cooling systems not maintained in good working order, e) Construction performed in an unsafe manner and lack of permits, f) Lack of general maintenance, and failure to adequately repair or address ongoing defective conditions, and g) Unsanitary and poorly maintained common areas. 54, The defective conditions listed above affected the tenancies of the Plaintiff 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 occupancy in good repair and in a habitable condition, 55. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of each defective condition, and Plaintiff and Class Members notified Defendants of the defects, but the Defendants failed and refused to correct these defective conditions. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS56. Because of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, the Defendants breached their duty to maintain The Property in a tenantable condition as required by law. 57. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and the failure to address the Plaintiff's complaints, Plaintiff suffered distress and anguish all to their general damage and in an amount that exceeds $2,000,000. Plaintiff and The Class Members seek damages sounding in both contract and tort. 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 Plaintiff. Plaintiff are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 21 THROUGH 40 59. Plaintiff individually and on behalf of The Class incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs. 60. By reason of the personal and fiduciary relationships between Plaintiff and Owner- Defendants arising out of the lease agreement, Owner-Defendants owed Plaintiff the duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, operation, management, and control of The Property, which included but was not limited to the following: the duty to comply with all applicable state and local laws governing Plaintiff rights; the duty not to interfere with Plaintiff's and The Class Members’ quiet enjoyment of The Property; the duty of the Defendants to manage their agents, and the duty to refrain from attempting to wrongfully evict Plaintiff. 61. In addition, to the allegations contained in this case of action and the recitals hereto, Defendant PPI owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty as a beneficial owner and where it contracted as the owner of The Property to have work performed at The Property. As a result of the role Defendant PPI undertook in managing and overseeing the construction at The Property, it owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to ensure that the work not interfere with the Plaintiff and Class Members use and enjoyment of The Property. This duty was breached when Defendant PPI, its agents and affiliated owners, and the contractors it hired, conducted the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS27 28 construction without permits and without taking any safeguards to protect the health and safety of the Plaintiff and Class Members resulting in physical and mental damages to the Plaintiff and Class Members. 62. Owner-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, 63. All of the Contractor-Defendants owed the Plaintiff a duty to conduct the renovation and construction and repairs in a reasonable and proper manner by virtue of the work they performed and their awareness that their actions directly affected the Plaintiff. 64, The Contractor-Defendants breached their duties to the Plaintiff and Class Members by negligently performing the construction work associated with the renovation of The Property: actually threatened harm toward the Plaintiff and Class Members, intentionally and knowingly entered the Plaintiff's and Class Members’ rooms without proper notice or permission, failed to obtain permits to perform their work, failed to control the dust and debris from their construction causing damages to Plaintiff's and Class Members’ health, left construction materials throughout common areas of The Property, prevented access to Plaintiff's and Class Members’ rooms, intentionally created substandard conditions throughout the building at the instruction of the Owner-Defendants in violation of the Contractor-Defendaats' duties, on information and belief, and assisted in relocating the Plaintiff and other Class Members even though the Contractor- Defendants knew that proper notice had not been given and proper permission for relocation had not been obtained. The Contractor-Defendants also breached their duty of not completing their work in a timely fashion thereby causing Plaintiff and The Class Members additional damages to their health and interference with their tenancy. 65. Defendant Melvin Arturo Moran dba Mega Electric (“MEGA”) failed to obtain a proper and valid permit and performed work even though a valid permit did not exist. Defendant MEGA had a duty to obtain a permit and perform work in a sanitary and proper manner after obtaining permission for entry into the apartments and MEGA did not obtain permission for entry and also performed work without permits in a substandard condition. MEGA knew permits were FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSnecessary and that the method and manner of the performance of its work was directly interfering with the Plaintiff and Class Members’ rights and intended or consciously disregarded the harm MEGA was causing. MEGA's actions were a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff and The Class Members. 66, Defendant Melvin Munoz Moran dba Blue Light Electric (“BLUE LIGHT”) failed to obtain a proper and valid permit and performed work even though a valid permit did not exist. Defendant BLUE LIGHT had a duty to obtain a permit and perform work in a sanitary and proper manner after obtaining permission for entry into the apartments and BLUE LIGHT did not obtain permission for entry and also performed work without permits in a substandard condition. BLUE LIGHT knew permits were necessary and that the method and manner of the performance of its work was directly interfering with the Plaintiff and Class Members’ rights and intended or consciously disregarded the harm BLUE LIGHT was causing. BLUE LIGHT'S actions were a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff and The Class Members. 67. Defendant Luis Moran dba Prontito Plumbing (“PRONTITO”) failed to obtain a proper and valid permit and performed work even though a valid permit did not exist. Defendant PRONTITO had a duty to obtain a permit and perform work ina sanitary and proper manner after obtaining permission for entry into the apartments and PRONTITO did not obtain permission for entry and also performed work without permits in a substandard condition. PRONTITO knew permits were necessary and that the method and manner of the performance of its work was directly interfering with the Plaintiff and Class Members' rights and intended or consciously disregarded the harm PRONTITO was causing. PRONTITO'S actions were a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff and The Class Members. 68. Defendants Henry Karnilowicz and Occidental Express (“OCCIDENTAL”) enabled and allowed construction work for which a permit was needed to be performed without a permit. OCCIDENTAL obtained a permit and then did not do the work under the permit. None of OCCIDENTAL, the Owner-Defendants, MEGA ELECTRIC, BLUE LIGHT, PRONTITO or any other contractor obtained valid permits, and none of these contractors notified the City of San Francisco that contractors, other than the contractors that pulled permits, were performing the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALE OF OTHERSwork under the permits. Defendant OCCIDENTAL had a duty to obtain a valid permit and perform work in a sanitary and proper manner after obtaining permission for entry into the apartments and OCCIDENTAL did not obtain permission for entry and enabled other individuals to perform work illegally under the permit it pulled. OCCIDENTAL knew permits were necessary and that the method and manner of the performance of the work being done was directly interfering with the Plaintiff and Class Members’ rights and intended or consciously disregarded the harm OCCIDENTAL’s actions were causing. OCCIDENTAL'S actions were a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff and The Class Members. 69. As a result of the actions of the Contractor-Defendants and Owner-Defendants, the Plaintiff and Class Members actually suffered harm. 70. The actions of the Contractor-Defendants and Owner-Defendants were a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff and Class Members. 71. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages in an amount that exceeds $2,000,000. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF WARRANTY OF QUIET ENJOYMENT AS AGAINST ALL OWNER- DEFENDANTS AND DOES 21 THROUGH 40 72. Plaintiff and The Class members incorporate into this cause of action the foregoing allegations of this Complaint. 73. In renting the subject premises to the Plaintiff and the Class members, the Owner- Defendants, including Defendant PPI, Kamran Ardebilchi, Jahangir Ardebilchi and Nick Velando, impliedly undertook not to do anything to disturb Plaintiff peaceful and beneficial possession of The Property. 74. In severely interfering with Plaintiff tenancy and creating harmful and unsafe conditions in an attempt to cause the tenants to leave, the Owner Defendants breached the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment of the Plaintiff and class members. 75. ‘These conditions included negligent supervision of the contractors and Property managers, the failure to properly manage the Construction, the failure to move the Plaintiffs and Class FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR. INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALFE OF OTHERS27 28 y Members during the construction and to compensate them for the relocation, the failure to perform work without permits, the failure to complete the construction and renovation in a proper and timely manner, the failure to fix the elevator so that it would work properly, the failure to address required repairs, and repeated harassment and pressure to move out. 76. In addition, to the allegations contained in this case of action and the recitals hereto, Defendant PPI breached the warranty of quiet enjoyment owed to the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty as a beneficial owner and where it contracted as the owner of The Property to have work performed at the Property. Defendant PPI undertook an obligation to manage and oversee the construction at the Property. Therefore the warranty of quiet enjoyment was breached when Defendant PPI, its agents and affiliated owners, and the contractors it hired, conducted the construction without permits, moved the Plaintiff and others without proper notice and without legal justification, and without taking any safeguards to protect the health and safety of the Plaintiff and Class Members resulting in physical and mental damages to the Plaintiff and Class Members. 77. In continuing to employ their non-licensed Property managers, the Owner Defendants breached the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment of The Property. 78. The Owner Defendants and their agents, the contractors, routinely entered Plaintiff's apartment without notice for the purpose of inspecting Plaintiff's unit and not for any legitimate Teason. 