Preview
a
Lo MOAPR 19 PH ys 15 ms
kn
IZ
Mina L. Ramirez, Esq. SBN 118302
LAW OFFICE OF MINA L. RAMIREZ ae
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite C-1 Ba FILED
Modesto, California 95350 APR 207
(209) 491-0199 (telephone)
(209) 575-9497 (facsimile) OF THE
icp UN OF
QURT
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Ly] ISLAUS
Bill Bunnell and AS TY
AS
Kim Bunnell eh iraeWS ere. Ss
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
11 BILL BUNNELL and KYM BUNNELL, Case No. 2018041
12 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS BILL BUNNELL AND
KIM BUNNELL EVIDENCE IN
13 Vv. SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
14 DEFENDANTS TAMI GOSSELIN AND
GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC, CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES
15 AUDREY GOESCH, TROY WRIGHT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, JSUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
16 CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES,
TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS, DATE: 5/3/18
17 DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC TIME: 8:30 a.m.
18 INSPECTION SERVICES and DOES 1 DEPT: 24
through 50, inclusive, Trial Date: 6/12/18
19
Defendants.
20
21
22 Pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1350, subdivision (g), Plaintiffs, BILL
23
BUNNELL and KYM BUNNELL submits the following Evidence in support of their opposition
24
to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication.
25
Exhibit Exhibit Identification
26
27 A Original Complain
28
-1-
Evidence in support of opposition to MSJ Case No. 2018041
Bunnell, at al. y. Great Valley Realtors, et al.
2te
PROOF OF SERVICE
I,DIANE VARGAS declare:
I am a resident of the County of Stanislaus, State of California; ] am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 1165 Scenic
Drive, Suite C-1, Modesto, CA 95350.
I served the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ BILL BUNNELL AND KYM BUNNELL
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS TAMI GOSSELIN
AND CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION on the following person(s) in said action, by placing a true
copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope and delivering it as follows:
10
XXX_(By Mail) J am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for
11 collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with United States Postal Service that
same day in the ordinary course of business.
12
(By Overnight Courier) I caused each envelope to be delivered via overnight courier
13
service to the addressee(s) designated.
14
(By Personal Service) I caused each envelope to be delivered by hand to the office of the
15 addressee(s).
16
(By Telecopy) I caused each document to be sent via telecopier to the following
17 number(s) of the addressee(s):
18 Mr. Bradley A. Post, Esq. Cory B. Chartrand, Esq.
19
BORTON PETRINI LLP TRIEBSCH & FRAMPTON
201 Needham Street 300 N. Palm Street. P.O. Box 709
20 Modesto, CA 95354 Turlock CA 95381
21
J. Hooshie Broomand, Esq. Joseph L. Wright, Esq.
22
NEWMAN & BROOMAND, LLP LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. WRIGHT
2360 East Bidwell St., #100 37 Theal Street, Second Floor
23 Folsom, CA 95630 Sonora, CA 95370
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
25
foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed at Modesto, Stanislaus
26
County, California, on April t,
| 2018. ‘
27
28 DIANE VARGA
Jos o~.
‘
x
mui mee 14 LUM we 23
Mina L. Ramirez, Esq. SBN 118302
Kevin M. Massoni, Esq. SBN 284677
iLEB
LAW OFFICE OF MINA L. RAMIREZ
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite C-1 bee 15 208
Modesto, California 95350 UAT
(209) 491-0199 (telephone)
(209) 575-9497 (facsimile) iy
ner
Attomeys for Plaintifts,
Bill Bunnell and
Kim Bunnell
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ©
hy
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
i
BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL, Case No.
20160477
12
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13
14 Vv. ) Breach of Contract;
2) Breach of Covenant ef Good Faith and
15 JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, Fair Dealing;
=
DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC 3) Concealment;
16 INSPECTION SERVICES INC., and DOES 4) Breach of Duty to Disclose;
] through 50, inchusive, Negligence.
7
18
Defendants.
ee
19
20 Plaintiffs, BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL, hereinalee upon information and
21 belief-the following:
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
23 A. Identity and Capacity of Parties
24 1 Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL are residents of the City of
25 Modesto, County of Stanislaus, in the State of California.
26 2. On information and belief, Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and
27 DUNCAN LYONS are persons and residents of the County of Stanislaus in the State of
28 California.
-1-
Complaint for Damages _~ Case No.
Bunnell, et al. v. Wright, et al.
ee _
’ “=.
3 Defendant AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES INC. is a business entity
in
duly incorporated under the laws of California conducting business in the County of Stanislaus
the State of California.
4 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
otherwise of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore
sue said'defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 474.
Plaintifis are informed and believe, and on such basis allege, that each Defendant sued under
such fictitious name is in some manner responsible for the wrongs and damages as alleged below
and was functioning as the agent, servant, and employee of the co-Defendanis, and ‘in doing the
as
10 actions mentioned below, and in acting within the course and scope of his or her authority
i such agent, servant, and/or employee with the permission and consent of the co-Defendants.
, to
12 Plaintiffs will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint and any subsequent pleadings
413 reveal said Defendants’ true names and capacities, once the same have been ascertained.
14 5 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of these
herein .
15 fictitiously named DOE defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences
of the
16 alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by all
7 aforementioned Defendants named herein.
times,
18 6 Plaintifis are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant
each of the
19 each of the DOES defendants were the agents, managers, and employees of
the course
20 remaining Defendants and, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were actingwithin
21 and scope of such agency and employment.
22 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of such information and
of them, were the
23 belief thereon allege, that at all times material herein, Defendants, and each
them, and in doing the
24 agents, servants, and employees of their co-Defendants, and each of
as such
25 things hereinafter mentioned were acting within the scope and course of their authority
Co-Defendants.
26 agents, servants, and employees, and with the permission of their
27 8 All actions of each Defendant herein alleged were ratified and approved by the
28 officers or managing agents of each other Defendant.
-2-
Case No. —
Complaint for Danaages
Burnell, et ab. v. Wright, et al
9, Subject matter jurisdiction and venue are proper because Defendants are residents
most or all
of the County of Stanislaus, in the State of California, and on information and belief,
us, in the State of
f the unlawful acts complained of herein occurred in the County of Stanisla
California.
B. Factual Bac ‘ound
10, In November 2013 the owners of 2440 Kaslin Drive were Defendants JASON
WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT. On information and belief, JASON WRIGHT and GINA
or obtain a buyer
RIGHT entered into a contractual relationship with real estate agents to find
obtain a buyer for
for the subject property or to act in cooperation with another broker to find and
10 the subject property.
y
ll UL On or about November 3, 2013, Plaintiffs were allowed to visit the propert
12 located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, California. At no time during this visit did JASON.
13 WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, or their agents inform Plaintiffs that the residence at 2440 Kaslin
fimei.
14 Drive was infested with harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or
T and
is 12. On or about November 27, 2013, Plaintiffs and Defendants JASON WRIGH
ent by which said
16 GINA WRIGHT entered into a written Residential Purchase Agreem
ed by section 1102 et seq. and
17 Defendants contracted to provide true disclosures ornotices requir
r Disclosure Statement
18 1103 et of the Civil Code, including but limited to a Real estate Transfe
event Seller, prior to Close
19 (“TDS”). Said Defendants also contracted to the following: “In the
ng the Property, or any
20 of Escrow, becomes aware of adverse conditions materially affecti
previously provided to Buyer,
21 material inaccuracy in disclosures, information or representations
disclosure or notice, in writing,
Seller shall promptly provide a subsequent or amended
23 conveying those items.
y Plaintiffs
24 Prior to the close of escrow and possession of the subject propert
13
CTION
25 subsequently hired Defendant DUNCAN LYONS of and for AMERISPEC INSPE
nce at 2440 Kaslin Drive. Although
26 SERVICES INC to perform a home inspection of the reside
ON SERVICES initially
27 Defendants DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTI
general home inspection,
28 represented to Plaintiffs that a mold inspection was not part of the
-3-
Case-No.
Coraplaint for Damages
Bunnell, et al. v. Wright, et al.
fact inspect
Defendants DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES did in
garage, fireplace,
the entire residence, including but not limited to the residence exterior, roof,
wall,
plumbing, electrical, heating, air conditioning, water heater, attic, kitchen (including dry
On or about December 14, 2013,
pantry, and cabinets), all bathrooms, and all bedrooms.
inspection
DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES issued a home
the residence
report to Plaintiffs regarding 2440 Kaslin Drive and failed ‘to inform Plaintiffs that
notably in the
did in fact have harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fimgi, most
’
bathrooms, pantry, and kitchen.
ty at 2440
4. On or about February 12, 2014, Plaintiffs closed escrow onthe proper
T and GINA
1 Kaslin Drive. In order to accommodate seller Defendants JASON WRIGH
0
2014.
il WRIGHT, Plaintiffs graciously permitted them to rent back the property until February 20,
Plaintiffs discovered
12 Immediately after taking possession of the property on February 20, 2014,
of the home. Upon further
13 extensive black mold, mildew; and/or fungi in the kitchen area
s, Plaintiffs discovered
14 inspection of the kitchen cabinets and pulling out drawers of the cabinet
not limited to the press
15 that the Kitchen area was contaminated with black mold, including but
js that some or all of Defendants
16 boards, sheetrock, and insulation. What isparticularly alarming
by painting over it.
17 attempted to conceal the black mold, mildew, and/or fimgi
med on or
18 15.Plaintiffs immediately contacted a third party inspector who confir
19 about February 25, 2014, that the subject property was infest
ed with stachybotyrs and
in removing the
20 chaetomium mold. Plaintiffs immediately hired a contractor to assist
belongings in rented pods;,and were
21 contaminated sheetrock, were forced to store most of their
residence. Plaintiffs also suffered
22 forced to vacate the residence during the repairs and rent a
proof. During repairs of
23 anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress in anamount according to
ng in substantial loss in
24 the property Plaintiffs were required to take time off of work, resulti
25 income, wages, and profits from their company business.
onto Defendants
26 16. On or about December 4, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel served
demand letter for mediation. Said
27 JASON WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT 4 prelitigation
28 Defendants did not respond to that letter.
-4-
= Case No.
Complaint for Damages
Bunnell, et al. v, Wright, et al.
-
~ ~
Ne
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
reach of Contract against Sellers
f Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KiM BUNNELL v. Defendants JASON WRIGHT and
GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive]
17, Plaintiffs reallege each and every of the aforementioned paragraphs and
incorporates the same as though fully set forth al this point.
18. Plaintiffs entered into a written contract on or about November 27, 2013, with
Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10 for the purchase of a
residential property located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, California.
19, On information and belief, under the express terms of the written contract with
10 Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA. WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10, said Defendants
ll represented that they did not know of any material facts that would affect the value of the
12 property except for those observable by Plaintiffs or known to Defendants that had previously or
13 concurrently been disclosed. On information and belief, said Defendants also represented under
14 the terms of the contract that they had furnished Plaintiffs with a true and correct Real Estate
15 Transfer Disclosure Statement (“TDS”).
——
16 20. ly of the significant things that the contract
Plaintiffs did all, or substantialall,
17 required them to do.
18 21. All conditions required by the contract for Defendants’ performance occurred.
19 22. JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10 breached the
20 written contract by the following acts that are not all inclusive: concealing the presence of
21 harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi in the residence; representing through
22 themselves and/or their agents that the residence did not have harmful and dangerous mold,
23 mildew, and/or fungi; and/orpreventing Plaintiffs from discovering harmful and dangerous
24 mold, mildew, and/or fungi prior to entering into the written agreement with JASON WRIGHT
25 and GINA WRIGHT. In the alternative, said Defendants breached the terms of the written
26 agreement by failing to provide Plaintiffs with a subsequent or amended TDS disclosure alerting
27 Plaintifis to the presence of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi
28 23. The conduct of Defendants and each of them, through their agents, described
-5-
Complaint for Damages Case No.
