Preview
FIL ED
AL AREDA
9n94
Cy 03 Luci
y TQ
RT
A
iFnows
Cl RK
B ye a
F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
Case No.: RG21-100261
lf of
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 VIOLATION OF CITY OF
OAKLAND’S RENT ADJUSTMENT
ORDINANCE;
‘EET 2 VIOLATION OF CITY OF
OAKLAND’S TENANT
PI PROTECTION ORDINANCE; AND,
VIOLATION OF UNFAIR
COMPETITION LAW
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
its
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
LLC,
| five
( OF ALLEGATIONS
al properties built before 1983 are subject to Oakland’s
10 et seq.) These properties have strict rules and
s in tenants’ rent. For example, the regulations of
fy that “[w]hen more than one rental unit shares any
is illegal to divide up the bill between units.”
*s rental market have systematically disregarded the
lity bills that cover multiple rental units between units
eS.
me. Third-party companies such as Defendants YES
lant YES”) and CONSERVICE, LLC (“Defendant
1 rental units for landlords in Oakland who seek to
ce. Defendants YES and CONSERVICE purport to use
iants’ utility usage. In reality, they simply divide a
| also cause tenants to be charged monthly “service”
tharged monthly fees by Defendants CONSERVICE
any kind. Instead, tenants are simply charged a monthly
RVICE prepare monthly billing statements on their
ees for their “services,” they do not collect or handle
aos
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
e
rty owners and property management companies to
rvice” fees.
RISDICTION
ie at least one defendant does business in its
onduct occurred in the jurisdictional area; the
: are located in the jurisdictional area; the damage to
‘ea; and the making of the contracts, which are the
sdictional area — the City of Oakland, Alameda County,
adants have caused, and proximately caused,
e demonstrated by proof at the time of trial.
, defendants acted willfully and are guilty of malice,
acts to charge Plaintiffs money in blatant violation of
itiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages
2 demonstrated by proof at the time of trial.
20, the statute of limitations of all civil claims with a
re tolled pursuant to Judicial Council Emergency Rule
PARTIES
etent adult male.
ent adult male.
ompetent adult female.
impetent adult female.
'T ASSOCIATES, LP, is an entity organized as a
’ ASSOCIATES, LP, is an entity organized as a limited
-3
NT FO R DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
®
in entity organized as a limited liability company.
C. is an entity organized as a corporation.
ompetent adult male.
NER, LP, is an entity organized as a limited
AVENUE PROPERTY, LLC, is an entity organized as
LLC, is an entity organized as a limited liability
}TREET PROPERTY, LLC, is an entity organized as a
LC, is an entity organized as a limited liability
OLDINGS, LLC, is an entity organized as a limited
NIES, INC., is an entity organized as a corporation.
hat defendant MOSSER is a corporation owned,
20 MOSSER and existed solely for the benefit of
“interest and ownership between defendants NEVEO
tiduality and separateness between them ceased, and
alter ego of defendant MOSSER. Adherence to the
: MOSSER as an entity distinct from NEVEO
orate privilege and would promote injustice by
y for violations of the Oakland Tenant Protection and
set forth below, by allowing NEVEO MOSSER to use a
xtent that any claim for relief in this action is made
NEVEO MOSSER is liable as its alter ego.
43
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
*
, is an entity organized as a corporation.
EMENT, INC., is an entity organized as a corporation
property owners and property management companies
YES to bill tenants of rent-controlled properties in
'ET ASSOCIATES, LP, 1428 JACKSON STREET
.K9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP, OAK 406 VAN
<-553 SYCAMORE, LLC, OAK 1425 HARRISON
.CKSON, LLC, PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS,
ifty are hereafter collectively referred to as the
NC., THE MOSSER COMPANIES, INC., and DOES
are hereafter collectively referred to as the
ARDI SYSTEMS, INC, and YES ENERGY
tively referred to as the “Service Provider Defendants.”
ier individual, corporate, associate, representative, alter
f them, and/or their alter egos named herein as DOES
sently unknown to Plaintiffs at this time and are
uant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474.
2 the true names and capacities of Does when their true
LEGATIONS
ts of Defendant THE MOSSER COMPANIES, INC.
'efendant MOSSER and its affiliates have owned at
3 in Oakland. On information and belief, all of
re subject to Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance.