79. The Defendants intentionally harassed the Plaintiff and decreased services in an effort to cause the Plaintiff and Class Members to move out of the building. 80. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and the failure to address the Plaintiff's complaints, Plaintiff suffered distress and anguish all to their general damage and in an amount according to proof. 81. The Plaintiff 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. 82. Plaintiff and The Class Members suffered damages in the loss of their rent, believed to be FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF ISANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSin excess of $500,000 during this time period and also emotional distress, moving costs and repair costs for a total of over $2,000,000, 83. 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 Plaintiff. 84. Defendants conduct was malicious and oppressive and Plaintiff are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AS AGAINST ALL OWNER-DEFENDANTS AND DOES 21 THROUGH 40 85. Plaintiff and The Class Members incorporate the foregoing allegations into this cause of action. 86. By wrongfully serving interfering with Plaintiff's and The Class Members’ tenancies in violation of the Rent Ordinance and Proposition M, by allowing construction without permits and in a manner that was unsanitary and disturbing, and utilizing unlicensed building managers, the Defendants have engaged in unfair business practices within the term of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500, et seq. 87. —_ In addition, The Defendants failed to give proper notice to the Plaintiff and The Class Members of the intended construction, failed to give proper notice and payment in connection with the relocations and temporary move outs, failed to allow the tenants to move back in after the construction, rented the rooms as long term rooms only to attempt to convert the rooms to short term rentals, terminate the provision of amenities and other repairs in violation of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and California Laws including but not limited to CC 1941, 1941.1, 1942.4 and 1942.5 and CCP 789.3. 88. The Defendants also wrongfully interfered with Plaintiff's and The Class Members' tenancies in violation of the Rent Ordinance and Proposition M, discriminated against them based on their age and disability, allowed construction without permits and in a manner that was unsanitary and disturbing, and utilized unlicensed building managers. 89. By ignoring Plaintiff letters and requests to address their complaints, and on FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSANEE SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSSe information and belief the requests of The Class Members, the Defendants have engaged in unfair business practices within the terms of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500, et seq. 90. The Plaintiff, who still resides in the Building, and on information and belief the requests of The Class Members who still reside in the Building, have been harmed by Defendants’ actions. 91. Unless action is taken to stop the Defendants, members of the public will continue to be harmed. 92. The foregoing actions and practices of the Defendants’ were unlawful, unfair and fraudulent. 93. The Plaintiff and Class Members were damaged by the actions of the Defendants where the Plaintiff and Class Members were physically harmed by the acts and practices and also paid rent based on the foregoing fraudulent actions and the tepresentations that the Defendants would 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 Plaintiff and Class Members even though the Defendants had no intention of renting to them as long term tenants after the construction began in 2008. 94, Members of the public are likely to be deceived by Defendants’ actions as were the Plaintiff and Class Members. 95. Due to the great likelihood of additional harm to the Plaintiff, Class members, and members of the public, Plaintiff 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 1 THROUGH 50 96. Plaintiff and The Class Members incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations. 97, The Owner-Defendants physically relocated tenants while they were away on vacation and also told Class Members that they had to move and those Class Members did actually relinquish FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SA\ AEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS27 28 possession of their apartments. 98. The Owner-Defendants acted with specific intent to cause The Class Members’ living conditions to become so intolerable that they would be forced to vacate and certain Class Members did actually relinquish possession of their apartments. 99. On information and belief, the Contractor-Defendants at the request of the Owner- Defendants, conducted the construction and renovation in such a manner as to assist the Owner- Defendants with their plan of rendering the building vacant and vacant of the long-term rent controlled tenants. The Owner-Defendants, on information and belief, instructed the Contractor- Defendants to enter the rooms of tenants and to disregard the tenants' concerns. The Owner- Defendants also failed in their duty to instruct the Contractor-Defendants to perform the construction in a proper manner and to clean up the dust and debris they created, to remove toxic and other harmful substances from the building during the construction, and to obtain valid permits. 100. The Owner-Defendants, directly and through the failure of the Contractor-Defendants, failed to obtain valid permits prior to beginning the construction despite being required to first obtain permits before moving individuals and before beginning construction. 101. On information and belief, the Contractor-Defendants performed the construction and renovation in such a manner that they consciously disregarded the harm they caused the Plaintiff and Class members and that they were aware that their actions, taken as agents of the owners, would result in tenants vacating the building 102. On information and belief, as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Owner- Defendants, certain Class Members have vacated The Property. 103. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff have suffered general and special damages in an amount greater than $2,000,000, including but limited to the loss of the value of their rent controlled tenancies and the cost of paying higher rent elsewhere along with moving costs and the value of the loss of their belongings. 104, Defendants’ conduct was sufficiently malicious and oppressive and entitles Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount according to proof where the Defendants knew that their actions FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIF! AEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSin harassing the Class Members and causing a complete remodeling of the Building without taking precautions would cause severe emotional distress and a disruption to the Class Members causing them to vacate the Building. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AS AGAINST ALL OWNER- DEFENDANTS AND DOES 21 THROUGH 40 105. The named Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and other Class members, incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations. 106. The Owner-Defendants, including Defendant PPI, 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. 107. 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 fees and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. 108. 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. 109. Defendants, directly and through their agents, violated the above referenced sections of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and Proposition M where they harassed the Plaintiff and Class FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANSAN SABJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS10 n 27 28 Members, entered their rooms without proper notices, attempted to force them to vacate without just cause, interfered with their rights to quiet use and enjoyment, failed to repair items, failed to replace the elevator and retaliated against the Plaintiff and Class Members. 110. The Owner-Defendants took the foregoing actions in retaliation against the Plaintiff and The Class members to attempt to force them to leave The Property, including Defendant PPI, took the foregoing actions in retaliation against the Plaintiff and ‘The Class members to attempt to force them to leave The Property. Defendant PPI also contracted for and oversaw the construction in such a manner as to lessen the services and quality of enjoyment to force the Plaintiff and Class Members to leave. 111. 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 Property, nor had Defendants informed Plaintiff in writing, as required by Sec. 37.9(c) of the Rent Ordinance of valid grounds under which they were seeking possession, 112. As a proximate result of Owner-Defendants' wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiff and The Class members have incurred damages which include legal costs and attorney’s fees. In addition, Plaintiff have suffered inconvenience, annoyance, and severe emotional distress, all to their damage in an amount exceeding $2,000,000. 113. Plaintiff and The Class members have incurred and will continue to incur attorney's fees as a result of prosecuting this action. 114. Plaintiff and The Class members are entitled to not tess than three times the amount of money damages and the recovery of attomey’s fees for prosecuting this cause of action as provided for in section 37.9(f) of the Rent Ordinance. 115. Defendants conduct was malicious and oppressive and Plaintiff and The Class members are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof, and to the trebling of damages awarded for Plaintiff emotional distress. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SANS. SAEJEAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERSSEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS AGAINST THE OWNER- DEFENDANTS AND DOES 21 THROUGH 40 116. Plaintiff and The Class Members incorporate into this cause of action the foregoing allegations of this Complaint. 117, Defendants have a duty to the Plaintiff and Class Members by virtue of the landlord tenant relationship that exists between the Defendants and the tenants. 118. The Owner-Defendants, directly and through their agents, refused to make repairs and at other times had contractors improperly pull permits pursuant to which different individuals performed the work in a negligent manner and after the permits had expired. 119. The Owner-Defendants, directly and through their agents including the Contractor Defendants, continuously enter Plaintiff's apartment without notice, have forced the resident managers to threaten the Plaintiff, and falsely allege that Plaintiff are disturbing the other tenants. The Defendants have not taken any corrective actions. 120. The Owner Defendants are liable for the Contractor-Defendants negligent performance of the renovation, construction and repairs in breach of their duty where they performed work without permits, without taking protective measures to control dust and debris, improper scheduling of the work to be performed, and did not timely complete the work. 121. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions on the part of Defendants, Plaintiff, 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. 122. Plaintiff, and