Bunnell, et ab,v. Wright, et al.
.
to
herein was intended by Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiffs and did in fact cause injury
them. In fact, such conduct has caused injury and general damages to the Plaintiffs, aswell as
conduct.
past loss of income; physical and emotional stress, and injury from Defendants’
24. ‘Asa proximate result and substantial factor of Defendants’ breach of contract,
Plaintiffs have been harmed in that they have suffered damages and the loss of the wages, salary,
had not
benefits, and additional amounts of money that theywould have received if this contract
been breached, jn an amount according to proof to be determined at trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
el ers
f
10 GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive]
i 25. Plaintiffs reallege each and every of the aforementioned paragraphs and
12 incorporates the same as though fully set forth at this point.
with
13 26. Plaintiffs entered into a written contract on or about November 27, 2013,
for the purchase of a
14 Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10
15 residential property located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, Califormia.
a=
16 27. Plaintiffs did all,or substantially all of the significant things that the contract
W7 required them to do.
and
18 28. All conditions required by the contract for Defendants JASON WRIGHT
19 GINA WRIGHT'S performance occurred.
20 29. That Defendants JASON WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT, and DOES | through
contract based on, but
21 10 unfairly interfered with Plaintiffs’ right to receive the benefits of the
mold, mildew,
22 not limit ited to, the following: concealing the presence of harmful and dangerous
their agents that the
and/or fungi in the residence; representing through themselves and/or
and/or fungi; and/or preventing
24 residence did not have harmful and dangerous mold, mildew,
prior to entering
25 Plaintiffs from discovering harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi
T.
26 into the written agreement with JASON WRIGHT and GINA WRIGH
d
27 30. The conduct of Defendants and each of them, through their agents, describe
fs right to receive benefits
28 herein wasintended by Defendants to unfairly interfere with Plaintif
~6-
Complaint for Damages — Case No.
| Bunnel,, et al. ». Wright, et al we
under the contract and was intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs and did in fact cause injury to
them. In fact, such conduct has caused injury and general damages toPlaintiffs, as well as past
loss of income; physical and emotional stress, and injury from Defendants’ conduct.
31. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ interference with Plaintiffs’ right to receive
benefits under the contract, Plaintiffs have been harmed in that they have suffered damages and
the lossof the wages, salary, benefits, and additional amounts of.‘money that theywould have '
received if this contract had not been breached, in an amount according to proof to be determined
at trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
10 (Concealment)
(Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL v. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA
11 WRIGHT, and DOES | through 20, inclusive}
}L 32. Plaintiffs reallege each and every of the aforementioned paragraphs and
13 incorporates the same as though fully set forth at this point.
14 33, Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20 actively
15 concealed an important fact from Plaintiffs or prevented Plaintiffs from discovering that fact, ”
ees
oe 16 specifically the extensive infestation of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fimgi in the
17 residence of the subject property.
18 34, Prior to taking possession of the subject property on February 20, 2014, Plaintiffs
19. did not know of the presence of harmful and dangerous mold,mildew, and/or fungi in the subject
20 property.
21 35. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20
22 intended to deceive Plaintiffs of the presence of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or
fungi by concealing the fact, specifically, but not limited to, painting over the infected areas of
24 the residence.
25 ” 36. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT,
26 and DOES 1] through 20?s deception to Plaintiffs detriment
27 37. Plaintiffs have been harmed in that they have suffered damages and the loss of the
28 wages, salary, benefits, and additional amounts of money in an amount according to proof:to be
-7-
Complaint for Damages — Case No. L~
Bunnell, et al v. Wright, et al.
—- ae
NY
determined at trial. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20°s
concealment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.
38. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciovsly, fraudulently and
oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiffs and acted with an improper and
evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Because the
acts taken towards Plaintiffswere carried out in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous and
intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiffs, Plaintiffsare entitled to punitive .
damages in an amount according to proof:
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 Greach of Duty to Disclose; Civil Code, Section 1102 et seg.)
[Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL v. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA
li WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive]
12 39. Plaintiffs reallege each and every of the aforementioned Parseraphs and
13 incorporates the same as though fully set forth at this point.
14 40. Plaintiffs purchased the real property located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto,
15 California on or about February 12; 2014, from Defendants JASON WRIGHT and GINA
16 WRIGHT, and DOES | through 20. Plaintiffs did not take possession of the property uniil
17 February 20, 2014.
18 41. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20 knew
19 that the subject property was infested with harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi at
20 all time mentioned in this complaint, and such Defendants did not disclose this information to
21 Plaintiffs.
22 42. Plaintiffs did not knowsant the subject property was infested with harmful and
dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi and could not have reasonably have discovered this
24 information prior to purchasing and possessing the property.
25 43. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20 new
26 that Plaintiffs did not know that the subject property was infested with harmful and dangerous _
27 mold, mildew, and/or fungi, and could not have reasonably discovered this information, since
28 Defendants, and each of them, actively concealed the presence of the mold, mildew, and/or
-8-
Complaint for Damages Case No. —
Bunnell, et al. v. Wright, et al.
a
fungi.
44, The presence of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi significantly
affected the value and/or desirability of the property in that Plaintiffs would not have agreed to
purchase the property had they known that it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair the
property and remediate the mold, mildew, and/or fungi.
45, Plaintiffs have been harmed in that they have suffered damages and the loss of the
wages, salary, benefits, and additional amounts of money in anamount according to proof to be
determined at trial. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20’s
failure to disclose the presence of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi was a
10 substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.
i 46. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, frandulently and
12 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiffs and acted with an improper and
13 evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Because the
14 acts taken towards Plaintiffs were carried out in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous and
15 intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive
16 damages in an amount according to proof.
17
EL KTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 ENCE)
[Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL v. Defendants DUNCAN LYONS,
19 AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES, and DOES 21 through 30, incisive]
20 AT. Plaintiffs reallege each and every of the aforementioned paragraphs and
21 incorporates the same as though fully set forth at this point.
48. Defendants DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES
23 assumed an affirmative‘duty io inspect and identify problems associated with the property
24 located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, California.
25 49. Although Defendants DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION
26 SERVICES initially represented to Plaintiffs that a mold inspection ‘was not part of the general
27 home inspection, Defendants DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES
28 did in fact inspect the entire residence, including but not limited to the residence exterior, roof,
-9-
Comaglaint for Damages Case-No.
Bunnell, ef al. v. Wright, et al
—-.
a
— NY
garage, fireplace, plumbing, electrical, heating, air conditioning, water heater, attic, kitchen
(including dry wall, pantry, and cabinets), all bathrooms, and all bedrooms.
50. On or about December 14, 2013, DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC
INSPECTION SERVICES issued a home inspection report toPlaintiffs regarding 2440 Kaslin
Drive. In doing so these Defendants breached their duty to inspect and inform Plaintiffs of
property defects in that Defendants failed to adequately inspect the property and/or failed to
inform Plaintiffs that the residence did in fact have harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or
fungi, most notably in the bathrooms, pantry, and kitchen.
Si. Plaintiffs have been harmed in that they have suffered damages and the loss of the
10 wages, salary, benefits, and additional amounts of money in an amount according to proof to be
li determined at trial. Defendants’ breach of duties were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs”
12 harm.
13 PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, respectfully requests judgment against Defendants, and each
15 of them, as lawfully applicable, as follows:
16 1 For general damages (compensatory, reputational, consequential, and otherwise)
17 ina sum in excess of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), according to
18 proof;
19 For special damages, according to proof; ,
20 For lost earnings, earning capacity, and benefits, according to proof;
21 For punitive/exemplary damages, as permitted by law;
For Plaintiffs’ costs of suit incurred herein;
23 6. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate;
24 7 For statutory damages and penalties, treble damages, as authorized, according to
25 proof as specified within the complaint, or not yet specifically stated;
26 8 For attomeys’ fees, as pemnitted by law and/or contract; _
27 9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
28 Me
-10-
nN Complaint for Damages — Case No.
Bunnell, et al v, Wright, etsale
—_——
-
— 7
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs formally demand the right to a jury trial under the law.
Dated: December 14,2015 LAW OFFICE OF MINA L. RAMIREZ
By ee hedehin ‘etd
Li irez, Esq.
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-ll-
Cornplaint for Damages Case No.
Bunnell, etaly, Wright, et al.
=
4
SY
Mina L. Ramirez, Esq. SBN 118302
Kevin M. Massoni, Esq. SBN 284677
LAW OFFICE OF MINA L. RAMIREZ
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite C-1
Modesto, California 95350
FILED
(209) 491-0199 (telephone)
(209) 575-9497 (facsimile) 2b APR~y A 10: 12
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Attomeys for Plaintiffs. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
Bill Bunnell and BY.
Kim Bunnell
ue
a oe TY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
il
BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL Case No. 2018041
12
Plaintiffs, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
13
DAMAGES
Vv.
14
1) Breach of Contract;
15 GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC. 2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and
AUDREY GOESCH, TROY WRIGHT, Fair Dealing;
16 JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT. 3) Concealment;
CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES, 4) Breach of Duty to Disclose:
17 TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS. 5) Breach of Duty to Inspect and
18 DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC Disclose:
INSPECTION SERVICES and DOES 1 6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
19 through 50, inclusive. 2 Negligence.
20 Defendants.
21
22
23 Plaintiffs, BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL, herein allege upon information and
24 belief the following:
25 FACTS coMMoN TO ALL COUNTS
26 A Identity and Capacity of Parties
27 1 Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL are residents of the City of
28 Modesto, County of Stanislaus, in the State of California.
-1-
First Amended Complaint for Dattrages Case No. 2018041 —
Bunnell, at al. y. Great Valley Realtors, et al.
t
(
Ne NN
2 On information and belief, Defendants AUDREY GOESCH, TROY WRIGHT.
JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS, and DUNCAN
LYONS are persons and residents of the County of Stanislaus in the State of California.
3 Defendant GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC is a business entity duly
incorporated under the laws of California with a principal place of business i in the County of
Stanislaus i in the State of California.
4, Defendant CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES is a business entity with a
principal place of business i in the County of Stanislaus in the State of California,
5 ‘The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,associa
| t, or
10 otherwise of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown toPlaintiffs, viho therefor
e
11 sue said defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 474.
12 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on such basis allege, that each Defendant sued
under
13 such fictitious name is in some manner responsible for the ‘wrongs and damages as alleged
below
14 and was fimctioning as the agent, servant, and employee of the co-Defendants, and in
doing the
15 actions mentioned below, and in acting within the course and scope of his or her authoritas
y
16 such agent, servant, and/or employee with the permission and consent of the co-Defend
anis
17 Plaintiffs will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint and any subsequent pleadiig
s, to
18 reveal said Defendants’ true names and capacities, once the same have been ascertained.
19 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of these
20 fictitiously named DOE defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein
21 alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries as herein alleged were proximat
ely caused by all of the
22 aforementioned Defendants named herein.
23 7 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times,
24 each of
| the DOES defendants were the agents, managers, and employees of each of the’
25 temaining Defendants and, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were actingwithin the ofcourse
26 and scope of such agency and employment.
27 8 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of such information and
28 belief thereon allege, that at all times material herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the
-2-
First Amended Complaint for Damages Case No72018041
Bunnell, at al. v. Great Valley Realtors, et al. —
ou ~ ~
! 5}
we
agents, servants, and employees of their co-Defendants, and each of them, and in doing the
things hereinafter mentioned were acting within the scope and course of their authority as such
agents, servants, and employees, and with the permission of theirCo-Defendants
9 All actions of each Defendant herein alleged were ratified and approved byt the
officers or managing agents of each other Defendant.
Preview
a Lo MOAPR 19 PH ys 15 ms kn IZ Mina L. Ramirez, Esq. SBN 118302 LAW OFFICE OF MINA L. RAMIREZ ae 1165 Scenic Drive, Suite C-1 Ba FILED Modesto, California 95350 APR 207 (209) 491-0199 (telephone) (209) 575-9497 (facsimile) OF THE icp UN OF QURT Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Ly] ISLAUS Bill Bunnell and AS TY AS Kim Bunnell eh iraeWS ere. Ss SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 10 11 BILL BUNNELL and KYM BUNNELL, Case No. 2018041 12 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS BILL BUNNELL AND KIM BUNNELL EVIDENCE IN 13 Vv. SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO 14 DEFENDANTS TAMI GOSSELIN AND GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC, CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES 15 AUDREY GOESCH, TROY WRIGHT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, JSUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION 16 CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES, TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS, DATE: 5/3/18 17 DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC TIME: 8:30 a.m. 18 INSPECTION SERVICES and DOES 1 DEPT: 24 through 50, inclusive, Trial Date: 6/12/18 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 Pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1350, subdivision (g), Plaintiffs, BILL 23 BUNNELL and KYM BUNNELL submits the following Evidence in support of their opposition 24 to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication. 25 Exhibit Exhibit Identification 26 27 A Original Complain 28 -1- Evidence in support of opposition to MSJ Case No. 2018041 Bunnell, at al. y. Great Valley Realtors, et al. 2te PROOF OF SERVICE I,DIANE VARGAS declare: I am a resident of the County of Stanislaus, State of California; ] am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 1165 Scenic Drive, Suite C-1, Modesto, CA 95350. I served the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ BILL BUNNELL AND KYM BUNNELL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS TAMI GOSSELIN AND CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION on the following person(s) in said action, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope and delivering it as follows: 10 XXX_(By Mail) J am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for 11 collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. 12 (By Overnight Courier) I caused each envelope to be delivered via overnight courier 13 service to the addressee(s) designated. 14 (By Personal Service) I caused each envelope to be delivered by hand to the office of the 15 addressee(s). 16 (By Telecopy) I caused each document to be sent via telecopier to the following 17 number(s) of the addressee(s): 18 Mr. Bradley A. Post, Esq. Cory B. Chartrand, Esq. 19 BORTON PETRINI LLP TRIEBSCH & FRAMPTON 201 Needham Street 300 N. Palm Street. P.O. Box 709 20 Modesto, CA 95354 Turlock CA 95381 21 J. Hooshie Broomand, Esq. Joseph L. Wright, Esq. 22 NEWMAN & BROOMAND, LLP LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. WRIGHT 2360 East Bidwell St., #100 37 Theal Street, Second Floor 23 Folsom, CA 95630 Sonora, CA 95370 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 25 foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed at Modesto, Stanislaus 26 County, California, on April t, | 2018. ‘ 27 28 DIANE VARGA Jos o~. ‘ x mui mee 14 LUM we 23 Mina L. Ramirez, Esq. SBN 118302 Kevin M. Massoni, Esq. SBN 284677 iLEB LAW OFFICE OF MINA L. RAMIREZ 1165 Scenic Drive, Suite C-1 bee 15 208 Modesto, California 95350 UAT (209) 491-0199 (telephone) (209) 575-9497 (facsimile) iy ner Attomeys for Plaintifts, Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA © hy COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 10 i BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL, Case No. 20160477 12 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13 14 Vv. ) Breach of Contract; 2) Breach of Covenant ef Good Faith and 15 JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, Fair Dealing; = DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC 3) Concealment; 16 INSPECTION SERVICES INC., and DOES 4) Breach of Duty to Disclose; ] through 50, inchusive, Negligence. 7 18 Defendants. ee 19 20 Plaintiffs, BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL, hereinalee upon information and 21 belief-the following: FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 23 A. Identity and Capacity of Parties 24 1 Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL are residents of the City of 25 Modesto, County of Stanislaus, in the State of California. 26 2. On information and belief, Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and 27 DUNCAN LYONS are persons and residents of the County of Stanislaus in the State of 28 California. -1- Complaint for Damages _~ Case No. Bunnell, et al. v. Wright, et al. ee _ ’ “=. 3 Defendant AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES INC. is a business entity in duly incorporated under the laws of California conducting business in the County of Stanislaus the State of California. 4 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said'defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintifis are informed and believe, and on such basis allege, that each Defendant sued under such fictitious name is in some manner responsible for the wrongs and damages as alleged below and was functioning as the agent, servant, and employee of the co-Defendanis, and ‘in doing the as 10 actions mentioned below, and in acting within the course and scope of his or her authority i such agent, servant, and/or employee with the permission and consent of the co-Defendants. , to 12 Plaintiffs will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint and any subsequent pleadings 413 reveal said Defendants’ true names and capacities, once the same have been ascertained. 14 5 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of these herein . 15 fictitiously named DOE defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences of the 16 alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by all 7 aforementioned Defendants named herein. times, 18 6 Plaintifis are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant each of the 19 each of the DOES defendants were the agents, managers, and employees of the course 20 remaining Defendants and, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were actingwithin 21 and scope of such agency and employment. 22 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of such information and of them, were the 23 belief thereon allege, that at all times material herein, Defendants, and each them, and in doing the 24 agents, servants, and employees of their co-Defendants, and each of as such 25 things hereinafter mentioned were acting within the scope and course of their authority Co-Defendants. 26 agents, servants, and employees, and with the permission of their 27 8 All actions of each Defendant herein alleged were ratified and approved by the 28 officers or managing agents of each other Defendant. -2- Case No. — Complaint for Danaages Burnell, et ab. v. Wright, et al 9, Subject matter jurisdiction and venue are proper because Defendants are residents most or all of the County of Stanislaus, in the State of California, and on information and belief, us, in the State of f the unlawful acts complained of herein occurred in the County of Stanisla California. B. Factual Bac ‘ound 10, In November 2013 the owners of 2440 Kaslin Drive were Defendants JASON WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT. On information and belief, JASON WRIGHT and GINA or obtain a buyer RIGHT entered into a contractual relationship with real estate agents to find obtain a buyer for for the subject property or to act in cooperation with another broker to find and 10 the subject property. y ll UL On or about November 3, 2013, Plaintiffs were allowed to visit the propert 12 located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, California. At no time during this visit did JASON. 13 WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, or their agents inform Plaintiffs that the residence at 2440 Kaslin fimei. 14 Drive was infested with harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or T and is 12. On or about November 27, 2013, Plaintiffs and Defendants JASON WRIGH ent by which said 16 GINA WRIGHT entered into a written Residential Purchase Agreem ed by section 1102 et seq. and 17 Defendants contracted to provide true disclosures ornotices requir r Disclosure Statement 18 1103 et of the Civil Code, including but limited to a Real estate Transfe event Seller, prior to Close 19 (“TDS”). Said Defendants also contracted to the following: “In the ng the Property, or any 20 of Escrow, becomes aware of adverse conditions materially affecti previously provided to Buyer, 21 material inaccuracy in disclosures, information or representations disclosure or notice, in writing, Seller shall promptly provide a subsequent or amended 23 conveying those items. y Plaintiffs 24 Prior to the close of escrow and possession of the subject propert 13 CTION 25 subsequently hired Defendant DUNCAN LYONS of and for AMERISPEC INSPE nce at 2440 Kaslin Drive. Although 26 SERVICES INC to perform a home inspection of the reside ON SERVICES initially 27 Defendants DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTI general home inspection, 28 represented to Plaintiffs that a mold inspection was not part of the -3- Case-No. Coraplaint for Damages Bunnell, et al. v. Wright, et al. fact inspect Defendants DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES did in garage, fireplace, the entire residence, including but not limited to the residence exterior, roof, wall, plumbing, electrical, heating, air conditioning, water heater, attic, kitchen (including dry On or about December 14, 2013, pantry, and cabinets), all bathrooms, and all bedrooms. inspection DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES issued a home the residence report to Plaintiffs regarding 2440 Kaslin Drive and failed ‘to inform Plaintiffs that notably in the did in fact have harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fimgi, most ’ bathrooms, pantry, and kitchen. ty at 2440 4. On or about February 12, 2014, Plaintiffs closed escrow onthe proper T and GINA 1 Kaslin Drive. In order to accommodate seller Defendants JASON WRIGH 0 2014. il WRIGHT, Plaintiffs graciously permitted them to rent back the property until February 20, Plaintiffs discovered 12 Immediately after taking possession of the property on February 20, 2014, of the home. Upon further 13 extensive black mold, mildew; and/or fungi in the kitchen area s, Plaintiffs discovered 14 inspection of the kitchen cabinets and pulling out drawers of the cabinet not limited to the press 15 that the Kitchen area was contaminated with black mold, including but js that some or all of Defendants 16 boards, sheetrock, and insulation. What isparticularly alarming by painting over it. 17 attempted to conceal the black mold, mildew, and/or fimgi med on or 18 15.Plaintiffs immediately contacted a third party inspector who confir 19 about February 25, 2014, that the subject property was infest ed with stachybotyrs and in removing the 20 chaetomium mold. Plaintiffs immediately hired a contractor to assist belongings in rented pods;,and were 21 contaminated sheetrock, were forced to store most of their residence. Plaintiffs also suffered 22 forced to vacate the residence during the repairs and rent a proof. During repairs of 23 anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress in anamount according to ng in substantial loss in 24 the property Plaintiffs were required to take time off of work, resulti 25 income, wages, and profits from their company business. onto Defendants 26 16. On or about December 4, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel served demand letter for mediation. Said 27 JASON WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT 4 prelitigation 28 Defendants did not respond to that letter. -4- = Case No. Complaint for Damages Bunnell, et al. v, Wright, et al. - ~ ~ Ne FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION reach of Contract against Sellers f Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KiM BUNNELL v. Defendants JASON WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive] 17, Plaintiffs reallege each and every of the aforementioned paragraphs and incorporates the same as though fully set forth al this point. 18. Plaintiffs entered into a written contract on or about November 27, 2013, with Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10 for the purchase of a residential property located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, California. 19, On information and belief, under the express terms of the written contract with 10 Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA. WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10, said Defendants ll represented that they did not know of any material facts that would affect the value of the 12 property except for those observable by Plaintiffs or known to Defendants that had previously or 13 concurrently been disclosed. On information and belief, said Defendants also represented under 14 the terms of the contract that they had furnished Plaintiffs with a true and correct Real Estate 15 Transfer Disclosure Statement (“TDS”). —— 16 20. ly of the significant things that the contract Plaintiffs did all, or substantialall, 17 required them to do. 18 21. All conditions required by the contract for Defendants’ performance occurred. 19 22. JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10 breached the 20 written contract by the following acts that are not all inclusive: concealing the presence of 21 harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi in the residence; representing through 22 themselves and/or their agents that the residence did not have harmful and dangerous mold, 23 mildew, and/or fungi; and/orpreventing Plaintiffs from discovering harmful and dangerous 24 mold, mildew, and/or fungi prior to entering into the written agreement with JASON WRIGHT 25 and GINA WRIGHT. In the alternative, said Defendants breached the terms of the written 26 agreement by failing to provide Plaintiffs with a subsequent or amended TDS disclosure alerting 27 Plaintifis to the presence of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi 28 23. The conduct of Defendants and each of them, through their agents, described -5- Complaint for Damages Case No. Bunnell, et ab,v. Wright, et al. . to herein was intended by Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiffs and did in fact cause injury them. In fact, such conduct has caused injury and general damages to the Plaintiffs, aswell as conduct. past loss of income; physical and emotional stress, and injury from Defendants’ 24. ‘Asa proximate result and substantial factor of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiffs have been harmed in that they have suffered damages and the loss of the wages, salary, had not benefits, and additional amounts of money that theywould have received if this contract been breached, jn an amount according to proof to be determined at trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION el ers f 10 GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive] i 25. Plaintiffs reallege each and every of the aforementioned paragraphs and 12 incorporates the same as though fully set forth at this point. with 13 26. Plaintiffs entered into a written contract on or about November 27, 2013, for the purchase of a 14 Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 10 15 residential property located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, Califormia. a= 16 27. Plaintiffs did all,or substantially all of the significant things that the contract W7 required them to do. and 18 28. All conditions required by the contract for Defendants JASON WRIGHT 19 GINA WRIGHT'S performance occurred. 20 29. That Defendants JASON WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT, and DOES | through contract based on, but 21 10 unfairly interfered with Plaintiffs’ right to receive the benefits of the mold, mildew, 22 not limit ited to, the following: concealing the presence of harmful and dangerous their agents that the and/or fungi in the residence; representing through themselves and/or and/or fungi; and/or preventing 24 residence did not have harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, prior to entering 25 Plaintiffs from discovering harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi T. 26 into the written agreement with JASON WRIGHT and GINA WRIGH d 27 30. The conduct of Defendants and each of them, through their agents, describe fs right to receive benefits 28 herein wasintended by Defendants to unfairly interfere with Plaintif ~6- Complaint for Damages — Case No. | Bunnel,, et al. ». Wright, et al we under the contract and was intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs and did in fact cause injury to them. In fact, such conduct has caused injury and general damages toPlaintiffs, as well as past loss of income; physical and emotional stress, and injury from Defendants’ conduct. 31. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ interference with Plaintiffs’ right to receive benefits under the contract, Plaintiffs have been harmed in that they have suffered damages and the lossof the wages, salary, benefits, and additional amounts of.‘money that theywould have ' received if this contract had not been breached, in an amount according to proof to be determined at trial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 10 (Concealment) (Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL v. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA 11 WRIGHT, and DOES | through 20, inclusive} }L 32. Plaintiffs reallege each and every of the aforementioned paragraphs and 13 incorporates the same as though fully set forth at this point. 14 33, Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20 actively 15 concealed an important fact from Plaintiffs or prevented Plaintiffs from discovering that fact, ” ees oe 16 specifically the extensive infestation of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fimgi in the 17 residence of the subject property. 18 34, Prior to taking possession of the subject property on February 20, 2014, Plaintiffs 19. did not know of the presence of harmful and dangerous mold,mildew, and/or fungi in the subject 20 property. 21 35. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20 22 intended to deceive Plaintiffs of the presence of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi by concealing the fact, specifically, but not limited to, painting over the infected areas of 24 the residence. 25 ” 36. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, 26 and DOES 1] through 20?s deception to Plaintiffs detriment 27 37. Plaintiffs have been harmed in that they have suffered damages and the loss of the 28 wages, salary, benefits, and additional amounts of money in an amount according to proof:to be -7- Complaint for Damages — Case No. L~ Bunnell, et al v. Wright, et al. —- ae NY determined at trial. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20°s concealment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 38. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciovsly, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiffs and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Because the acts taken towards Plaintiffswere carried out in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiffs, Plaintiffsare entitled to punitive . damages in an amount according to proof: FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 10 Greach of Duty to Disclose; Civil Code, Section 1102 et seg.) [Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL v. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA li WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive] 12 39. Plaintiffs reallege each and every of the aforementioned Parseraphs and 13 incorporates the same as though fully set forth at this point. 14 40. Plaintiffs purchased the real property located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, 15 California on or about February 12; 2014, from Defendants JASON WRIGHT and GINA 16 WRIGHT, and DOES | through 20. Plaintiffs did not take possession of the property uniil 17 February 20, 2014. 18 41. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20 knew 19 that the subject property was infested with harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi at 20 all time mentioned in this complaint, and such Defendants did not disclose this information to 21 Plaintiffs. 22 42. Plaintiffs did not knowsant the subject property was infested with harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi and could not have reasonably have discovered this 24 information prior to purchasing and possessing the property. 25 43. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20 new 26 that Plaintiffs did not know that the subject property was infested with harmful and dangerous _ 27 mold, mildew, and/or fungi, and could not have reasonably discovered this information, since 28 Defendants, and each of them, actively concealed the presence of the mold, mildew, and/or -8- Complaint for Damages Case No. — Bunnell, et al. v. Wright, et al. a fungi. 44, The presence of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi significantly affected the value and/or desirability of the property in that Plaintiffs would not have agreed to purchase the property had they known that it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair the property and remediate the mold, mildew, and/or fungi. 45, Plaintiffs have been harmed in that they have suffered damages and the loss of the wages, salary, benefits, and additional amounts of money in anamount according to proof to be determined at trial. Defendants JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, and DOES 1 through 20’s failure to disclose the presence of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi was a 10 substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. i 46. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, frandulently and 12 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiffs and acted with an improper and 13 evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Because the 14 acts taken towards Plaintiffs were carried out in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous and 15 intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive 16 damages in an amount according to proof. 17 EL KTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 ENCE) [Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL v. Defendants DUNCAN LYONS, 19 AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES, and DOES 21 through 30, incisive] 20 AT. Plaintiffs reallege each and every of the aforementioned paragraphs and 21 incorporates the same as though fully set forth at this point. 48. Defendants DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES 23 assumed an affirmative‘duty io inspect and identify problems associated with the property 24 located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, California. 25 49. Although Defendants DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION 26 SERVICES initially represented to Plaintiffs that a mold inspection ‘was not part of the general 27 home inspection, Defendants DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES 28 did in fact inspect the entire residence, including but not limited to the residence exterior, roof, -9- Comaglaint for Damages Case-No. Bunnell, ef al. v. Wright, et al —-. a — NY garage, fireplace, plumbing, electrical, heating, air conditioning, water heater, attic, kitchen (including dry wall, pantry, and cabinets), all bathrooms, and all bedrooms. 50. On or about December 14, 2013, DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES issued a home inspection report toPlaintiffs regarding 2440 Kaslin Drive. In doing so these Defendants breached their duty to inspect and inform Plaintiffs of property defects in that Defendants failed to adequately inspect the property and/or failed to inform Plaintiffs that the residence did in fact have harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi, most notably in the bathrooms, pantry, and kitchen. Si. Plaintiffs have been harmed in that they have suffered damages and the loss of the 10 wages, salary, benefits, and additional amounts of money in an amount according to proof to be li determined at trial. Defendants’ breach of duties were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs” 12 harm. 13 PRAYERS FOR RELIEF 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, respectfully requests judgment against Defendants, and each 15 of them, as lawfully applicable, as follows: 16 1 For general damages (compensatory, reputational, consequential, and otherwise) 17 ina sum in excess of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), according to 18 proof; 19 For special damages, according to proof; , 20 For lost earnings, earning capacity, and benefits, according to proof; 21 For punitive/exemplary damages, as permitted by law; For Plaintiffs’ costs of suit incurred herein; 23 6. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; 24 7 For statutory damages and penalties, treble damages, as authorized, according to 25 proof as specified within the complaint, or not yet specifically stated; 26 8 For attomeys’ fees, as pemnitted by law and/or contract; _ 27 9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 28 Me -10- nN Complaint for Damages — Case No. Bunnell, et al v, Wright, etsale —_—— - — 7 JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs formally demand the right to a jury trial under the law. Dated: December 14,2015 LAW OFFICE OF MINA L. RAMIREZ By ee hedehin ‘etd Li irez, Esq. Attomeys for Plaintiffs 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -ll- Cornplaint for Damages Case No. Bunnell, etaly, Wright, et al. = 4 SY Mina L. Ramirez, Esq. SBN 118302 Kevin M. Massoni, Esq. SBN 284677 LAW OFFICE OF MINA L. RAMIREZ 1165 Scenic Drive, Suite C-1 Modesto, California 95350 FILED (209) 491-0199 (telephone) (209) 575-9497 (facsimile) 2b APR~y A 10: 12 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Attomeys for Plaintiffs. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS Bill Bunnell and BY. Kim Bunnell ue a oe TY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 10 il BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL Case No. 2018041 12 Plaintiffs, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 13 DAMAGES Vv. 14 1) Breach of Contract; 15 GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC. 2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and AUDREY GOESCH, TROY WRIGHT, Fair Dealing; 16 JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT. 3) Concealment; CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES, 4) Breach of Duty to Disclose: 17 TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS. 5) Breach of Duty to Inspect and 18 DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC Disclose: INSPECTION SERVICES and DOES 1 6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 19 through 50, inclusive. 2 Negligence. 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 Plaintiffs, BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL, herein allege upon information and 24 belief the following: 25 FACTS coMMoN TO ALL COUNTS 26 A Identity and Capacity of Parties 27 1 Plaintiffs BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL are residents of the City of 28 Modesto, County of Stanislaus, in the State of California. -1- First Amended Complaint for Dattrages Case No. 2018041 — Bunnell, at al. y. Great Valley Realtors, et al. t ( Ne NN 2 On information and belief, Defendants AUDREY GOESCH, TROY WRIGHT. JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS, and DUNCAN LYONS are persons and residents of the County of Stanislaus in the State of California. 3 Defendant GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC is a business entity duly incorporated under the laws of California with a principal place of business i in the County of Stanislaus i in the State of California. 4, Defendant CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES is a business entity with a principal place of business i in the County of Stanislaus in the State of California, 5 ‘The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,associa | t, or 10 otherwise of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown toPlaintiffs, viho therefor e 11 sue said defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 474. 12 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on such basis allege, that each Defendant sued under 13 such fictitious name is in some manner responsible for the ‘wrongs and damages as alleged below 14 and was fimctioning as the agent, servant, and employee of the co-Defendants, and in doing the 15 actions mentioned below, and in acting within the course and scope of his or her authoritas y 16 such agent, servant, and/or employee with the permission and consent of the co-Defend anis 17 Plaintiffs will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint and any subsequent pleadiig s, to 18 reveal said Defendants’ true names and capacities, once the same have been ascertained. 19 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of these 20 fictitiously named DOE defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein 21 alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries as herein alleged were proximat ely caused by all of the 22 aforementioned Defendants named herein. 23 7 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times, 24 each of | the DOES defendants were the agents, managers, and employees of each of the’ 25 temaining Defendants and, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were actingwithin the ofcourse 26 and scope of such agency and employment. 27 8 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of such information and 28 belief thereon allege, that at all times material herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the -2- First Amended Complaint for Damages Case No72018041 Bunnell, at al. v. Great Valley Realtors, et al. — ou ~ ~ ! 5} we agents, servants, and employees of their co-Defendants, and each of them, and in doing the things hereinafter mentioned were acting within the scope and course of their authority as such agents, servants, and employees, and with the permission of theirCo-Defendants 9 All actions of each Defendant herein alleged were ratified and approved byt the officers or managing agents of each other Defendant.