Preview
®@ eo § Wiuniuem
wo
‘Kjell C. Bomark-Noel, Esq
LAW OFFICE OF KJELL C. BOMARK-NOEL FILED
SBN 147494 ALA ~
NN
1124 East 14" Street, Suite B *1-AMEDA COUNTY
San Leandro, California 94577
Ww
(510) 352-1030 JAN 2 4 2006
&
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Attorney for Plaintiff, By AD: ba Theezicee,
WN
GERTRUDE F. STOVALL Deputy
DW
NX
SF
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Oo
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10
HAYWARD HALL OF JUSTICE
11
12
GERTRUDE F. STOVALL, No.
HG26252195
13
Plaintiff, [Complaint for Fraud in the Inducement and
14 Performance of Contract; Breach of Written
Agreement; Breach of Oral Agreement;
15 VS. Nuisance; Intentional Misrepresentation and
Negligent Misrepresentation]
16
DENNIS LAMONT REED
17 (DBA) Reed Construction, License # 778949,B
a.k.a. Reed and Sons Construction
18
19 and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
20 Defendant,
21
1. Plaintiff GERTRUDE STOVALL is and at all times mentioned herein a resident of
22
Alameda County and owns the building at 1108 & 1110 Adeline Street, Oakland, California 94607.
23
Herein after Stovall property. The defendant, Dennis Lamont Reed, is and at all herein mentioned
24
operating a construction business under the state contractor’s license # 778949,B with main address at
25
2455 Reyna Drive, Hayward, California 94541.
26
2. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
27
28 Stovall v. Reed complaint 1
and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this pleading to allege
their true names and capacities when ascertained. Said fictitiously-named defendants are, without
N
limitation, architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, and
W
manufacturers involved in the design and/or construction of the Stovall property.
Se
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that all the times mentioned
WO
herein, each of the defendants, including Does | through 100, inclusive, was the agent, servant,
DO
representative, and employee of each of the remaining defendants and was acting within the course and
HN
scope of such agency, service, representation and employment. Each of the defendants, whether acting
eS
for itself or otherwise, is in some way responsible for the damages and injuries alleged herein.
o
10 4. On or about 12-19-2002, plaintiff entered into a written agreement with defendant Reed.
1] The written agreement was for Fire Repair in the existing structure and a New Rear Addition. The
12 Contract price $301,685.90 ( Three Hundred & One Thousand Six Hundred & Eighty Five Dollars
13 90/100). The down payment was 10% in violation of the code.
14 5. Defendant Reed started the work and charged Plaintiff for drafting of plans, plan review
15 and permits. In fact defendant Reed never obtained any necessary permits, nor did he submit a set of
16 drawings to the building inspectors for review. Defendant Reed started work and concealed work to
17 such an extent that all electrical and plumbing, heating and structural footings and walls need to be
18 inspected and approved.
19 6. Defendant Reed hired employees without obtaining workmen’s compensation insurance
20 and when asked by plaintiff for such assurances he always stated that he had the necessary certificates
21 and not to worry. Only after contacting the Contractors State License Board after defendant Reed had
22 not competed the work did Plaintiff learn that defendant Reed states that he does not hire employees and
23 therefore does not need workmen’s comp insurance. Yet while the construction was in progress there
24 were several workmen there performing work, none of them seemed to be able to speak English, and Mr
25 Reed never seemed to be there when Plaintiff came to talk to Mr. Reed.
26 7. Frequently during the project Defendant Reed asked for extras because some items were
27
28 Stovall v. Reed complaint 2
not in the contract. For example: when he was doing electrical work he charged an extra for removing
old outlets and switches because according to Mr. Reed “he was only required to put in the new outlets
and switches”.
oo
8. Eventually Mr. Reed pulled off the job even though he had been paid over 85% of
FS
contract and stated that he would not be doing any further work without being paid the extras. Defendant
A
Reed left the construction site in mess and has failed to clean it up in spite of repeated demands, thus
DH
causing a nuisance for Plaintiff.
NN
9. The Plaintiff then discovered the magnitude of the fraud perpetrated on her when she |
Oo
contacted the City of Oakland and discovered that no permits or inspections had been performed.
So
10 10. The plaintiff then contacted the Contractors State License Board and filed a consumer
11 complaint. Defendant convinced the Contractors State License Board that Plaintiff was just a
12 disgruntled customer and that he would resolve any differences pursuant to contract which called for
13 Arbitration.
14 11. | The Contractors State License Board through its enforcement division wrote the plaintiff
15 on 4/12/2004 that “Pursuant to the terms and conditions of your contract, you agreed to resolve any
16 complaints through private arbitration; therefore, we are closing our file.
17 12. The Plaintiff and the defendant Reed agreed to private mediation/ arbitration.
18 In the first stages of the mediation on September 8, 2004, defendant Reed agreed to meet at the City Of
19 Oakland for the necessary permits on Tuesday, September 14, 2004. Mr. Reed never showed . He
20 refuses and continue to refuse to participate in mediation or arbitration and does not return telephone
21 calls nor answer letters. |
22 13. When the work was investigated by the City of Oakland Building inspectors they demanded
23 most of:the structural work to be redone, all walls opened and all footings x-rayed to determine
24 reinforcement bars and code compliance.
25 14. Due to Defendant Reed actions, plaintiff has lost valuable rental income as it can not be
26 rented out until the non-permit construction and code-violations have been fixed. Since the Plaintiff has
27
28 Stovall v. Reed complaint 3
paid over 85% of the contract amount to Defendant Reed, she now finds herself with great economic
outlays without benefit.
NO
First Cause of Action
WY
(Fraud in the Inducement and Performance of Contract)
BP
15. Plaintiff repleads and realleges the allegations set forth herein in §§ 1-15 inclusive as if
A
fully set forth here. ‘
DBO
16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein, Defendant
SN
S&F
Reed and Does 1-100, inclusive, and each of them were in the construction business doing residential
construction and performing contracting work and in the course of their contract with Plaintiff,
So
defendant Reed, hid and intentionally misrepresented facts both as to drawings, permits, inspections and
~—
OQ
and performance of contractual terms to such a degree that plaintiff is damaged.
—
_
17. Said defendants and each of them failed to design, construct the Plaintif? S$ property in
Ne)
—
accordance with proper and approved methods by, without limitation resulting in defects and loss of
wo
—
rental income, loss of use and peace and quiet all to such an extent that Plaintiff was damaged.
&
—
18. Asadirect and legal result of said defendants failure to repair, design and construct the
wa
—
Stovall property, the Stovall property has defects, and plaintiff has suffered and is continuing to suffer
an
—
damages as alleged herein, and including without limitation, expenditure of money to repair the defects
~l
—
and for incidental and consequential damages within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.
[o)
—
19. Plaintiff maintain that she has been defrauded both by the intentional misrepresentation,
—_
oO
concealment of facts, and other acts and promises, of which had she known them at the time would not
we)
Oo
have entered into said contract, and further been able to protect herself and her property.
No
—_
WHEREFORE, © Plaintiff prays for judgment as herein after set forth, including attorneys fees and
ie)
ho
punitive damages.
(we)
iw
Second Cause of Action
bo
ay
(Negligence)
No
WN
20. Plaintiff repleads and reallege the allegations set forth herein in §§ 1-19, inclusive, as if
bo
N
NO
~]
Stovall v. Reed complaint 4
No
.
fully set forth here.
21. At all times mentioned herein, defendant Reed and Does 1-100 and each of them had a
HO
duty to use reasonable care repairing the fire damage, design and construct the addition and obtain the
WD
necessary permits and inspections to protect the plaintiff and her property.
FSF
22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said defendants and each of
eR
them, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that if the Stovall property was not
BO
properly repaired, designed and constructed for the use and purpose for which it was intended; that the
~S
plaintiff would be substantially damaged thereby.
Oo
23. Said defendants and each of them negligently, carelessly and wrongfully failed to meet
oC
their respective duties of care in the repair, design and construction and inspection of the Stovall
OC
property and thus caused the defects and repairs and construction necessary to make the Stovall property
ee
KY
fit for its-intended use. Said defendants and each of them breached their respective duties of care by
NPY
negligently, carelessly and in unworkmanlike manners performing such work , labor and services
WW
causing plaintiff harm.
BB
24. Asadirect and legal result of the foregoing negligence, carelessness, unworkmanlike
WA”
conduct and breaches by said defendants and each of them plaintiff has suffered damages as herein
DB
mm
alleged.
NYDN
WHEREFORE; plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
DB
Rm
OO
Third Cause of Action
COT
(Nuisance)
KF
BR
25. Plaintiff repleads and realleges the allegations set forth in §§ 1-24 inclusive, as if fully set
NYO
ND
forth here.
WD
KN
FPF
26. As a result of acts and omissions of defendant Reed and Does 1-100, inclusive and each
NH
of them including but not limited to the defects in construction alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered
NO
Wn
substantial injury and damage to the health and quiet enjoyment of the Stovall property, and continues to
NH
NO
NY
NO
Stovall v. Reed complaint 5
“on
Nn
@ @
suffer such injury and damage, which constitute a nuisance under California law.
27. Plaintiff has given notice to said defendants, and each of them, of the nuisance, injury and
damage and requested abatement, but defendants, and each of them, have failed and refused and
continue to fail and refuse to abate the nuisance.
>
28. As a legal result of said nuisance plaintiff has been damaged, is continuing to be _
rar
damaged and will be damaged in the future in an amount not yet ascertained. |
HD
29. Asa further legal result of the nuisance, the value of the Stovall property has been and is
~s
continuing to be damaged in an amount not yet ascertained. Plaintiff will seek leave of the court to
SB
amend this pleading when the true amount of damages becomes known. Unless the nuisance is abated,
Oo
the Stovall property will further and progressively diminish in value.
So
11 WHEREFORE; Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
12
13 Fourth Cause of Action
14 (Negligent Misrepresentation and/or Intentional Misrepresentation)
15 30. Plaintiff hereby repleads and alleges the allegations set forth in §§ 1-29, inclusive, as it
16 fully set forth herein.
17 31. | Defendant Reed and Does 1-100 never obtained any permits and never got any inspection
18 as required, even though according to contract he promised both orally and in writing that he would
19 obtain such permits and inspection.
20 32. The representations made by said defendants and each of them were, in fact, false. At the
21 time defendant Reed and each of them made the foregoing representations they knew, or reasonably
22 should have known them to be false and/or had no reasonable ground upon which to believe these
23 representations to be true.
24 33. Said defendant Reed and Does 1-100 made the foregoing misrepresentations to plaintiff,
25 and plaintiff believed them to be true. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the representations of said
26 defendants Reed and Does 1-100, and in reliance thereon, was induced to contract regarding the Stovall
27
28 Stovall v. Reed complaint 6
Property.
—
34. Asa legal result of said defendant Reed and Does 1-100 misrepresentations, plaintiff has
pO
been damaged and will be damaged by the expenditure of monies for the repair and replacement of the
YW
defective conditions, and the damages resulting therefrom; has been and will be damaged by the
BR
diminished value and stigma attached to the property that reduces the fair market value of the property;
Mm
has been deprived of the benefit of the bargain they struck when they entered into, the agreement; has
HD
been required to incur fees and expenses associated with having the pursue the within claim and has
NY
been deprived of the use and enjoyment of the property, all in a sum in excess of the minimum
O
O--
jurisdiction of this court. |
WHEREFORE; Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
CO
—K&§
ee
Fifth Cause of Action
NPY
(Breach of Written Agreement)
ew
WO
35. Plaintiff repleads and realleges the allegations set forth herein in §§ 1-34, inclusive, as if
BP
ew
fully set forth here. | |
Se
WT
36. Plaintiff performed each and every act required to be performed by her, except insofar as
DB
ew
| plaintiff's performance was prevented by the acts and omissions of said defendants Reed and Does 1-
HI
ew
100 and each of them.
CO
37. Said defendants Reed and Does 1-100 and each of them failed to fulfill their contractual
OO
He
obligations to plaintiff in that they failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to repair. and
©.
PPO
replace the items as they had agreed to do or were obliged to do according to code.
Se
Nw
38. As a legal result of said defendant Reed and Does 1-100 and each of them failing to fulfill
NNO
NY
their contractual obligations, plaintiff has been damaged and will be further damaged by the expenditure
WY
NY
of monies for repair of the Stovall Property, for legal fees to protect plaintiff's contractual rights and for
FP
N
other related damages.
YN
Wn
WHEREFORE; Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
WB
NY
NY
NY
Stovall v. Reed complaint 7
oa
NW
1 Sixth Cause of Action
(Breach of Oral Agreement)
WN
39. Plaintiff repleads and realleges the allegations set forth herein in §§ 1-38, inclusive, as if
WY
fully set forth herein.
FF
40. Plaintiff performed each and every act required to be preformed by her, except insofar as
Oo
plaintiff's performance was prevented by the acts and omissions of said defendant Reed and Does 1-100
DH
and each of them.
SN
Al, Said defendant Reed and Does 1-100 and each of them failed to fulfill their contractual
Oo
obligations to plaintiff in that they failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse to repair and replace
oO
10 || items and other agreed upon contractual obligations according to code as they had agreed to do.
11 42. | As a legal result of said defendants Reed and Does 1-100 and each of them failing to
12 || fulfill their contractual obligations, plaintiff has been damaged and will be further damaged by the
13 || expenditure of monies for repair of the Stovall Property, for legal fees to protect plaintiffs contractual
14 | rights and for other related damages.
15 WHEREFORE; Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
16 |} WHEREFORE; plaintiff prays for judgement against defendant Reed and Does 1-100, and each of them,
17 || as follows:
18 I. For general and special damages according to proof;
19 2. For incidental and consequential damages according to proof;
20 3. For damages for the reasonable cost to remedy the substantial and material defects
21 I| described herein, according to proof;
22 4. For diminution in value of the Stovall Property;
23 5 For punitive damages;
24 6. For interest on the sum awarded;
25 7 For costs of suit herein incurred;
26 Il ///
27
28 || Stovall v. Reed complaint 8
@
“1 8. For attorney fees as allowed by law;
2 9. For such other and further damages and relief as the Court deems just and proper.
3 || DATED: January 23, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF BOMARK-NOEL
4
5 . We
6 By: Yar . Banos . 3)
7 Kl C. Bomark-Noel
Attorney for Plaintiff
8 Gertrude Stovall
9
Verification
° I, Gertrude F. Stovall having read the forgoing complaint, find the facts to be true and correct on my
M belief and accord and will testify to the veracity if necessary. Under penalty of perjury under the laws of
7 California I affirm the above to be true and correct.
8 Dated: 01-23-66 By: Wd w La |
" Gertrude F. Stovall
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 |] Stovall v. Reed complaint 9
Preview
®@ eo § Wiuniuem wo ‘Kjell C. Bomark-Noel, Esq LAW OFFICE OF KJELL C. BOMARK-NOEL FILED SBN 147494 ALA ~ NN 1124 East 14" Street, Suite B *1-AMEDA COUNTY San Leandro, California 94577 Ww (510) 352-1030 JAN 2 4 2006 & CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Attorney for Plaintiff, By AD: ba Theezicee, WN GERTRUDE F. STOVALL Deputy DW NX SF SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Oo IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 HAYWARD HALL OF JUSTICE 11 12 GERTRUDE F. STOVALL, No. HG26252195 13 Plaintiff, [Complaint for Fraud in the Inducement and 14 Performance of Contract; Breach of Written Agreement; Breach of Oral Agreement; 15 VS. Nuisance; Intentional Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation] 16 DENNIS LAMONT REED 17 (DBA) Reed Construction, License # 778949,B a.k.a. Reed and Sons Construction 18 19 and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, 20 Defendant, 21 1. Plaintiff GERTRUDE STOVALL is and at all times mentioned herein a resident of 22 Alameda County and owns the building at 1108 & 1110 Adeline Street, Oakland, California 94607. 23 Herein after Stovall property. The defendant, Dennis Lamont Reed, is and at all herein mentioned 24 operating a construction business under the state contractor’s license # 778949,B with main address at 25 2455 Reyna Drive, Hayward, California 94541. 26 2. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 100, inclusive, 27 28 Stovall v. Reed complaint 1 and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this pleading to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Said fictitiously-named defendants are, without N limitation, architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, and W manufacturers involved in the design and/or construction of the Stovall property. Se 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that all the times mentioned WO herein, each of the defendants, including Does | through 100, inclusive, was the agent, servant, DO representative, and employee of each of the remaining defendants and was acting within the course and HN scope of such agency, service, representation and employment. Each of the defendants, whether acting eS for itself or otherwise, is in some way responsible for the damages and injuries alleged herein. o 10 4. On or about 12-19-2002, plaintiff entered into a written agreement with defendant Reed. 1] The written agreement was for Fire Repair in the existing structure and a New Rear Addition. The 12 Contract price $301,685.90 ( Three Hundred & One Thousand Six Hundred & Eighty Five Dollars 13 90/100). The down payment was 10% in violation of the code. 14 5. Defendant Reed started the work and charged Plaintiff for drafting of plans, plan review 15 and permits. In fact defendant Reed never obtained any necessary permits, nor did he submit a set of 16 drawings to the building inspectors for review. Defendant Reed started work and concealed work to 17 such an extent that all electrical and plumbing, heating and structural footings and walls need to be 18 inspected and approved. 19 6. Defendant Reed hired employees without obtaining workmen’s compensation insurance 20 and when asked by plaintiff for such assurances he always stated that he had the necessary certificates 21 and not to worry. Only after contacting the Contractors State License Board after defendant Reed had 22 not competed the work did Plaintiff learn that defendant Reed states that he does not hire employees and 23 therefore does not need workmen’s comp insurance. Yet while the construction was in progress there 24 were several workmen there performing work, none of them seemed to be able to speak English, and Mr 25 Reed never seemed to be there when Plaintiff came to talk to Mr. Reed. 26 7. Frequently during the project Defendant Reed asked for extras because some items were 27 28 Stovall v. Reed complaint 2 not in the contract. For example: when he was doing electrical work he charged an extra for removing old outlets and switches because according to Mr. Reed “he was only required to put in the new outlets and switches”. oo 8. Eventually Mr. Reed pulled off the job even though he had been paid over 85% of FS contract and stated that he would not be doing any further work without being paid the extras. Defendant A Reed left the construction site in mess and has failed to clean it up in spite of repeated demands, thus DH causing a nuisance for Plaintiff. NN 9. The Plaintiff then discovered the magnitude of the fraud perpetrated on her when she | Oo contacted the City of Oakland and discovered that no permits or inspections had been performed. So 10 10. The plaintiff then contacted the Contractors State License Board and filed a consumer 11 complaint. Defendant convinced the Contractors State License Board that Plaintiff was just a 12 disgruntled customer and that he would resolve any differences pursuant to contract which called for 13 Arbitration. 14 11. | The Contractors State License Board through its enforcement division wrote the plaintiff 15 on 4/12/2004 that “Pursuant to the terms and conditions of your contract, you agreed to resolve any 16 complaints through private arbitration; therefore, we are closing our file. 17 12. The Plaintiff and the defendant Reed agreed to private mediation/ arbitration. 18 In the first stages of the mediation on September 8, 2004, defendant Reed agreed to meet at the City Of 19 Oakland for the necessary permits on Tuesday, September 14, 2004. Mr. Reed never showed . He 20 refuses and continue to refuse to participate in mediation or arbitration and does not return telephone 21 calls nor answer letters. | 22 13. When the work was investigated by the City of Oakland Building inspectors they demanded 23 most of:the structural work to be redone, all walls opened and all footings x-rayed to determine 24 reinforcement bars and code compliance. 25 14. Due to Defendant Reed actions, plaintiff has lost valuable rental income as it can not be 26 rented out until the non-permit construction and code-violations have been fixed. Since the Plaintiff has 27 28 Stovall v. Reed complaint 3 paid over 85% of the contract amount to Defendant Reed, she now finds herself with great economic outlays without benefit. NO First Cause of Action WY (Fraud in the Inducement and Performance of Contract) BP 15. Plaintiff repleads and realleges the allegations set forth herein in §§ 1-15 inclusive as if A fully set forth here. ‘ DBO 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein, Defendant SN S&F Reed and Does 1-100, inclusive, and each of them were in the construction business doing residential construction and performing contracting work and in the course of their contract with Plaintiff, So defendant Reed, hid and intentionally misrepresented facts both as to drawings, permits, inspections and ~— OQ and performance of contractual terms to such a degree that plaintiff is damaged. — _ 17. Said defendants and each of them failed to design, construct the Plaintif? S$ property in Ne) — accordance with proper and approved methods by, without limitation resulting in defects and loss of wo — rental income, loss of use and peace and quiet all to such an extent that Plaintiff was damaged. & — 18. Asadirect and legal result of said defendants failure to repair, design and construct the wa — Stovall property, the Stovall property has defects, and plaintiff has suffered and is continuing to suffer an — damages as alleged herein, and including without limitation, expenditure of money to repair the defects ~l — and for incidental and consequential damages within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. [o) — 19. Plaintiff maintain that she has been defrauded both by the intentional misrepresentation, —_ oO concealment of facts, and other acts and promises, of which had she known them at the time would not we) Oo have entered into said contract, and further been able to protect herself and her property. No —_ WHEREFORE, © Plaintiff prays for judgment as herein after set forth, including attorneys fees and ie) ho punitive damages. (we) iw Second Cause of Action bo ay (Negligence) No WN 20. Plaintiff repleads and reallege the allegations set forth herein in §§ 1-19, inclusive, as if bo N NO ~] Stovall v. Reed complaint 4 No . fully set forth here. 21. At all times mentioned herein, defendant Reed and Does 1-100 and each of them had a HO duty to use reasonable care repairing the fire damage, design and construct the addition and obtain the WD necessary permits and inspections to protect the plaintiff and her property. FSF 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said defendants and each of eR them, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that if the Stovall property was not BO properly repaired, designed and constructed for the use and purpose for which it was intended; that the ~S plaintiff would be substantially damaged thereby. Oo 23. Said defendants and each of them negligently, carelessly and wrongfully failed to meet oC their respective duties of care in the repair, design and construction and inspection of the Stovall OC property and thus caused the defects and repairs and construction necessary to make the Stovall property ee KY fit for its-intended use. Said defendants and each of them breached their respective duties of care by NPY negligently, carelessly and in unworkmanlike manners performing such work , labor and services WW causing plaintiff harm. BB 24. Asadirect and legal result of the foregoing negligence, carelessness, unworkmanlike WA” conduct and breaches by said defendants and each of them plaintiff has suffered damages as herein DB mm alleged. NYDN WHEREFORE; plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. DB Rm OO Third Cause of Action COT (Nuisance) KF BR 25. Plaintiff repleads and realleges the allegations set forth in §§ 1-24 inclusive, as if fully set NYO ND forth here. WD KN FPF 26. As a result of acts and omissions of defendant Reed and Does 1-100, inclusive and each NH of them including but not limited to the defects in construction alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered NO Wn substantial injury and damage to the health and quiet enjoyment of the Stovall property, and continues to NH NO NY NO Stovall v. Reed complaint 5 “on Nn @ @ suffer such injury and damage, which constitute a nuisance under California law. 27. Plaintiff has given notice to said defendants, and each of them, of the nuisance, injury and damage and requested abatement, but defendants, and each of them, have failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse to abate the nuisance. > 28. As a legal result of said nuisance plaintiff has been damaged, is continuing to be _ rar damaged and will be damaged in the future in an amount not yet ascertained. | HD 29. Asa further legal result of the nuisance, the value of the Stovall property has been and is ~s continuing to be damaged in an amount not yet ascertained. Plaintiff will seek leave of the court to SB amend this pleading when the true amount of damages becomes known. Unless the nuisance is abated, Oo the Stovall property will further and progressively diminish in value. So 11 WHEREFORE; Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. 12 13 Fourth Cause of Action 14 (Negligent Misrepresentation and/or Intentional Misrepresentation) 15 30. Plaintiff hereby repleads and alleges the allegations set forth in §§ 1-29, inclusive, as it 16 fully set forth herein. 17 31. | Defendant Reed and Does 1-100 never obtained any permits and never got any inspection 18 as required, even though according to contract he promised both orally and in writing that he would 19 obtain such permits and inspection. 20 32. The representations made by said defendants and each of them were, in fact, false. At the 21 time defendant Reed and each of them made the foregoing representations they knew, or reasonably 22 should have known them to be false and/or had no reasonable ground upon which to believe these 23 representations to be true. 24 33. Said defendant Reed and Does 1-100 made the foregoing misrepresentations to plaintiff, 25 and plaintiff believed them to be true. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the representations of said 26 defendants Reed and Does 1-100, and in reliance thereon, was induced to contract regarding the Stovall 27 28 Stovall v. Reed complaint 6 Property. — 34. Asa legal result of said defendant Reed and Does 1-100 misrepresentations, plaintiff has pO been damaged and will be damaged by the expenditure of monies for the repair and replacement of the YW defective conditions, and the damages resulting therefrom; has been and will be damaged by the BR diminished value and stigma attached to the property that reduces the fair market value of the property; Mm has been deprived of the benefit of the bargain they struck when they entered into, the agreement; has HD been required to incur fees and expenses associated with having the pursue the within claim and has NY been deprived of the use and enjoyment of the property, all in a sum in excess of the minimum O O-- jurisdiction of this court. | WHEREFORE; Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. CO —K&§ ee Fifth Cause of Action NPY (Breach of Written Agreement) ew WO 35. Plaintiff repleads and realleges the allegations set forth herein in §§ 1-34, inclusive, as if BP ew fully set forth here. | | Se WT 36. Plaintiff performed each and every act required to be performed by her, except insofar as DB ew | plaintiff's performance was prevented by the acts and omissions of said defendants Reed and Does 1- HI ew 100 and each of them. CO 37. Said defendants Reed and Does 1-100 and each of them failed to fulfill their contractual OO He obligations to plaintiff in that they failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to repair. and ©. PPO replace the items as they had agreed to do or were obliged to do according to code. Se Nw 38. As a legal result of said defendant Reed and Does 1-100 and each of them failing to fulfill NNO NY their contractual obligations, plaintiff has been damaged and will be further damaged by the expenditure WY NY of monies for repair of the Stovall Property, for legal fees to protect plaintiff's contractual rights and for FP N other related damages. YN Wn WHEREFORE; Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. WB NY NY NY Stovall v. Reed complaint 7 oa NW 1 Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Oral Agreement) WN 39. Plaintiff repleads and realleges the allegations set forth herein in §§ 1-38, inclusive, as if WY fully set forth herein. FF 40. Plaintiff performed each and every act required to be preformed by her, except insofar as Oo plaintiff's performance was prevented by the acts and omissions of said defendant Reed and Does 1-100 DH and each of them. SN Al, Said defendant Reed and Does 1-100 and each of them failed to fulfill their contractual Oo obligations to plaintiff in that they failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse to repair and replace oO 10 || items and other agreed upon contractual obligations according to code as they had agreed to do. 11 42. | As a legal result of said defendants Reed and Does 1-100 and each of them failing to 12 || fulfill their contractual obligations, plaintiff has been damaged and will be further damaged by the 13 || expenditure of monies for repair of the Stovall Property, for legal fees to protect plaintiffs contractual 14 | rights and for other related damages. 15 WHEREFORE; Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. 16 |} WHEREFORE; plaintiff prays for judgement against defendant Reed and Does 1-100, and each of them, 17 || as follows: 18 I. For general and special damages according to proof; 19 2. For incidental and consequential damages according to proof; 20 3. For damages for the reasonable cost to remedy the substantial and material defects 21 I| described herein, according to proof; 22 4. For diminution in value of the Stovall Property; 23 5 For punitive damages; 24 6. For interest on the sum awarded; 25 7 For costs of suit herein incurred; 26 Il /// 27 28 || Stovall v. Reed complaint 8 @ “1 8. For attorney fees as allowed by law; 2 9. For such other and further damages and relief as the Court deems just and proper. 3 || DATED: January 23, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF BOMARK-NOEL 4 5 . We 6 By: Yar . Banos . 3) 7 Kl C. Bomark-Noel Attorney for Plaintiff 8 Gertrude Stovall 9 Verification ° I, Gertrude F. Stovall having read the forgoing complaint, find the facts to be true and correct on my M belief and accord and will testify to the veracity if necessary. Under penalty of perjury under the laws of 7 California I affirm the above to be true and correct. 8 Dated: 01-23-66 By: Wd w La | " Gertrude F. Stovall 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 |] Stovall v. Reed complaint 9