HB
INT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
&
YES’ “Yes Energy Management” system, a product of
idant YARDI”), to allegedly split the water, sewer, and
nats for the costs.
Solutions), while existing as a separate corporate
‘DI Multifamily Suite.” Defendant YARDI promotes,
w Sale. Defendant YES’ Yes Energy Management
YARDI’s “Yardi Voyager” software. Both Defendant
CEO, Anat Madhukar Yardi, the same secretary,
Madhukar Yardi.
as a joint venture in that both entities combine their
tent of carrying out a single business undertaking, they
_ they both have joint control over the business, even if
2 profits and losses together. As such, each allegation
st Defendant YARDI.
{OSSER sold eight of its properties to Defendant
lant OAK9”), Defendant OAK9 hired Defendant FPI
‘0 manage its eight properties and collect rent, including
2fendant CONSERVICE to allegedly split the water,
bill its tenants for the costs.
VICE offer near-identical services to landlords. Both
ver, and garbage removal, based on an “allocation
irs” to individual units. For example, a unit inhabited by
,” whereas a unit with two tenants would be assigned
‘'s YES and CONSERVICE then claim to divide the
nber of “allocation factors,” billing tenants accordingly.
-6-
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
e
VICE also include “service” or “billing admin” fees
i they deliver to tenants.
and’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance and Oakland’s
iN signed with Defendant 1428 JACKSON STREET
e in addition to the stated monthly rent price. The Lease
copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. Water, sewer,
”
Ss
yrts to require Plaintiff YEN to pay water, sewer, and
as
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
&
yn factor” formula.
€ point six “allocation factors.”
dividual water meters for rental units. Thus rental units
l water utility. The building’s water bill is divided
z YEN’s. Similarly, the building’s rental units are not
ze utility. The building’s garbage bill is divided
z YEN’s.
rolled property, the leases cannot be unilaterally
occupy the property under leases that require the
"ES addendum is silent as to whether these tenants are
3 that its allocation formula calculates tenants “allocated
id all costs of providing the same, in accordance with
“[a]ll water, sewer, and garbage related charges
y be used to calculate the amount charged to each
:, but not limited to, storm water charges, water, or
and all miscellaneous charges contained on the utility
id trash providers.” No provision of the addendum
any other type of additional fee.
land, where the San Francisco Ordinance does not
“Pursuant to the San Francisco Residential Rent
Ordinance”) Section 37.2(p), charges for utilities paid
‘ed Rent, since such utilities are generally considered
tenancy commenced, Plaintiff YEN’s rent was
roportional share of utility usage. From this point
ived a series of excessive rent charges masked as
<5
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
e
fendant YES’ letterhead and were later reproduced on
athly bills contained a $3.00 or $4.25 “utility billing
INTIFF BALL
at 542 25th Street unit 206 in Oakland from March 14,
with Defendant 553 SYCAMORE STREET
t MOSSER. Defendant 553 SYCAMORE STREET
» OAK-553 SYCAMORE, LLC, another affiliate of
month plus utilities.
*s Rent Adjustment nee and Oakland’s Tenant
\LL signed with Defendant 553 SYCAMORE STREET
e in addition to the stated monthly rent price. The Lease
copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. Water, sewer,
”
Ss
yrts to require Plaintiff BALL to pay water, sewer,
cation factor” formula.
: point six allocation factors.
lual water meters for rental units. Thus rental units are
ater utility. The building’s water bill is divided between
s. Similarly, the building’s rental units are not able to
y. The building’s garbage bill is divided between the
d property, the leases cannot be unilaterally changed by
property under leases that require the landlord to pay
s silent as to whether these tenants are assigned
-fti-
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
*
5 that its allocation formula calculates tenants “allocated
ad all costs of providing the same, in accordance with
“[aJll water, sewer, and garbage related charges
y be used to calculate the amount charged to each
1, but not limited to, storm water charges, water, or
and all miscellaneous charges contained on the utility
d trash providers.” No provision of the addendum
min fee” or any other type of additional fee.
kland, where the Sand Francisco Rent Arbitration
3S addendum states, “Pursuant to the San Francisco
m Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) Section 37.2(p), charges
gent are considered Rent, since such utilities are
tenancy commenced, Plaintiff BALL’s rent was
roportional share of utility usage. From this point
sived a series of excessive rent charges masked as
‘fendant YES’ letterhead and were later reproduced on
nthly bills contained a $4.25 “utility billing admin fee.”
NTIFF TESSIER
na tenant at 406 Van Buren Ave unit 104 in Oakland
ith Defendant OAK 406 VAN BUREN AVE
‘MOSSER. Plaintiff Tessier pays $2,195 in rent plus
tren Street was sold to Defendant O0AK9 PORTFOLIO
idant FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. to manage the
n tenants.
-ll-
INT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
s
OLDINGS, LLC is the general partner of OAK9
Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance and Oakland’s
ISSIER signed with Defendant OAK 406 VAN
ifies that utilities are in addition to the stated monthly
ant YES addendum, a copy of which is attached as
arly identified as “utilities.”
'SSIER signed with Defendant MOSSER and
XOPERTY, LLC, specifies that no utilities are included
VERGY addendum.
yrts to require Plaintiff TESSIER to pay water, sewer,
cation factor” formula.
1.6 allocation factors.
e individual water meters for rental units. Thus rental
e local water utility. The building’s water bill is divided
z TESSIER’s. Similarly, the building’s rental units are
rbage utility. The building’s garbage bill is divided
2 TESSIER’s.
trolled property, the leases cannot be unilaterally
occupy the property under leases that require the
‘ES addendum is silent as to whether these tenants are
; that its allocation formula calculates tenants “allocated
1d all costs of providing the same, in accordance with
“[a]ll water, sewer, and garbage related charges
y be used to calculate the amount charged to each
=|3<
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
®
, but not limited to, storm water charges, water, or
and all miscellaneous charges contained on the utility
i trash providers.” No provision of the addendum
ze” or any other type of additional fee.
Oakland, where the San Francisco Rent Arbitration
‘S addendum states, “Pursuant to the San Francisco
‘dinance (“the Ordinance”) Section 37.2(p), charges for
considered Rent, since such utilities are generally
by Defendant OAK 9, on December 2, 2021, months
ntiff TESSIER received her first unlawful rent increase
justification, on Defendant CONSERVICE’s letterhead.
her tenancy, TESSIER received a series of excessive
eged “utility bills,” which appeared on Defendant
2produced on her Defendant FPI rent ledger. All
1g admin fee.”.
ly exactly 1.6 times Plaintiff BLANCO’s bills for the
'f TESSIER and BLANCO live 1.2 miles away from
NTIFF BLANCO
125 Harrison Street unit 326 in Oakland
‘ase with Defendant OAK 1425 HARRISON STREET
THE MOSSER COMPANIES, INC. Plaintiff
on Street was sold to Defendant O0AK9 PORTFOLIO
ant FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., to manage the
ala.
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
®
o manage the property and collect rent and utility fees
OLDINGS, LLC, is the general partner of Defendant
s Rent Adjustment Ordinance and Oakland’s
-ANCO signed with Defendant OAK 1425 HARRISON
ilities are in addition to the stated monthly rent price.
Idendum, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1.
fied as “utilities.”
-ANCO signed with Defendant MOSSER and
ies are included in her rent and contains a Defendant
orts to require Plaintiff BLANCO to pay water, sewer,
cation factor” formula.
one allocation factor.
dividual water meters for rental units. Thus rental units
1 water utility. The building’s water bill is divided
3 BLANCO’s, Similarly, the building’s rental units are
rbage utility. The building’s garbage bill is divided
: BLANCO’s.
idividual meters that track its tenants' water usage. No
int of trash each unit at the property produces, and
ash receptacles.
trolled property, the leases cannot be changed
nts occupy the property under leases that require the
145
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
*
‘ES addendum is silent as to whether these tenants are
3 that its allocation formula calculates tenants “allocated
1d all costs of providing the same, in accordance with
“[ajll water, sewer, and garbage related charges
y be used to calculate the amount charged to each
:, but not limited to, storm water charges, water, or
and all miscellaneous charges contained on the utility
d trash providers.” No provision of the addendum
iny other type of additional fee.
Oakland, where the San Francisco Rent Arbitration
'S addendum states, “Pursuant to the San Francisco
n Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) Section 37.2(p), charges
gent are considered Rent, since such utilities are
by Defendant OAK 9, tenants in Plaintiff BLANCO’s
rom Defendant CONSERVICE. Plaintiff BLANCO
legedly based on her building’s utility usage, on
her tenancy. Each month after, Plaintiff BLANCO was
ected with the building’s water, sewer, and waste
charged a monthly $3.00 “service fee.”
lly exactly 1.6 times Plaintiff TESSTER’s bills for the
ff TESSIER and BLANCO live 1.2 miles away from
S3gs
NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Preview
FIL ED AL AREDA 9n94 Cy 03 Luci y TQ RT A iFnows Cl RK B ye a F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION Case No.: RG21-100261 lf of SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 VIOLATION OF CITY OF OAKLAND’S RENT ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE; ‘EET 2 VIOLATION OF CITY OF OAKLAND’S TENANT PI PROTECTION ORDINANCE; AND, VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL its NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF LLC, | five ( OF ALLEGATIONS al properties built before 1983 are subject to Oakland’s 10 et seq.) These properties have strict rules and s in tenants’ rent. For example, the regulations of fy that “[w]hen more than one rental unit shares any is illegal to divide up the bill between units.” *s rental market have systematically disregarded the lity bills that cover multiple rental units between units eS. me. Third-party companies such as Defendants YES lant YES”) and CONSERVICE, LLC (“Defendant 1 rental units for landlords in Oakland who seek to ce. Defendants YES and CONSERVICE purport to use iants’ utility usage. In reality, they simply divide a | also cause tenants to be charged monthly “service” tharged monthly fees by Defendants CONSERVICE any kind. Instead, tenants are simply charged a monthly RVICE prepare monthly billing statements on their ees for their “services,” they do not collect or handle aos NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF e rty owners and property management companies to rvice” fees. RISDICTION ie at least one defendant does business in its onduct occurred in the jurisdictional area; the : are located in the jurisdictional area; the damage to ‘ea; and the making of the contracts, which are the sdictional area — the City of Oakland, Alameda County, adants have caused, and proximately caused, e demonstrated by proof at the time of trial. , defendants acted willfully and are guilty of malice, acts to charge Plaintiffs money in blatant violation of itiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages 2 demonstrated by proof at the time of trial. 20, the statute of limitations of all civil claims with a re tolled pursuant to Judicial Council Emergency Rule PARTIES etent adult male. ent adult male. ompetent adult female. impetent adult female. 'T ASSOCIATES, LP, is an entity organized as a ’ ASSOCIATES, LP, is an entity organized as a limited -3 NT FO R DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ® in entity organized as a limited liability company. C. is an entity organized as a corporation. ompetent adult male. NER, LP, is an entity organized as a limited AVENUE PROPERTY, LLC, is an entity organized as LLC, is an entity organized as a limited liability }TREET PROPERTY, LLC, is an entity organized as a LC, is an entity organized as a limited liability OLDINGS, LLC, is an entity organized as a limited NIES, INC., is an entity organized as a corporation. hat defendant MOSSER is a corporation owned, 20 MOSSER and existed solely for the benefit of “interest and ownership between defendants NEVEO tiduality and separateness between them ceased, and alter ego of defendant MOSSER. Adherence to the : MOSSER as an entity distinct from NEVEO orate privilege and would promote injustice by y for violations of the Oakland Tenant Protection and set forth below, by allowing NEVEO MOSSER to use a xtent that any claim for relief in this action is made NEVEO MOSSER is liable as its alter ego. 43 NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF * , is an entity organized as a corporation. EMENT, INC., is an entity organized as a corporation property owners and property management companies YES to bill tenants of rent-controlled properties in 'ET ASSOCIATES, LP, 1428 JACKSON STREET .K9 PORTFOLIO OWNER, LP, OAK 406 VAN <-553 SYCAMORE, LLC, OAK 1425 HARRISON .CKSON, LLC, PACH AFFORDABLE HOLDINGS, ifty are hereafter collectively referred to as the NC., THE MOSSER COMPANIES, INC., and DOES are hereafter collectively referred to as the ARDI SYSTEMS, INC, and YES ENERGY tively referred to as the “Service Provider Defendants.” ier individual, corporate, associate, representative, alter f them, and/or their alter egos named herein as DOES sently unknown to Plaintiffs at this time and are uant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. 2 the true names and capacities of Does when their true LEGATIONS ts of Defendant THE MOSSER COMPANIES, INC. 'efendant MOSSER and its affiliates have owned at 3 in Oakland. On information and belief, all of re subject to Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance. HB INT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & YES’ “Yes Energy Management” system, a product of idant YARDI”), to allegedly split the water, sewer, and nats for the costs. Solutions), while existing as a separate corporate ‘DI Multifamily Suite.” Defendant YARDI promotes, w Sale. Defendant YES’ Yes Energy Management YARDI’s “Yardi Voyager” software. Both Defendant CEO, Anat Madhukar Yardi, the same secretary, Madhukar Yardi. as a joint venture in that both entities combine their tent of carrying out a single business undertaking, they _ they both have joint control over the business, even if 2 profits and losses together. As such, each allegation st Defendant YARDI. {OSSER sold eight of its properties to Defendant lant OAK9”), Defendant OAK9 hired Defendant FPI ‘0 manage its eight properties and collect rent, including 2fendant CONSERVICE to allegedly split the water, bill its tenants for the costs. VICE offer near-identical services to landlords. Both ver, and garbage removal, based on an “allocation irs” to individual units. For example, a unit inhabited by ,” whereas a unit with two tenants would be assigned ‘'s YES and CONSERVICE then claim to divide the nber of “allocation factors,” billing tenants accordingly. -6- NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF e VICE also include “service” or “billing admin” fees i they deliver to tenants. and’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance and Oakland’s iN signed with Defendant 1428 JACKSON STREET e in addition to the stated monthly rent price. The Lease copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. Water, sewer, ” Ss yrts to require Plaintiff YEN to pay water, sewer, and as NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & yn factor” formula. € point six “allocation factors.” dividual water meters for rental units. Thus rental units l water utility. The building’s water bill is divided z YEN’s. Similarly, the building’s rental units are not ze utility. The building’s garbage bill is divided z YEN’s. rolled property, the leases cannot be unilaterally occupy the property under leases that require the "ES addendum is silent as to whether these tenants are 3 that its allocation formula calculates tenants “allocated id all costs of providing the same, in accordance with “[a]ll water, sewer, and garbage related charges y be used to calculate the amount charged to each :, but not limited to, storm water charges, water, or and all miscellaneous charges contained on the utility id trash providers.” No provision of the addendum any other type of additional fee. land, where the San Francisco Ordinance does not “Pursuant to the San Francisco Residential Rent Ordinance”) Section 37.2(p), charges for utilities paid ‘ed Rent, since such utilities are generally considered tenancy commenced, Plaintiff YEN’s rent was roportional share of utility usage. From this point ived a series of excessive rent charges masked as <5 NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF e fendant YES’ letterhead and were later reproduced on athly bills contained a $3.00 or $4.25 “utility billing INTIFF BALL at 542 25th Street unit 206 in Oakland from March 14, with Defendant 553 SYCAMORE STREET t MOSSER. Defendant 553 SYCAMORE STREET » OAK-553 SYCAMORE, LLC, another affiliate of month plus utilities. *s Rent Adjustment nee and Oakland’s Tenant \LL signed with Defendant 553 SYCAMORE STREET e in addition to the stated monthly rent price. The Lease copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. Water, sewer, ” Ss yrts to require Plaintiff BALL to pay water, sewer, cation factor” formula. : point six allocation factors. lual water meters for rental units. Thus rental units are ater utility. The building’s water bill is divided between s. Similarly, the building’s rental units are not able to y. The building’s garbage bill is divided between the d property, the leases cannot be unilaterally changed by property under leases that require the landlord to pay s silent as to whether these tenants are assigned -fti- NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF * 5 that its allocation formula calculates tenants “allocated ad all costs of providing the same, in accordance with “[aJll water, sewer, and garbage related charges y be used to calculate the amount charged to each 1, but not limited to, storm water charges, water, or and all miscellaneous charges contained on the utility d trash providers.” No provision of the addendum min fee” or any other type of additional fee. kland, where the Sand Francisco Rent Arbitration 3S addendum states, “Pursuant to the San Francisco m Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) Section 37.2(p), charges gent are considered Rent, since such utilities are tenancy commenced, Plaintiff BALL’s rent was roportional share of utility usage. From this point sived a series of excessive rent charges masked as ‘fendant YES’ letterhead and were later reproduced on nthly bills contained a $4.25 “utility billing admin fee.” NTIFF TESSIER na tenant at 406 Van Buren Ave unit 104 in Oakland ith Defendant OAK 406 VAN BUREN AVE ‘MOSSER. Plaintiff Tessier pays $2,195 in rent plus tren Street was sold to Defendant O0AK9 PORTFOLIO idant FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. to manage the n tenants. -ll- INT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF s OLDINGS, LLC is the general partner of OAK9 Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance and Oakland’s ISSIER signed with Defendant OAK 406 VAN ifies that utilities are in addition to the stated monthly ant YES addendum, a copy of which is attached as arly identified as “utilities.” 'SSIER signed with Defendant MOSSER and XOPERTY, LLC, specifies that no utilities are included VERGY addendum. yrts to require Plaintiff TESSIER to pay water, sewer, cation factor” formula. 1.6 allocation factors. e individual water meters for rental units. Thus rental e local water utility. The building’s water bill is divided z TESSIER’s. Similarly, the building’s rental units are rbage utility. The building’s garbage bill is divided 2 TESSIER’s. trolled property, the leases cannot be unilaterally occupy the property under leases that require the ‘ES addendum is silent as to whether these tenants are ; that its allocation formula calculates tenants “allocated 1d all costs of providing the same, in accordance with “[a]ll water, sewer, and garbage related charges y be used to calculate the amount charged to each =|3< NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ® , but not limited to, storm water charges, water, or and all miscellaneous charges contained on the utility i trash providers.” No provision of the addendum ze” or any other type of additional fee. Oakland, where the San Francisco Rent Arbitration ‘S addendum states, “Pursuant to the San Francisco ‘dinance (“the Ordinance”) Section 37.2(p), charges for considered Rent, since such utilities are generally by Defendant OAK 9, on December 2, 2021, months ntiff TESSIER received her first unlawful rent increase justification, on Defendant CONSERVICE’s letterhead. her tenancy, TESSIER received a series of excessive eged “utility bills,” which appeared on Defendant 2produced on her Defendant FPI rent ledger. All 1g admin fee.”. ly exactly 1.6 times Plaintiff BLANCO’s bills for the 'f TESSIER and BLANCO live 1.2 miles away from NTIFF BLANCO 125 Harrison Street unit 326 in Oakland ‘ase with Defendant OAK 1425 HARRISON STREET THE MOSSER COMPANIES, INC. Plaintiff on Street was sold to Defendant O0AK9 PORTFOLIO ant FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., to manage the ala. NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ® o manage the property and collect rent and utility fees OLDINGS, LLC, is the general partner of Defendant s Rent Adjustment Ordinance and Oakland’s -ANCO signed with Defendant OAK 1425 HARRISON ilities are in addition to the stated monthly rent price. Idendum, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. fied as “utilities.” -ANCO signed with Defendant MOSSER and ies are included in her rent and contains a Defendant orts to require Plaintiff BLANCO to pay water, sewer, cation factor” formula. one allocation factor. dividual water meters for rental units. Thus rental units 1 water utility. The building’s water bill is divided 3 BLANCO’s, Similarly, the building’s rental units are rbage utility. The building’s garbage bill is divided : BLANCO’s. idividual meters that track its tenants' water usage. No int of trash each unit at the property produces, and ash receptacles. trolled property, the leases cannot be changed nts occupy the property under leases that require the 145 NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF * ‘ES addendum is silent as to whether these tenants are 3 that its allocation formula calculates tenants “allocated 1d all costs of providing the same, in accordance with “[ajll water, sewer, and garbage related charges y be used to calculate the amount charged to each :, but not limited to, storm water charges, water, or and all miscellaneous charges contained on the utility d trash providers.” No provision of the addendum iny other type of additional fee. Oakland, where the San Francisco Rent Arbitration 'S addendum states, “Pursuant to the San Francisco n Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) Section 37.2(p), charges gent are considered Rent, since such utilities are by Defendant OAK 9, tenants in Plaintiff BLANCO’s rom Defendant CONSERVICE. Plaintiff BLANCO legedly based on her building’s utility usage, on her tenancy. Each month after, Plaintiff BLANCO was ected with the building’s water, sewer, and waste charged a monthly $3.00 “service fee.” lly exactly 1.6 times Plaintiff TESSTER’s bills for the ff TESSIER and BLANCO live 1.2 miles away from S3gs NT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF