Complaint,Petition: Javier Zambrano vs. Sabrina Gray

On February 16, 2021 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Almaraz, Rebecca, Quintero, Carlos, Quintero, Mia, Quintero, Reyna, Quintero, Tony, Jr, Zambrano, Javier, and Gray, Sabrina, for 06 Unlimited - Breach of Contract/Warranty in the District Court of Fresno County.

Preview
Binh Bui (SBN 226420)
1 THE LAW OFFICES OF BINH BUI E-FILED
333 H Street, Suite 5000 2/16/2021 8:00 AM
2 Chula Vista, CA 91910 Superior Court of California
(858) 384-2755 (p) County of Fresno
3 (866) 388-4886 (f) By: C. York, Deputy
admin@aipglaw.com
4 Attorney for PLAINTIFFS JAVIER ZAMBRANO; REBECCA ALMARAZ; TONY QUINTERO
5 JR.; CARLOS QUINTERO; MIA QUINTERO by and through guardian ad litem REBECCA
ALMARAZ; REYNA QUINTERO, by and through guardian ad litem REBECCA ALMARAZ
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF FRESNO
9
JAVIER ZAMBRANO; REBECCA ALMARAZ, CASE NO. 21CECG00420
10 TONY QUINTERO JR.; CARLOS QUINTERO;
MIA QUINTERO by and through guardian ad COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
11 litem REBECCA ALMARAZ; REYNA
QUINTERO by and through guardian ad litem 1. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
REBECCA ALMARAZ; HABITABLE DWELLING
12
2. BREACH OF COVENANT AND
13 Plaintiffs, RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT
3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
14 vs. EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
4. PRIVATE NUISANCE
15 SABRINA GRAY; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, 5. UNFAIR COMPETITION
inclusive (BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
16 CODE SECTION 17200)
Defendants. 6. NEGLIGENCE
17 7. RETALIATORY EVICTION
8. FAILURE TO RETURN SECURITY
18 DEPOSIT
19
20 Plaintiffs JAVIER ZAMBRANO, REBECCA ALMARAZ, TONY QUINTERO JR.,
21 CARLOS QUINTERO, MIA QUINTERO by and through guardian ad litem REBECCA
22 ALMARAZ, and REYNA QUINTERO by and through guardian ad litem REBECCA ALMARAZ
23 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) hereby complain and allege against Defendants SABRINA GRAY; and
24 DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive (hereinafter “Defendants”), as follows:
25
26 A. PLAINTIFFS

27 1. Plaintiffs JAVIER ZAMBRANO, REBECCA ALMARAZ, TONY QUINTERO

28
-1-
COMPLAINT
JR., CARLOS QUINTERO, MIA QUINTERO, and REYNA QUINTERO, at times material to
1
2 this lawsuit, resided at 4369 N. FRUIT, FRESNO, CA 93705 ("Property"). Plaintiff moved into

3 the Property on or around April 2, 2017. Plaintiffs paid $1,500.00 per month in rent and paid
4 $3,000.00 to secure the Property. Plaintiffs vacated the Property on or around August 10, 2020.
5
B. DEFENDANTS
6
2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that SABRINA GRAY is the
7
8 current record title holder of the Property.

9 3. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that SABRINA
10 GRAY engaged in activities of lessors and/or landlords at the Property, including, but not limited
11
to: receiving rents for the Property; being entitled to receive rents for the Property; management of
12
the Property; operation of the Property; leasing of the Property; maintenance of the Property;
13
14 maintaining books, records and accounts for the Property; obtaining and keeping tenants at the

15 Property; negotiation, renewal, extension, modification and cancellation of leases for the Property;

16 performance, or lack thereof, of tenant leases for the Property; enforcement of tenant leases for the
17
Property; collection and keeping of rents at the Property; pursuing legal action against tenants for
18
allegedly failing to pay rents due for the Property; inspecting the Property; distribution of notices
19
for the Property; and/or promulgation of rules for the Property.
20
21 4. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, association or

22 otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs at the time the
23
original Complaint was filed. Plaintiffs believe the DOE Defendants engaged in activities of
24
lessors and/or landlords at the Property, including, but not limited to: receiving rents for the
25
Property; being entitled to receive rents for the Property; management of the Property; operation
26
27 of the Property; leasing of the Property; maintenance of the Property; maintaining books, records

28 and accounts for the Property; obtaining and keeping tenants at the Property; negotiation, renewal,
-2-
COMPLAINT
extension, modification and cancellation of leases for the Property; performance, or lack thereof,
1
2 of tenant leases for the Property; enforcement of tenant leases for the Property; collection and

3 keeping of rents at the Property; pursuing legal action against tenants for allegedly failing to pay
4 rents due for the Property; inspecting the Property; distribution of notices for the Property; and/or
5
promulgation of rules for the Property.
6
5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege that each of the
7
8 Defendants fictitiously named herein as a DOE is legally responsible, negligently or in some other

9 actionable manner, for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby proximately
10 and legally caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and hereinafter alleged. Plaintiffs will
11
seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and/or capacities of such
12
fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained.
13
14 6. Unless otherwise noted, all Defendants will hereinafter be collectively referred to

15 as “Defendants.”

16 C. THE PROPERTY
17
7. During all times relevant to this action, the Property was untenantable because of
18
the failure of Defendants, and each of them, to repair conditions of the Property which have
19
rendered it untenantable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1941.1 and substandard
20
21 pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 and 17980. In fact, the problems were so

22 numerous, that the below is just a summary to put Defendants on notice of the myriad issues.
23
8. The issues at the Property, at material times to this lawsuit, include, but are not
24
limited to 1) multiple water intrusions, and 2) toxic mold growing throughout the Property.
25
Neither of these issues were remediated.
26
27 9. When Plaintiffs moved onto the Property on April 2, 2017, there was no hot water.

28 Plaintiffs requested that Defendants provide hot water. Plaintiffs were told that the heater was fine,
-3-
COMPLAINT
and to call Pacific Gas & and Electricity (“PG&E”) and have them relight the pilot light. When
1
2 PG&E came out, Plaintiffs were told that the issue was with the heater itself, and they could not

3 fix it.
4 10. Defendants contacted the insurance company to replace the water heater. Plaintiffs
5
went without hot water until April 24, 2017. The new water heater worked for two weeks.
6
11. There were constant issues with the water heater, whether it was leaking gas or
7
8 needing the pilot tight to be relit. Defendants’ insurance company informed Defendants that one of

9 the issues was poor ventilation, and Defendants needed to have a licensed contractor fix the issue,
10 as well as deal with a bad gas valve.
11
12. Taking showers was difficult because the hot water would only last for about five
12
minutes, then become freezing cold again.
13
14 13. Rats entered the Property through the roof and chimney. Some of these rats charged

15 at Plaintiffs. They could be heard through the walls and running along the wire outside the home

16 and on the bricks.
17
14. On or around March 15, 2020, the toilet backed up and flooded the kitchen and
18
carpet area under the table, and washroom. Defendants wanted to wait until Monday so a plumber
19
could be set up through insurance, instead of contacting someone immediately to fix the flooding.
20
21 Plaintiffs contacted a plumber themselves. When the plumber unclogged the toilet and pulled up

22 wet carpet, they noticed water come out of the back of the toilet and around it.
23
15. The flooding got worse over the next months due to the numerous plumbing issues
24
and water intrusions.
25
16. The Property developed significant mold growth.
26
27 17. The Property’s flooring was dangerous and substandard.

28
-4-
COMPLAINT
18. The City of Fresno Code Enforcement cited Defendants for the above-mentioned
1
2 issues on July 9, 2020.

3 19. There is a storage shed on the Property which is infected with opossums and rats.
4 20. The Property was without a functioning toilet and sink fixture.
5
21. The Property has exposed and substandard electrical wiring.
6
22. Defendants called Child Protective Services on Plaintiffs in an effort to harass
7
8 Plaintiffs into leaving the property due to their consistent reports of health and safety issues at the

9 Property.
10 23. Defendants served multiple, retaliatory, three-day pay or quit notices against
11
Plaintiffs.
12
24. Defendants served a retaliatory sixty-day notice of termination against Plaintiffs.
13
14 25. During the time that the Property was managed and/or owned by Defendants,

15 Defendants were responsible for the management and maintenance of the Property, either directly

16 or through managers they hired.
17
26. Defendants maintained the Property in a substandard condition and refused to
18
make repairs, despite the fact that they knew Plaintiffs were suffering and knew the Property was
19
uninhabitable and untenantable. Yet, Plaintiffs constantly made verbal and written complaints to
20
21 Defendants about the conditions of the Property which rendered it untenantable pursuant to Code

22 of Civil Procedure Section 1941.1 and substandard pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
23
17920.3. Plaintiffs’ complaints were ignored or, if any repairs were made, they were temporary
24
and the underlying problems continued to exist at the Property.
25
27. Defendants were also on actual and constructive notice of the untenantable and
26
27 substandard conditions at the Property based on the obvious nature of the conditions, the number

28
-5-
COMPLAINT
of times Defendants and their agents were present at or inspected the Property, and the complaints
1
2 made by Plaintiffs.

3 28. Defendants have exercised real and apparent authority over the Property and have
4 always had the ultimate legal authority and obligation to address all improper conditions at the
5
Property, and failed to manage the Property in accordance with the law and the applicable standard
6
of care.
7
8 29. The substandard conditions at the Property are a consequence of Defendants’

9 pattern and practice of failing to implement basic preventative maintenance, timely repair work,
10 inspection and fumigation efforts.
11
30. Defendants knew or should have known that the failure to properly maintain and
12
repair the Property would cause the Property to be and continue to be untenantable pursuant to
13
14 Code of Civil Procedure Section 1941.1, substandard pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section

15 17920.3.

16 31. Such conditions affected the safe and sanitary use of the Property by Plaintiffs, to
17
the extent that Plaintiffs could not safely reside in the Property.
18
32. Defendants’ intentional and conscious disregard of the consequences of their
19
actions and failures to act was intentional, malicious and outrageous.
20
21 33. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and omissions by Defendants,

22 Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer actual damages and/or injuries, including but not
23
necessarily limited to physical harm and injury, loss of or damage to personal property, severe
24
emotional distress, and a diminishment in the value of their leasehold.
25
26 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
27 FAILURE TO PROVIDE HABITABLE DWELLING
28 (As to All Defendants)
-6-
COMPLAINT
34. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 33 above as though
1
2 fully set forth herein.

3 35. Defendants engaged in activities of lessors at the Property, including, but not
4 limited to: receiving rents for the Property; being entitled to receive rents for the Property;
5
management of the Property; operation of the Property; leasing of the Property; maintenance of
6
the Property; maintaining books, records and accounts for the Property; obtaining and keeping
7
8 tenants at the Property; negotiation, renewal, extension, modification and cancellation of leases for

9 the Property; performance, or lack thereof, of tenant leases for the Property; enforcement of tenant
10 leases for the Property; collection and keeping of rents at the Property; pursuing legal action
11
against tenants for allegedly failing to pay rents due for the Property; inspecting the Property;
12
distribution of notices for the Property; and/or promulgation of rules for the Property.
13
14 36. Defendants were required to provide habitable premises to Plaintiffs and failed to

15 do so. Plaintiffs were either signatories to or intended beneficiaries of lease agreement for rental of

16 her respective unit at the Property. Such lease agreement was entered into with, assigned to or
17
inured to the benefit of the Defendants. The lease agreement for rental of the Property imposed,
18
among other terms, an implied warranty of habitability under California law.
19
37. Also, under statutory law applicable to residential dwellings, Defendants, as lessors
20
21 of the Property, were required to provide Plaintiffs with a tenantable dwelling, and failed to do so.

22 38. Also, under common law and principles of tort liability applicable to Defendants as
23
owners and managers of the Property, Defendants were required to provide a habitable and
24
tenantable dwelling to Plaintiffs, and failed to do so.
25
39. Defendants, who were managers and owners in possession, custody or control of
26
27 the Property, had a duty to adequately repair and abate the conditions at the Property for the

28 benefit of Plaintiffs, yet failed to do so.
-7-
COMPLAINT
40. The conditions of the Property alleged herein constituted violations of state and
1
2 local housing laws, including, but not limited to, Civil Code Section 1941, Health and Safety Code

3 Section 17920.3, and upon information and belief, CCRs, bylaws, association rules and the Fresno
4 County Municipal Code. Such conditions posed health, safety and fire hazards to Plaintiffs and the
5
public.
6
41. As a result of Defendants’ actions or failures to act as herein alleged, the Property
7
8 at all material times has lacked or continues to lack many of the affirmative standard

9 characteristics identified in California Civil Code section 1941.1.
10 42. Defendants had actual or constructive notice of the untenantable and substandard
11
conditions at the Property, as alleged herein.
12
43. Despite such notice, Defendants failed to adequately repair and abate the
13
14 untenantable and substandard conditions at the Property, as alleged herein.

15 44. Public officers or employees have notified Defendants in writing of their duty to

16 correct some or all of the untenantable and substandard conditions at the Property.
17
45. Plaintiffs did not cause the existence of the untenantable and substandard
18
conditions at the Property.
19
46. Defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability contained within the lease
20
21 agreement by failing to properly maintain and repair the premises, failing to correct the

22 untenantable and substandard conditions at the Property and failing to provide habitable rental
23
units to Plaintiffs at the Property.
24
47. Moreover, by failing to correct said defective conditions, Defendants have breached
25
their duty to maintain the Property in a habitable condition.
26
27 48. By Defendants’ failure to maintain the Property in a habitable condition, these

28 Defendants and each of them acted unreasonably and in want of ordinary care.
-8-
COMPLAINT
49. Defendants knew or should have known that permitting said defective conditions to
1
2 exist threatened the physical and emotional health and well-being of Plaintiffs and posed a serious

3 threat and danger to their health and safety.
4 50. As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants’ breaches of the warranty of
5
habitability, Plaintiffs have suffered actual damage, including but not necessarily limited to loss of
6
or damage to their personal property, physical injury, pain, anxiety, discomfort, annoyance,
7
8 inconvenience, and severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs’ damages are in an amount to be

9 determined at trial, but in any event in excess of $25,000.00.
10
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11
BREACH OF COVENANT AND RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT
12
(As to All Defendants)
13 51. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 50 above as though
14
fully set forth herein.
15
52. Defendants engaged in activities of lessors at the Property, including, but not
16
17 limited to: receiving rents for the Property; being entitled to receive rents for the Property;

18 management of the Property; operation of the Property; leasing of the Property; maintenance the

19 Property; maintaining books, records and accounts for the Property; obtaining and keeping tenants
20
at the Property; negotiation, renewal, extension, modification and cancellation of leases for the
21
Property; performance, or lack thereof, of tenant leases for the Property; enforcement of tenant
22
leases for the Property; collection and keeping of rents at the Property; pursuing legal action
23
24 against tenants for allegedly failing to pay rents due for the Property; inspecting the Property;

25 distribution of notices for the Property; and/or promulgation of rules for the Property.
26
53. Implied in Plaintiffs’ lease agreement is a covenant that Defendants would not
27
interfere with Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the premises during the term of their tenancy.
28
-9-
COMPLAINT
54. Under Civil Code Section 1927, an agreement to let upon hire binds the letter to
1
2 secure to the hirer the quiet possession of the thing hired during the term of the hiring, against all

3 persons lawfully claiming the same.
4 55. Under common law and principles of tort liability applicable to Defendants as
5
owners and managers of the Property, Plaintiffs had a right to the quiet enjoyment of the Property.
6
56. Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment and possession of the
7
8 Property through their actions and failures to act as alleged herein.

9 57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ interference with Plaintiffs’ right to
10 quiet enjoyment and possession of the Property, Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages, including
11
but not necessarily limited to loss of or damage to their leasehold interest, loss of or damage to
12
their personal property, physical injury, pain, anxiety, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience and
13
14 distress, in an amount to be determined at trial but in any event in excess of $25,000.00.

15
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
16
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
17
(As to All Defendants)
18 58. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 57 above as though

19 fully set forth herein.
20
59. Defendants’ conduct as alleged hereinabove was extreme and outrageous because
21
their failure to properly maintain the Property caused the Property to be in such an unsanitary,
22
unhealthy, and untenantable condition as to endanger the physical health and emotional well-being
23
24 of the tenants who are the Plaintiffs in this case. Defendants’ conduct in collecting rent and yet

25 allowing conditions at the Property to be so dilapidated was so extreme and outrageous as to go
26
beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a
27
civilized community.
28
- 10 -
COMPLAINT
60. Through their actions or failures to act as alleged hereinabove, and their conduct in
1
2 permitting the Property to be in such a dilapidated, unsanitary, unhealthy, and untenantable

3 condition, Defendants intended that Plaintiffs suffer emotional distress or, through their conduct,
4 acted in such a way as to be in conscious disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiffs to suffer
5
emotional distress.
6
61. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct
7
8 in permitting the Property to be in such a dilapidated, unsanitary, unhealthy, and untenantable

9 condition, Plaintiffs suffered extreme emotional distress through the fear of illness from the
10 conditions at the Property and despair over the severely substandard and unsanitary conditions of
11
her living quarters.
12
62. Defendants acted with malice in their dealings with the Plaintiffs, especially with
13
14 regard to engaging in malicious behavior which led to a retaliatory eviction, in that Plaintiffs were

15 forced from the Property, such that Defendants are liable for punitive or exemplary damages.

16
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
PRIVATE NUISANCE
18
(As to All Defendants)
19 63. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 62 above as though
20
fully set forth herein.
21
64. As managers of the Property, Defendants had responsibilities not to create or
22
maintain a private nuisance.
23
24 65. A private nuisance claim is a claim for “a non-trespassory interference with the

25 private use and enjoyment of land.” (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13
26
Cal.4th 893, 937.)
27
66. As set forth hereinabove, Defendants interfered with the Plaintiffs’ use and
28
enjoyment of the Property. - 11 -
COMPLAINT
67. Based on the substandard, dilapidated, unsanitary, and unhealthy conditions at the
1
2 Property, Defendants’ invasion of the Plaintiffs’ interest in the use and enjoyment of the Property

3 was substantial in that it caused the Plaintiffs to suffer substantial actual damage. Defendants’
4 interference with the protected interest was not only substantial, but was also unreasonable.
5
6 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

7 UNFAIR COMPETITION (BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.)

8 (As to All Defendants)

9 68. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 67 above as though

10 fully set forth herein.

11 69. Defendants transact business, or have transacted business, by owning, operating,

12 managing, and allowing residential occupancy and use, and collecting rental income from the

13 Property within the State of California. Defendants’ actions are in violation of the laws and public

14 policies of the State of California and are inimical to the rights and interests of the general public.

15 70. Defendants have engaged in one or more unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business
acts or practices, as prohibited under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et
16
seq., through the following conduct:
17
• By maintaining unsafe conditions in violation of State of California and the Fresno
18
Municipal Code;
19
• By maintaining an unsafe building in violation of State of California and the Fresno
20
Municipal Code
21
• By not providing working water heater on the Property; and
22
• By allowing multiple leaks to intrude on the Property.
23
71. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that as a direct and proximate result of the
24
foregoing acts and practices, Defendants have received and will receive income and other benefits,
25
which they would not have received if they had not engaged in the unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent
26
business acts or practices. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to restitution from Defendants, including but
27
not limited to disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains.
28
- 12 -
COMPLAINT
1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 NEGLIGENCE
3 (As to All Defendants)
4 72. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 71 above as though
5 fully set forth herein.
6 73. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care to maintain the Property in a
7 safe, habitable, tenantable condition.
8 74. Defendants breached that duty of reasonable care in that they failed to reasonably
9 maintain the premises.
10 75. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
11 damages, including but not necessarily limited to physical injury, emotional distress, loss of or
12 damage to personal property. Said damages are in an amount to be proved at trial but in any event
13 in excess of $25,000.00.
14 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15
RETALIATORY EVICTION
16
(As to All Defendants)
17
76. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 75 herein, as
18
though fully set forth herein.
19
77. Pursuant to California Civil Code section 1942.5, a landlord may not commit
20
retaliatory conduct against a tenant for reporting issues with the rented property.
21
78. Further, a cause of action for retaliatory eviction is separately grounded in common
22
law in the State of California. It is unlawful for a landlord to initiate eviction proceedings against a
23
tenant for simply providing notice of conditions on the rental property that would render it
24
uninhabitable under California law.
25 79. Defendants terminated Plaintiffs’ lease after they complained of the substandard
26 nature of the Property.
27 80. Defendants’ acts were done with the intent to get Plaintiffs to vacate the premises
28 so that Defendants would not have to resolve the above-mentioned issues.
- 13 -
COMPLAINT
1 81. Plaintiffs were damaged as a result of Defendants’ retaliatory conduct.
2
82. Separately, Plaintiffs are seeking exemplary or “punitive” damages due to the
3
conduct of the Defendants that constituted malice and oppression.
4
83. Defendants acted with malice and oppression in their dealings with Plaintiffs as
5
6 tenant at the Property. Defendants failed to address any of the serious health hazards that were

7 present on the Property.
8 84. Defendants’ conduct constituted malice as it was either intended by the Defendants
9
to cause injury to the Plaintiffs or it was despicable conduct which was carried on by the
10
Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
11
12 85. Defendants’ conduct constituted oppression as it was despicable conduct that

13 subjected the Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights.
14 86. Defendants failed to address these issues. Defendants failed to remediate the
15
hazardous conditions and failed to provide accommodations. As a result, exemplary damages are
16
appropriate in this case.
17
18
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
FAILURE TO RETURN SECURITY DEPOSIT
20
(As to All Defendants)
21
87. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 86 herein, as
22
23 though alleged fully in this complaint.

24 88. California Government Code Section §1950.5(g)(1), requires owners and
25 managers of a property to return security deposits along with an itemized list of deductions if any
26
were taken out.
27
89. Bad faith retention by a landlord of replacement of the security deposit may subject
28
the landlord or the landlord’s successors in the interest- 14 - to statutory damages of up to twice the
COMPLAINT
amount of the security deposit, in addition to actual damages.
1
2 90. Plaintiffs did not receive a reasonable sum returned to them after vacating the

3 premises and the deductions made by Defendants were unreasonable.
4 91. Defendants have not returned Plaintiffs’ security deposit, and as such California
5
Civil Code §1950(1) and California Civil Code §1950(j) are applicable.
6
92. As a result of the withholding of the security deposit money, Plaintiffs have been
7
8 actually damaged, and have suffered statutory damages. Plaintiffs are entitled to the return of the

9 outstanding security deposit amounts, plus a matching amount in statutory damages.
10
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
12
13 ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION:

14 1. For general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
2. For Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by contract, by Civil Code
15 §1942.4(b) and/or law.
16 3. For costs of suit, including expert costs as permitted by statute.
4. For such other relief as the court may deem just and proper.
17 5. For exemplary damages, pursuant to Civ. Code Sec. §3294, in connection with the tort of
retaliatory eviction.
18
19
Dated: February 15, 2021 THE LAW OFFICES OF BINH BUI
20
By: s/ Binh Bui_______________
21 Binh Bui, Esq.
22 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 15 -
COMPLAINT

Case Info

Judge

Gaab, Kimberly Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 16, 2021

Case Filing Date

February 16, 2021

County

Parties

Almaraz, Rebecca Defendant In 1st Cross Complaint
Almaraz, Rebecca Plaintiff
Gray, Sabrina Defendant
Gray, Sabrina Plaintiff In 1st Cross Complaint
Quintero, Carlos Defendant In 1st Cross Complaint
Quintero, Carlos Plaintiff
Quintero, Mia Plaintiff
Quintero, Reyna Plaintiff
Quintero, Tony, JR Defendant In 1st Cross Complaint
Quintero, Tony, JR Plaintiff
Zambrano, Javier Defendant In 1st Cross Complaint
Zambrano, Javier Plaintiff
Binh Bui Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: Javier Zambrano vs. Sabrina Gray

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties