Preview
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT ‘4154183492’ —-> 5102671546 Pg 6/28
FILED BY FAX
ALAMEDA COUNT ir”
TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP September O68, 2 D2 1
BO
JOSEPH TOBENER, SBN 203419
BRIAN BROPHY, SBN 282011 CLEREK OF
THE SUPERIOR @& PUR T
21 Masonic Avenue, Suite A By “ian-xii Bowie, UO eputy
WwW
San Francisco, California 94118
Telephone: (415) 504-2165 CASE NUMBER:
RG21112439
BR
Facsimile: (415) 418-3492
tu
Attorncys for PLAINTIFFS
sm
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
co
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
UOwo
WILLIAM HAAR, and Case No.:
Ue
DARRIL TIGHE,
(Unlimited Civil Casc)
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT FOR
UROL
Vv. (1) NEGLIGENCE
eee
(2) WRONGFUL EVICTION IN
KOBIE LYONS, individually and as trustec of VIOLATION OF THE OAKLAND
the LAURA B. LYONS TRUST DATED RENT ORDINANCE
JUNE 25, 2004, (3) CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
THE ESTATE OF LAURA LYONS, (4) TENANT HARASSMENT IN
deceased, trustee of the LAURA B. LYONS VIOLATION OF THE OAKLAND
SH
TRUST DATED JUNE 25, 2004, RENT ORDINANCE
RANDALL WHITNEY, (5) BREACH OF CONTRACT
(6) FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE
we
THOMAS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LP,
and DOES | through 10, (7) ILLEGAL RENT COLLECTION IN
VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE
eS
Defendants. SECTION 1942.4
(8) VIOLATION OF THE FAIR
SG
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
(9) VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT
KF
(10) TRESPASS
(11) NUISANCE
MN
(12) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
WwW
Plaintiffs WILLIAM HAAR and DARRIL TIGHE allege:
fF
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
Bw
ee
1. Plaintiffs WILLIAM HAAR (“HAAR”) and DARRIL TIGHE (“TIGHE”), are
SDA
and were, respectively, residential tenants at a rent-controlled, four-unit property located at 459
ee
to 465 63rd Strect, Oakland, California (the “Subject Property”).
ao
COMPLAINT - 1
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg 7/28
1 2. Plaintiff HAAR resides in a two-bedroom apartment at 463 63rd Strect (“Unit
2 |/463"). Plaintiff HAAR lives at the unit with his three young daughters, who he shares custody off
3 || with his ex-wife.
4 3. Plaintiff TIGHE resided in a one-bedroom apartment at 465 63rd Strect (“Unit
5 ||465"). Plaintiff TIGHE is seventy-five ycars old.
6 4. Plaintiffs HAAR and TIGHE arc hercinaftcr collectively referred to as
7 || “Plaintiffs”.
8 5. The Subject Property is located in Oakland’s Upper Telegraph neighborhood.
9 || The Subject Property is just onc block off Telegraph Avenuc where some of Oakland’s best
10 || shops, cafes, and restaurants arc located. Public transport is within walking distance. The
11 || Subject Property is also across the strect from the clementary school Plaintiff HAAR’s children
12 || attend.
13 6. Defendant THE ESTATE OF LAURA LYONS, deceased, trustee of the LAURA
14 ||B. LYONS TRUST DATED JUNE 25, 2004 (“Defendant LAURA LYONS”), owned the
15 || Subject Property from for several decades, until her death on September 26, 2020. Defendant
16 || KOBIE LYONS, individually and as trustce of the LAURA B. LYONS TRUST DATED JUNE
17 || 25, 2004, has owncd the Subject since September 26, 2020, through the present. DOES 1
18 || through 5 at all relevant times hercto, also owned the Subject Property. Defendants LAURA
19 || LYONS, KOBIE LYONS, and DOES | through 5 are sometimes collectively referred to as
20 || “Landlord Defendants”.
21 7. Defendant LAURA LYONS managcd the property throughout her ownership
22 || until her death on Scptember 26, 2020. Defendants RANDALL WHITNEY and THOMAS
23 || CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LP (Defendant “THOMAS CAPITAL”) have managed the Subject
24 || Property since at lcast the summer of 2018 through the present. Defendant KOBIE LYONS has
25 || managed the Subject Property since at least September 2020 through the present. DOES 6
26 || through 10, at all relevant times hercto, managed the Subject Property. Defendants LAURA
27 || LYONS, KOBIE LYONS, RANDALL WHITNEY, THOMAS CAPITAL, and DOES 6 through
28 || 10 are sometimes collectively referred to as “Management Defendants”.
COMPLAINT - 2
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg 8/28
1 8. Defendants LAURA LYONS, KOBIE LYONS, RANDALL WHITNEY,
2 || THOMAS CAPITAL and DOES | through 10 are hereinafter collectively referred to as
3 || “Defendants”.
4 9, Plaintiffs arc ignorant of the truc names, involvement, or capacitics of Defendants
5 || DOES | through 10. Plaintiffs arc informed and believe that cach DOE Defendant is in some
6 || way responsible for Plaintiffs’ damages. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint when they learn
7 || the truc names of the DOE Defendants.
8 10. At all relevant times, cach Defendant was the agent, principal, servant, cmploycc,
9 || or alter cgo of the remaining Defendants, or acted with their conscnt, ratification, and
10 || authorization, and in doing the acts hercinafter alleged, cach Defendant acted in such capacity
11 || with respect to the remaining Defendants.
12 11. This Court is the proper jurisdiction for this complaint because Defendants reside
13 |} in its jurisdictional arca, the Subject Property is in its jurisdictional arca, Plaintiffs were subject
14 || to a residential rental agrecment in its jurisdictional arca, Defendants conduct business in its
15 || jurisdictional areca, and Plaintiffs were injured in its jurisdictional arcal. The amount in
16 || controversy is within the jurisdiction of this court.
17 12. Plaintiffs bring these claims against Defendant LAURA LYONS pursuant to
18 || Probate Code scction 550 e seq. Plaintiffs arc secking damages against Defendant LAURA
19 || LYONS that are within the policy limits of her property insurance policics.
20 13. Unit 463 and Unit 465 arc, and at all relevant times were, subject to the just causc
21 || for eviction provisions, the anti-harassment provisions, and the rent limitations of 8.22.010 e
22 || seq. of the Oakland Municipal Codc (hercinafter referred to as the “Rent Ordinance”), originally
23 || enacted in 1980 and subsequently amended. The Rent Ordinance scts forth the exclusive
24 || grounds for recovering posscssion of non-cxempt residential rental units in Oakland.
25 PLAINTIFFS’ TENANCIES
26 14. From October 2018 to the present, Plaintiff HAAR has lived in Unit 463 of the
27 || Subject Property pursuant to a written rental agreement. The Icase agreement contains an
28 || attorncy fec provision allowing the prevailing party to recover attorney fees. Plaintiff HAAR
COMPLAINT - 3
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg 9/28
1 || pays $3,400 per month in rent.
2 15. From January 2019 through the end of March 2021, Plaintiff TIGHE lived in Unit
3 ||465 pursuant to a written Ilcasc agreement. The lcasc agreement contains an attorncy fec
4 || provision allowing the prevailing party to recover attorncy fecs. Plaintiff TIGHE paid $2,500
5 || per month in rent.
6 HABITABILITY DEFECTS
7 LACK OF HEAT/ELECTRICAL DEFECTS IN UNIT 463
8 16. Throughout Plaintiff HAAR’s tenancy, Unit 463 has becn in substantial disrepair.
9 || Beginning in carly November 2018, just a few wecks aftcr moving into the apartment, Plaintiff
10 |} HAAR discovered that the supposed thermostat in his apartment was a decoy. The thermostat
11 || fell out of the wall when he went to adjust it. No wircs connected the thermostat to a heating
12 || system.
13 17. Although there were heating vents in Unit 463, they did not function. Plaintiff
14 || HAAR immediately notified Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY, who stated he would scnd out a
15 || worker to resolve the issuc, but nothing happened. When Plaintiff HAAR complained a second
16 || time, Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY stated that Defendant LAURA LYONS was awarc of
17 || the issuc, but again nothing was donc to resolve the issuc. With no heat, it was so cold in the
18 || home that Plaintiff HAAR and his daughters could sometimes scc their breath.
19 18. With no working heat in the home, Plaintiff HAAR had no choicc but to rely on
20 || space heaters in an attempt to kcep he and his family warm. Unfortunatcly, the heaters caused
21 || Unit 463’s inadequate clectrical system to routincly fail. Plaintiff HAAR complaincd to
22 || Defendants about the electrical defects, but Defendants failed to address the issuc. Instcad,
23 || Plaintiff HAAR was forced to replace blown fuscs on a regular basis.
24 19. In March 2019, Defendant LAURA LYONS agrecd to mect with Plaintiff HAAR
25 || to discuss the habitability defects he was cxpcricncing in Unit 463. On or around March 12,
26 || 2019, Defendant LAURA LYONS and Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY informed Plaintiff
27 || HAAR that repairs would be madc to the unit within thirty days. This deadline came and went
28 || without any of the problems being addressed. Plaintiff HAAR cmailed Defendants LAURA
COMPLAINT - 4
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg10/28
1 |] LYONS and RANDALL WHITNEY to again request that the heat, power, and numcrous other
2 || defects be addressed.
3 20. On or around April 16, 2019, Defendant LAURA LYONS Icft a harassing
4 || voicemail for Plaintiff HAAR in which she called him, “the most cvil person I have cver met,”
5 || and mocked him for having gonc through a divorec. She then admitted she misled Plaintiff
6 || HAAR regarding the apartment’s heating system and aimed to make him fear her. With this
7 || harassment, she also promiscd that she would fix the heating system and makc all the neccssary
8 || repairs Plaintiff HAAR had requested. Still, no action was taken.
9 21. During late April 2019, PG&E technicians came to the Subject Property and
10 |} issued service reports stating that old wiring necded to be replaced immediatcly, that there was
11 || severe corrosion on the heatcr’s burner, and that the venting was disconnccted. Plaintiff HAAR
12 || forwarded these reports to Defendants LAURA LYONS and RANDALL WHITNEY, but
13 || nothing was donc.
14 22. Onor around May 1, 2019, a City of Oakland code cnforcement inspector noted
15 || multiple violations at the Subject Property, including that no unit at the Subject Property had a
16 || permitted heat source. The City of Oakland required Defendant LAURA LYONS to resolve
17 || these violations. Still, nothing was donc.
18 23. In September 2020, Defendant LAURA LYONS passed away, and ownership of
19 || the Subject Property transferred to Defendant KOBIE LYONS. Plaintiff HAAR made surc
20 || Defendant KOBIE LYONS was aware of the habitability defects on the Subject Property, but
21 || everything remained in disrepair.
22 24. In December 2020, a City of Oakland codc cnforecment inspector confirmed that
23 ||no work had been done on the heating or electrical systems. Plaintiff HAAR and his family went]
24 || three entire winters without heat inside their home.
25 25. Not until March 13, 2021, did Defendants finally begin preliminary work to
26 || install an adequate heating and clectrical system in Plaintiff HAAR’s home. The heating and
27 || electrical defects in Plaintiff HAAR’s unit were not resolved until late July 2021.
28 |] ///
COMPLAINT - 5
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg11/28
1 LACK OF HEAT/ELECTRICAL DEFECTS IN UNIT 465
2 26. Throughout Plaintiff TIGHE’s tenancy, Unit 465 was also in substantial disrepair.
3 || Her apartment lacked heat and shared the same clectrical issucs as Plaintiff HAAR’s apartment.
4 27, On or around February 6, 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE wrote to Defendant RANDALL
5 || WHITNEY asking if Defendant LAURA LYONS could purchase her a spacc heater. Defendant
6 || RANDALL responded that space heaters were problematic. He assured Plaintiff TIGHE that a
7 || large clectrical project to address the issuc was in progress. When Plaintiff TIGHE expressed
8 || her concerns about the clectrical system being a fire hazard, Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY
9 || only told her to get renter’s insurance.
10 28. — The intcrior of Unit 465 was often under sixty degrecs Fahrenheit. Plaintiff
11 || TIGHE, who suffers from arthritis, often felt severe pain duc to the cold temperatures. Plaintiff
12 || TIGHE asked for the heating system to be repaired more than a dozcn times throughout her
13 || tenancy, but nothing was donc.
14 29. On March 2, 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE requested a space heater again since the heat
15 |/issuc remained unfixed. Again, her request was ignored. A weck latcr, Plaintiff TIGHE
16 || complained to Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY and was told the issuc was being worked on.
17 30. In August 2019, Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY told Plaintiff TIGHE that an
18 |} HVAC inspector would be coming to her apartment to address the heat issucs. No work was
19 || done.
20 31. On or around December 6, 2019, Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY told Plaintiff]
21 || TIGHE that hc was working on bringing the heat issuc into compliance, but nothing was donc.
22 32. Throughout Plaintiff TIGHE’s tenancy, the power in Unit 465 went out on at Icast
23 ||a dozen occasions. She made repeated complaints about the issuc to Defendants, but nothing
24 || was donc about the electrical issucs. On or around December 20, 2020, the power went out in
25 || Unit 465. As Plaintiff TIGHE attempted to navigate her dark apartment, she tripped over a space
26 || heater cord and fell on her side. She struck her head, her hip, and her hand and arm. Pain shot
27 |) up her arm from her hand. Plaintiff TIGHE suffered fractures to three fingers on her left hand,
28 || which have not healed. To datc, Plaintiff TIGHE has trouble using her Icft hand and her pinky
COMPLAINT - 6
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg12/28
1 || remains crooked.
2 33. For the remainder of her tenancy, Plaintiff TIGHE pleaded with Defendants to
3 || provide heat to her home, but every request was met with cmpty promiscs.
4 PLUMBING DEFECTS IN UNIT 463 AND UNIT 465
5 34. Upon moving into Unit 463, Plaintiff HAAR expericneed a multitude of plumbing
6 || issucs, including the kitchen sink backing up with filthy watcr cvery time it was used and only
7 || cold watcr flowing from the faucct.
8 35. In November 2018, after Defendants ignored repeated complaints about the
9 || various plumbing issucs in Unit 463, Plaintiff HAAR contacted a licensed plumber for a repair
10 || cstimate and an assessment of the defects in the apartment. The plumber noted a compounded
11 || risk of contamination to the building’s drinking watcr becausc the bathroom and kitchen fauccts
12 || were below the flood level rim. Because of this newfound risk, Plaintiff HAAR began
13 || purchasing water for drinking, cooking, and tooth-brushing.
14 36. The plumber also noted that the stove did not have an acecssible gas shutoff that
15 || functioned by hand. When Plaintiff HAAR passcd this report to Defendants RANDALL
16 || WHITNEY and LAURA LYONS, they failed to address the problem with the stove, and it
17 || remains an issuc to date.
18 37. On or around February 1, 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE’s toilct overflowed. Throughout
19 || February and March 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE repeatedly complained to Defendants RANDALL
20 || WHITNEY and LAURA LYONS that the toilct flushed slowly and often failed to dispose of
21 || waste. Eventually, Defendants sent somconc out who only made an ineffective repair, so the
22 || toilct continued to backup for the duration of Plaintiff TIGHE’s tenancy.
23 DEFECTIVE REFRIGERATORS IN UNIT 463 AND UNIT 465
24 38. In October 2019, Plaintiff HAAR noticed that his refrigcrator was lcaking, and its
25 || intcrnal temperatures were fluctuating. Watcr dripped onto food and leaked onto the hardwood
26 || floor, causing rot issucs to the subfloor. Despite numcrous complaints to Defendants, the
27 || refrigcrator was not replaced until a year and a half latcr. Plaintiff HAAR was forced to toss out
28 || hundreds of dollars’ worth of food.
COMPLAINT - 7
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg13/28
1 39. Similarly, on or around March 31, 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE informed Defendant
2 || RANDALL WHITNEY that her refrigcrator was lcaking, and the freezer stopped working
3 || altogether. Despite her numcrous complaints to Defendants, it was not until wecks latcr that
4 || Plaintiff TIGHE’s refrigerator was replaced. Plaintiff TIGHE was forced to toss out
5 || approximately $200 in food.
6 WATER INTRUSIONS AND DAMPNESS IN UNIT 463
7 40. — The ceiling in Plaintiff HAAR’s bedroom often leaked when it raincd. Despite
8 || Defendant LAURA LYONS being cited in May 2019 by the City of Oakland for the crumbling
9 || cciling, ncither she nor the other Defendants took any steps to remedy the problem.
10 4l, In November 2019, Plaintiff HAAR informed Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY
11 || that water was leaking in through the cciling, but nothing was donc.
12 42, Morcover, Unit 463’s kitchen and bathroom lacked venting. Since the bathroom
13 || window could not be opened for nearly two ycars, damp conditions developed throughout the
14 ||home. Although Defendants were aware of this issuc, thcy did nothing to remedy it. The City of
15 || Oakland cited Defendants in 2019, and Plaintiff HAAR has complained multiple times regarding
16 || the vent. These venting defects remain unaddressed.
17 WINDOW DEFECTS IN UNIT 465
18 43. A couple of days aftcr moving into her apartment, Plaintiff TIGHE informed
19 || Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY that the dining room window did not close or lock. Left
20 || without help, Plaintiff TIGHE had to usc a stick to lock the window.
21 44. Plaintiff TIGHE’s bedroom window was cracked. Despite her repeated
22 || complaints to Defendants, the window was never replaced.
23 BROKEN KITCHEN COUNTER IN UNIT 465
24 45. Plaintiff TIGHE’s kitchen countcr was in disrepair. Multiple tiles were broken,
25 || and several others were missing complctcly. Although Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY
26 || assured her that the counter would be repaired, nothing was ever donc.
27 COMMON AREA DEFECTS
28 46. — There were several habitability issucs in the common arca during Plaintiffs’
COMPLAINT - 8
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg14/28
1 |] tenancy. This included weeds growing over three fect in the backyard, prior squattcrs, and
2 || Defendants’ workers filling the garage and common arcas with discarded, broken, and filthy
3 || furniture. It took months of complaining before Defendants made any effort to clear cither arca.
4 47. On or around February 5, 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE wrote to Defendant RANDALL
5 || WHITNEY asking that the non-locking, collapsing gatc to the backyard be fixcd. Plaintiff
6 || HAAR cchocd similar complaints, but a repair attempt was not made until May 2020.
7 48. The Subject Property’s backstairs have becn in a dangcrous state of disrepair for
8 || years. The stairs shook when walked on and looked as if they could collapse at any moment. At
9 || onc point during Plaintiffs’ tenancy, onc of Defendant KOBIE LYON’s workers ripped out
10 || rotting wood from the basc board, Icaving the stair without support on onc side. It took wecks
11 || before the stairs were replaced, but cven then, the work was conducted by unlicensed day
12 |} laborers without city permits. Latcr, onc of Defendant’s workers carved out an arca of dry rot
13 |} underneath the stairs. Instead of then filling in the gaps in the wood created by his work, the
14 || worker left the stairs in a dangcrous state of disrepair.
15 HARASSMENT
16 49. Plaintiff HAAR’s and Plaintiff TIGHE’s repair requests were mct with
17 || harassment and demands to vacate. For cxamplc, in February 2019, after Plaintiff TIGHE
18 || complaincd about the lack of heat and a power failure at the property, Defendant LAURA
19 || LYONS told Plaintiff TIGHE to move out. When Plaintiff TIGHE cxpressed her fear regarding
20 || this threat to Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY, his response was, “Don’t worry... [Defendant
21 || LAURA LYONS] lashes out and apologizes later... a lot.” In April 2019, Defendant LAURA
22 || LYONS left Plaintiff HAAR a voicemail in responsc to him raising the property’s lack of heat,
23 || attempted to humiliate him by referencing his “broken marriage”, and told him that he is free to
24 || Icave since she misled him regarding the heat.
25 50. In November 2019, when Plaintiff TIGHE complained that the power had gonc
26 || out yct again and that duc to the lack of heat she was going out to her car to get warm, Defendant
27 || RANDALL WHITNEY responded, “I can’t control the weather.” Later that month, when
28 || Defendant KOBIE LYONS had taken over the property, Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY told
COMPLAINT - 9
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg15/28
1 || Plaintiff TIGHE, in response to complaints regarding habitability defects, “Your rent is quitc
2 || low. That’s a problem for the new landlord. And remember, your lease is month-to-month.”
3 51. In December 2020, after Plaintiff HAAR made complaints about habitability
4 || defects to Defendant KOBIE LYONS, Defendant KOBIE LYONS responded, “If you don’t like
5 || the way I manage my property, you are free to leave. This isn’t the Hotcl California.” Defendant
6 || KOBIE LYONS then threatened Plaintiff HAAR with cviction, saying, “All this work you arc
7 || asking to gct donc is going to make me go for the nuclear option. I’m going to have to move into
8 || the building to manage this work, and the unit I move into will be yours.”
9 52. | When Plaintiff TIGHE cxpressed that she was scared, as a seventy-five-ycar-old
10 |} woman living alone, to live in a frigid apartment with malfunctioning clectricity, Defendant
11 ||KOBIE LYONS callously responded “Lots of people live in the dark.”
12 53. On May 26, 2021, after Plaintiff TIGHE had moved out of Unit 465, Plaintiff
13 || TIGHE visited the property to spend time with Plaintiff HAAR and some other friends.
14 || Unfortunatcly, her time was cut short when Defendants’ agent approached Plaintiff TIGHE and
15 |} told her to leave the Subject Property immediatcly. Plaintiffs were stunned and humiliated.
16 || Defendants had no Icgal justification to prevent Plaintiff TIGHE from visiting her fricnds at the
17 || property, or to prevent Plaintiff HAAR from having invited guests. Fearing for her safcty,
18 || Plaintiff TIGHE was shaken by the experience.
19 CONSTRUCTIVE/WRONGFUL EVICTION FROM UNIT 465
20 54. In late-February 2021, after cnduring severe habitability defects, cmpty promises
21 || of repairs, harassment, and demands to vacate, Plaintiff TIGHE provided notice that she would
22 || vacate. In late March 2021, she vacated the Subject Property. Plaintiff TIGHE, at seventy-five
23 || years old, had hoped that Unit 465 would be her home for the remainder of her life.
24 55. Plaintiff TIGHE’s forced move from the Subject Property and Defendants’
25 || unlawful conduct caused Plaintiff TIGHE to suffer cmotionally and physically, including but not
26 || limited to cxpericncing anguish, inconvenicnec, annoyance, anxicty, slecplessness, loss of
27 || enjoyment of life, stress, worry, and humiliation.
28 |] ///
COMPLAINT - 10
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg16/28
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE
2 BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
3 56. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs.
4 57. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care as landlords and managers of residential]
5 || property.
6 58. | Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to repair the
7 || aforementioned habitability defects in Unit 463 and Unit 465 throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancy,
8 || harassing Plaintiffs, wrongfully cvicting Plaintiff TIGHE without just causc in violation of the
9 || Oakland Rent Ordinance, influencing Plaintiff TIGHE to vacate her rental unit through fraud,
10 |} intimidation, and cocrcion, trespassing in Unit 465 after wrongfully cvicting Plaintiff TIGHE,
11 || wrongfully depriving an cldcr of her property rights, and giving Plaintiff TIGHE no choice but to}
12 || vacate.
13 59. Defendants’ acts and omissions were in violation of the following state and local
14 || laws:
15 a. Civil Code scction 1927, prohibiting landlord infringement of quict cnjoyment;
16 b. Civil Code section 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code section 17920.3, defining
17 minimum requirements for a habitable building;
18 c. Civil Code scction 1942.4, prohibiting landlords from demanding or collccting
19 rent after the issuance of a notice of violation;
20 d. Civil Code scction 1954, prohibiting landlord trespass;
21 c. Fair Employment and Housing Act section 12955, prohibiting housing
22 discrimination on the basis of marital status, familial status, and disability;
23 f. Oakland Rent Ordinance scction 8.22.360, prohibiting a landlord from
24 endeavoring to recover posscssion or recovcring posscssion of a rental unit in the
25 City of Oakland unlcss the landlord has a Icgitimate just cause for eviction;
26 g. Oakland Tenant Protection Ordinance scction 8.22.640, prohibiting tenant
27 harassment, including by failing to provide housing services required by contract
28 or by Statc, County or municipal housing, health, or safcty laws; failing to
COMPLAINT - 11
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg17/28
1 perform required repairs and/or maintenance; influcncing Plaintiffs to vacate their
2 rental units through fraud, intimidation, and cocrcion; abusing Defendants’ right
3 of access to Plaintiffs’ units; and other acts amounting to tenant harassment; and
4 h. Welfare and Institutions Code scction 15610.30, prohibiting financial clder abusc.
5 60. These statutes arc designed to protect Plaintiffs from the very harms complaincd
6 || about herein. All these laws were in effect at all relevant times.
7 61. | Defendants’ violations of thesc law were a substantial factor in causing harm to
8 || Plaintiffs.
9 62. Plaintiffs suffered from scrious cmotional distress, including anguish,
10 || inconvenience, annoyance, anxicty, slecplessncss, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, worry, and
11 ||} humiliation. The cmotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs was sufficicntly severe that an
12 || ordinary person would have been unable to deal with it.
13 63. As aproximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their duty and obligations under
14 || the above-mentioned laws, Plaintiffs suffered from a lcaschold worth substantially less than rent
15 || paid, bodily injury, property damage, propcrty loss, out-of-pockct expenses, loss of usc and
16 || enjoyment of their rental unit, loss of a rent-controlled unit, attorney fees and costs, and moving
17 || costs.
18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION
19 IN VIOLATION OF THE OAKLAND RENT ORDINANCE
20 BY PLAINTIFF TIGHE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
21 64. Plaintiff TIGHE re-alleges and incorporates by reference all forcgoing
22 || paragraphs.
23 65. Under section 8.22.360 of the Oakland Rent Ordinance, a landlord shall not
24 || endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit unless the landlord has a legitimate just causc for
25 || eviction. The Oakland Rent Ordinance cnumcrates only cleven just causcs.
26 66. Section 8.22.370 of the Oakland Rent Ordinance provides that whenever a
27 || landlord endeavors to recover possession of a dwelling unit in violation of Scction 8.22.360, the
28 || tenant may suc for not less than three times actual damages, attorncy fecs, and whatever other
COMPLAINT - 12
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg18/28
1 ||relicf the court decms appropriate.
2 67. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff TIGHE suffered from
3 || severe cmotional distress, including but not limited to, anguish, inconvenicncc, annoyance,
4 || anxicty, sleeplessness, loss of enjoyment of lifc, stress, worry, and humiliation.
5 68. As aproximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged hercin, Plaintiff
6 || TIGHE was forced out of Unit 465 and has incurred damages, including loss of her rental unit,
7 || bodily injury, moving costs, property loss, property damage, cmotional distress, out-of-pocket
8 || cxpenscs, statutory damages, attorncy fecs and costs, and treble damages.
9 69. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive, and Defendants acted with
10 || knowing or reckless disregard of Plaintiff TIGHE’s rights under the Rent Ordinance. As a result,
11 || Plaintiff TIGHE is entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof and to the
12 || trebling of damages awardcd for Plaintiff TIGHE’s cmotional distress.
13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
14 BY PLAINTIFF TIGHE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
15 70. ~~ Plaintiff TIGHE re-alleges and incorporates by reference all forcgoing
16 || paragraphs.
17 71. Defendants owed a duty of care as managers and owncrs of residential rental
18 || property.
19 72. Defendants breached that duty by failing to make repairs to and failing to
20 || maintain Plaintiff TIGHE’s unit in habitable condition, harassing Plaintiff TIGHE, and giving
21 || Plaintiff TIGHE no other choice but to vacate.
22 73. Defendants’ acts and omissions were disturbances and/or interferences with
23 || Plaintiff TIGHE’s possession of the premiscs and rendered the premises unfit for the purposcs
24 || for which it was lcased or had the cffect of depriving Plaintiff TIGHE of the beneficial
25 || enjoyment or use of the premiscs.
26 TA. As arcsult of Defendants’ actions and omissions, Plaintiff TIGHE was forced to
27 || vacate the Subject Property.
28 75. Plaintiff TIGHE vacated her unit within a reasonable period of time after
COMPLAINT - 13
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg19/28
1 || Defendants’ acts and omissions rendered her premiscs unfit for the purposes for which thcy were
2 || Icased.
3 76. As a proximate result of the constructive cviction, Plaintiff TIGHE suffered from
4 || moncy damages, property loss, property damage, cmotional distress, mental injury, bodily and
5 || personal injury, loss of usc and enjoyment of her rental home, moving costs, and attorncy feces
6 || and costs.
7 77. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants
8 || were willful, malicious, and oppressive.
9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TENANT HARASSMENT
10 IN VIOLATION OF THE OAKLAND TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE
ll BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
12 78. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all forcgoing paragraphs.
13 79. Under section 8.22.640 of the Tenant Protection Ordinance, no landlord or agent
14 || ofa landlord shall harass a tenant in bad faith.
15 80. Defendants violated section 8.22.640 of the Tenant Protection Ordinance by
16 || failing to provide housing services required by contract or by Statc, County or municipal
17 || housing, health, or safety laws and by failing to perform required repairs and/or maintenance.
18 81. Defendants violated section 8.22.640 of the Tenant Protection Ordinance by
19 || influencing Plaintiffs to vacate their units through fraud, intimidation, or cocrcion, including by
20 || telling Plaintiffs to vacate without providing a just cause for cviction, and by committing other
21 || acts amounting to harassment.
22 82. Defendants did these acts with the intent to cause Plaintiffs to vacate their units.
23 83. Plaintiff TIGHE did vacate Subject Unit 465, at least in part, duc to Defendants’
24 || harassment.
25 84. Defendants did thesc acts in bad faith and knowing violation of the Rent
26 || Ordinance.
27 85. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from severe
28 || cmotional distress, including but not limited to, anguish, inconvenicncc, annoyance, anxicty,
COMPLAINT - 14
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg20/28
1 || sleeplessness, loss of enjoyment of lifc, stress, worry, and humiliation.
2 86. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from a lcaschold
3 || worth substantially less than rent paid, bodily injury, property damage, property loss, cmotional
4 || distress, loss of use and enjoyment of their rental home, loss of a rental unit, moving costs,
5 || attorney fees and costs, statutory damages, and treble damages.
6 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
7 BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST LANDLORD DEFENDANTS
8 87. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
9 88. — Implicd in Plaintiffs’ residential lease agrecment is an implicd warranty of
10 || habitability and an implicd covenant of quict enjoyment, wherein Landlord Defendants promised
11 |} to inspect and maintain Unit 463 and Unit 465 in clean, safc, and habitable condition and to
12 || provide Plaintiffs quict enjoyment of their respective units.
13 89. Landlord Defendants breached the implicd warranty of habitability and the
14 ||implicd covenant of quite cnjoyment by failing to inspect and maintain Unit 463 and Unit 465 in
15 ||a clean, safc, and habitable condition, tclling Plaintiffs to vacate without just causc, trespassing
16 |} in Plaintiffs’ units, harassing Plaintiffs in violation of the Oakland Rent Ordinance, and giving
17 || Plaintiffs no other choice but to vacate the Subject Property.
18 90. ‘Plaintiffs met all their obligations under the Icasc.
19 91. Plaintiffs notified Landlord Defendants and/or their agent(s) of all the repair
20 |/issucs at their units. In addition, Landlord Defendants actually knew or could have known with
21 || reasonable diligence about all the repair issucs in and around Unit 463 and Unit 465.
22 92. Landlord Defendants ignored all repair issucs, failed to repair or timely repair the
23 || issucs, or negligently repaired the issucs.
24 93. Landlord Defendants forced Plaintiffs to live in uninhabitable conditions despite
25 || having the financial ability to remedy the repair issucs.
26 94, As a proximate result of Landlord Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs suffered from a
27 || Icaschold worth substantially less than rent paid, property loss, property damage, out-of-pockct
28 || expenses, and loss of usc and cnjoyment of their rental homes.
COMPLAINT - 15
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg21/28
1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE
2 BY PLAINTIFF TIGHE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
3 95. Plaintiff TIGHE re-alleges and incorporates by reference all forcgoing
4 || paragraphs.
5 96. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff TIGHE as landlords, property
6 || managers, and/or agents of landlords or property managers of real property who collected rental
7 || moncy from Plaintiff TIGHE in exchange for providing housing to Plaintiffs. Dcfcndants all
8 || profited from the elder abuse of Plaintiff TIGHE.
9 97. Plaintiff TIGHE is seventy-five ycars old.
10 98. The Eldcr Abuse Act, specifically Welfare and Institutions Codc scction 15610.30
11 || prohibits the financial abuse of cldcrly individuals. Under the Elder Abuse Act, a person or
12 || entity commits financial abusc against an cldcr by taking, sccrcting, appropriating, obtaining, or
13 || retaining an clder’s real property. Under the Elder Abuse Act, a person or entity takes, scerctes,
14 || appropriates, obtains, or retains real property when an clder is deprived of any property right.
15 99. Defendants violated the Elder Abuse Act by willfully and consciously depriving
16 || Plaintiff TIGHE of her property rights to use and cnjoy her rented residential unit.
17 100. Defendant KOBIE LYONS told Plaintiff TIGHE to vacate her unit if she was
18 |} unhappy about the habitability defects. Defendants repeatedly made harassing comments to
19 || Plaintiff TIGHE with the intention of driving her out of her rental unit. Defendants willfully and
20 || consciously deprived Plainti
Preview
09/07/21 04:03PM PDT ‘4154183492’ —-> 5102671546 Pg 6/28 FILED BY FAX ALAMEDA COUNT ir” TOBENER RAVENSCROFT LLP September O68, 2 D2 1 BO JOSEPH TOBENER, SBN 203419 BRIAN BROPHY, SBN 282011 CLEREK OF THE SUPERIOR @& PUR T 21 Masonic Avenue, Suite A By “ian-xii Bowie, UO eputy WwW San Francisco, California 94118 Telephone: (415) 504-2165 CASE NUMBER: RG21112439 BR Facsimile: (415) 418-3492 tu Attorncys for PLAINTIFFS sm SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA co FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA UOwo WILLIAM HAAR, and Case No.: Ue DARRIL TIGHE, (Unlimited Civil Casc) Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR UROL Vv. (1) NEGLIGENCE eee (2) WRONGFUL EVICTION IN KOBIE LYONS, individually and as trustec of VIOLATION OF THE OAKLAND the LAURA B. LYONS TRUST DATED RENT ORDINANCE JUNE 25, 2004, (3) CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION THE ESTATE OF LAURA LYONS, (4) TENANT HARASSMENT IN deceased, trustee of the LAURA B. LYONS VIOLATION OF THE OAKLAND SH TRUST DATED JUNE 25, 2004, RENT ORDINANCE RANDALL WHITNEY, (5) BREACH OF CONTRACT (6) FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE we THOMAS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LP, and DOES | through 10, (7) ILLEGAL RENT COLLECTION IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE eS Defendants. SECTION 1942.4 (8) VIOLATION OF THE FAIR SG EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (9) VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT KF (10) TRESPASS (11) NUISANCE MN (12) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES WwW Plaintiffs WILLIAM HAAR and DARRIL TIGHE allege: fF ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION Bw ee 1. Plaintiffs WILLIAM HAAR (“HAAR”) and DARRIL TIGHE (“TIGHE”), are SDA and were, respectively, residential tenants at a rent-controlled, four-unit property located at 459 ee to 465 63rd Strect, Oakland, California (the “Subject Property”). ao COMPLAINT - 1 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg 7/28 1 2. Plaintiff HAAR resides in a two-bedroom apartment at 463 63rd Strect (“Unit 2 |/463"). Plaintiff HAAR lives at the unit with his three young daughters, who he shares custody off 3 || with his ex-wife. 4 3. Plaintiff TIGHE resided in a one-bedroom apartment at 465 63rd Strect (“Unit 5 ||465"). Plaintiff TIGHE is seventy-five ycars old. 6 4. Plaintiffs HAAR and TIGHE arc hercinaftcr collectively referred to as 7 || “Plaintiffs”. 8 5. The Subject Property is located in Oakland’s Upper Telegraph neighborhood. 9 || The Subject Property is just onc block off Telegraph Avenuc where some of Oakland’s best 10 || shops, cafes, and restaurants arc located. Public transport is within walking distance. The 11 || Subject Property is also across the strect from the clementary school Plaintiff HAAR’s children 12 || attend. 13 6. Defendant THE ESTATE OF LAURA LYONS, deceased, trustee of the LAURA 14 ||B. LYONS TRUST DATED JUNE 25, 2004 (“Defendant LAURA LYONS”), owned the 15 || Subject Property from for several decades, until her death on September 26, 2020. Defendant 16 || KOBIE LYONS, individually and as trustce of the LAURA B. LYONS TRUST DATED JUNE 17 || 25, 2004, has owncd the Subject since September 26, 2020, through the present. DOES 1 18 || through 5 at all relevant times hercto, also owned the Subject Property. Defendants LAURA 19 || LYONS, KOBIE LYONS, and DOES | through 5 are sometimes collectively referred to as 20 || “Landlord Defendants”. 21 7. Defendant LAURA LYONS managcd the property throughout her ownership 22 || until her death on Scptember 26, 2020. Defendants RANDALL WHITNEY and THOMAS 23 || CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LP (Defendant “THOMAS CAPITAL”) have managed the Subject 24 || Property since at lcast the summer of 2018 through the present. Defendant KOBIE LYONS has 25 || managed the Subject Property since at least September 2020 through the present. DOES 6 26 || through 10, at all relevant times hercto, managed the Subject Property. Defendants LAURA 27 || LYONS, KOBIE LYONS, RANDALL WHITNEY, THOMAS CAPITAL, and DOES 6 through 28 || 10 are sometimes collectively referred to as “Management Defendants”. COMPLAINT - 2 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg 8/28 1 8. Defendants LAURA LYONS, KOBIE LYONS, RANDALL WHITNEY, 2 || THOMAS CAPITAL and DOES | through 10 are hereinafter collectively referred to as 3 || “Defendants”. 4 9, Plaintiffs arc ignorant of the truc names, involvement, or capacitics of Defendants 5 || DOES | through 10. Plaintiffs arc informed and believe that cach DOE Defendant is in some 6 || way responsible for Plaintiffs’ damages. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint when they learn 7 || the truc names of the DOE Defendants. 8 10. At all relevant times, cach Defendant was the agent, principal, servant, cmploycc, 9 || or alter cgo of the remaining Defendants, or acted with their conscnt, ratification, and 10 || authorization, and in doing the acts hercinafter alleged, cach Defendant acted in such capacity 11 || with respect to the remaining Defendants. 12 11. This Court is the proper jurisdiction for this complaint because Defendants reside 13 |} in its jurisdictional arca, the Subject Property is in its jurisdictional arca, Plaintiffs were subject 14 || to a residential rental agrecment in its jurisdictional arca, Defendants conduct business in its 15 || jurisdictional areca, and Plaintiffs were injured in its jurisdictional arcal. The amount in 16 || controversy is within the jurisdiction of this court. 17 12. Plaintiffs bring these claims against Defendant LAURA LYONS pursuant to 18 || Probate Code scction 550 e seq. Plaintiffs arc secking damages against Defendant LAURA 19 || LYONS that are within the policy limits of her property insurance policics. 20 13. Unit 463 and Unit 465 arc, and at all relevant times were, subject to the just causc 21 || for eviction provisions, the anti-harassment provisions, and the rent limitations of 8.22.010 e 22 || seq. of the Oakland Municipal Codc (hercinafter referred to as the “Rent Ordinance”), originally 23 || enacted in 1980 and subsequently amended. The Rent Ordinance scts forth the exclusive 24 || grounds for recovering posscssion of non-cxempt residential rental units in Oakland. 25 PLAINTIFFS’ TENANCIES 26 14. From October 2018 to the present, Plaintiff HAAR has lived in Unit 463 of the 27 || Subject Property pursuant to a written rental agreement. The Icase agreement contains an 28 || attorncy fec provision allowing the prevailing party to recover attorney fees. Plaintiff HAAR COMPLAINT - 3 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg 9/28 1 || pays $3,400 per month in rent. 2 15. From January 2019 through the end of March 2021, Plaintiff TIGHE lived in Unit 3 ||465 pursuant to a written Ilcasc agreement. The lcasc agreement contains an attorncy fec 4 || provision allowing the prevailing party to recover attorncy fecs. Plaintiff TIGHE paid $2,500 5 || per month in rent. 6 HABITABILITY DEFECTS 7 LACK OF HEAT/ELECTRICAL DEFECTS IN UNIT 463 8 16. Throughout Plaintiff HAAR’s tenancy, Unit 463 has becn in substantial disrepair. 9 || Beginning in carly November 2018, just a few wecks aftcr moving into the apartment, Plaintiff 10 |} HAAR discovered that the supposed thermostat in his apartment was a decoy. The thermostat 11 || fell out of the wall when he went to adjust it. No wircs connected the thermostat to a heating 12 || system. 13 17. Although there were heating vents in Unit 463, they did not function. Plaintiff 14 || HAAR immediately notified Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY, who stated he would scnd out a 15 || worker to resolve the issuc, but nothing happened. When Plaintiff HAAR complained a second 16 || time, Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY stated that Defendant LAURA LYONS was awarc of 17 || the issuc, but again nothing was donc to resolve the issuc. With no heat, it was so cold in the 18 || home that Plaintiff HAAR and his daughters could sometimes scc their breath. 19 18. With no working heat in the home, Plaintiff HAAR had no choicc but to rely on 20 || space heaters in an attempt to kcep he and his family warm. Unfortunatcly, the heaters caused 21 || Unit 463’s inadequate clectrical system to routincly fail. Plaintiff HAAR complaincd to 22 || Defendants about the electrical defects, but Defendants failed to address the issuc. Instcad, 23 || Plaintiff HAAR was forced to replace blown fuscs on a regular basis. 24 19. In March 2019, Defendant LAURA LYONS agrecd to mect with Plaintiff HAAR 25 || to discuss the habitability defects he was cxpcricncing in Unit 463. On or around March 12, 26 || 2019, Defendant LAURA LYONS and Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY informed Plaintiff 27 || HAAR that repairs would be madc to the unit within thirty days. This deadline came and went 28 || without any of the problems being addressed. Plaintiff HAAR cmailed Defendants LAURA COMPLAINT - 4 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg10/28 1 |] LYONS and RANDALL WHITNEY to again request that the heat, power, and numcrous other 2 || defects be addressed. 3 20. On or around April 16, 2019, Defendant LAURA LYONS Icft a harassing 4 || voicemail for Plaintiff HAAR in which she called him, “the most cvil person I have cver met,” 5 || and mocked him for having gonc through a divorec. She then admitted she misled Plaintiff 6 || HAAR regarding the apartment’s heating system and aimed to make him fear her. With this 7 || harassment, she also promiscd that she would fix the heating system and makc all the neccssary 8 || repairs Plaintiff HAAR had requested. Still, no action was taken. 9 21. During late April 2019, PG&E technicians came to the Subject Property and 10 |} issued service reports stating that old wiring necded to be replaced immediatcly, that there was 11 || severe corrosion on the heatcr’s burner, and that the venting was disconnccted. Plaintiff HAAR 12 || forwarded these reports to Defendants LAURA LYONS and RANDALL WHITNEY, but 13 || nothing was donc. 14 22. Onor around May 1, 2019, a City of Oakland code cnforcement inspector noted 15 || multiple violations at the Subject Property, including that no unit at the Subject Property had a 16 || permitted heat source. The City of Oakland required Defendant LAURA LYONS to resolve 17 || these violations. Still, nothing was donc. 18 23. In September 2020, Defendant LAURA LYONS passed away, and ownership of 19 || the Subject Property transferred to Defendant KOBIE LYONS. Plaintiff HAAR made surc 20 || Defendant KOBIE LYONS was aware of the habitability defects on the Subject Property, but 21 || everything remained in disrepair. 22 24. In December 2020, a City of Oakland codc cnforecment inspector confirmed that 23 ||no work had been done on the heating or electrical systems. Plaintiff HAAR and his family went] 24 || three entire winters without heat inside their home. 25 25. Not until March 13, 2021, did Defendants finally begin preliminary work to 26 || install an adequate heating and clectrical system in Plaintiff HAAR’s home. The heating and 27 || electrical defects in Plaintiff HAAR’s unit were not resolved until late July 2021. 28 |] /// COMPLAINT - 5 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg11/28 1 LACK OF HEAT/ELECTRICAL DEFECTS IN UNIT 465 2 26. Throughout Plaintiff TIGHE’s tenancy, Unit 465 was also in substantial disrepair. 3 || Her apartment lacked heat and shared the same clectrical issucs as Plaintiff HAAR’s apartment. 4 27, On or around February 6, 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE wrote to Defendant RANDALL 5 || WHITNEY asking if Defendant LAURA LYONS could purchase her a spacc heater. Defendant 6 || RANDALL responded that space heaters were problematic. He assured Plaintiff TIGHE that a 7 || large clectrical project to address the issuc was in progress. When Plaintiff TIGHE expressed 8 || her concerns about the clectrical system being a fire hazard, Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY 9 || only told her to get renter’s insurance. 10 28. — The intcrior of Unit 465 was often under sixty degrecs Fahrenheit. Plaintiff 11 || TIGHE, who suffers from arthritis, often felt severe pain duc to the cold temperatures. Plaintiff 12 || TIGHE asked for the heating system to be repaired more than a dozcn times throughout her 13 || tenancy, but nothing was donc. 14 29. On March 2, 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE requested a space heater again since the heat 15 |/issuc remained unfixed. Again, her request was ignored. A weck latcr, Plaintiff TIGHE 16 || complained to Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY and was told the issuc was being worked on. 17 30. In August 2019, Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY told Plaintiff TIGHE that an 18 |} HVAC inspector would be coming to her apartment to address the heat issucs. No work was 19 || done. 20 31. On or around December 6, 2019, Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY told Plaintiff] 21 || TIGHE that hc was working on bringing the heat issuc into compliance, but nothing was donc. 22 32. Throughout Plaintiff TIGHE’s tenancy, the power in Unit 465 went out on at Icast 23 ||a dozen occasions. She made repeated complaints about the issuc to Defendants, but nothing 24 || was donc about the electrical issucs. On or around December 20, 2020, the power went out in 25 || Unit 465. As Plaintiff TIGHE attempted to navigate her dark apartment, she tripped over a space 26 || heater cord and fell on her side. She struck her head, her hip, and her hand and arm. Pain shot 27 |) up her arm from her hand. Plaintiff TIGHE suffered fractures to three fingers on her left hand, 28 || which have not healed. To datc, Plaintiff TIGHE has trouble using her Icft hand and her pinky COMPLAINT - 6 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg12/28 1 || remains crooked. 2 33. For the remainder of her tenancy, Plaintiff TIGHE pleaded with Defendants to 3 || provide heat to her home, but every request was met with cmpty promiscs. 4 PLUMBING DEFECTS IN UNIT 463 AND UNIT 465 5 34. Upon moving into Unit 463, Plaintiff HAAR expericneed a multitude of plumbing 6 || issucs, including the kitchen sink backing up with filthy watcr cvery time it was used and only 7 || cold watcr flowing from the faucct. 8 35. In November 2018, after Defendants ignored repeated complaints about the 9 || various plumbing issucs in Unit 463, Plaintiff HAAR contacted a licensed plumber for a repair 10 || cstimate and an assessment of the defects in the apartment. The plumber noted a compounded 11 || risk of contamination to the building’s drinking watcr becausc the bathroom and kitchen fauccts 12 || were below the flood level rim. Because of this newfound risk, Plaintiff HAAR began 13 || purchasing water for drinking, cooking, and tooth-brushing. 14 36. The plumber also noted that the stove did not have an acecssible gas shutoff that 15 || functioned by hand. When Plaintiff HAAR passcd this report to Defendants RANDALL 16 || WHITNEY and LAURA LYONS, they failed to address the problem with the stove, and it 17 || remains an issuc to date. 18 37. On or around February 1, 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE’s toilct overflowed. Throughout 19 || February and March 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE repeatedly complained to Defendants RANDALL 20 || WHITNEY and LAURA LYONS that the toilct flushed slowly and often failed to dispose of 21 || waste. Eventually, Defendants sent somconc out who only made an ineffective repair, so the 22 || toilct continued to backup for the duration of Plaintiff TIGHE’s tenancy. 23 DEFECTIVE REFRIGERATORS IN UNIT 463 AND UNIT 465 24 38. In October 2019, Plaintiff HAAR noticed that his refrigcrator was lcaking, and its 25 || intcrnal temperatures were fluctuating. Watcr dripped onto food and leaked onto the hardwood 26 || floor, causing rot issucs to the subfloor. Despite numcrous complaints to Defendants, the 27 || refrigcrator was not replaced until a year and a half latcr. Plaintiff HAAR was forced to toss out 28 || hundreds of dollars’ worth of food. COMPLAINT - 7 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg13/28 1 39. Similarly, on or around March 31, 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE informed Defendant 2 || RANDALL WHITNEY that her refrigcrator was lcaking, and the freezer stopped working 3 || altogether. Despite her numcrous complaints to Defendants, it was not until wecks latcr that 4 || Plaintiff TIGHE’s refrigerator was replaced. Plaintiff TIGHE was forced to toss out 5 || approximately $200 in food. 6 WATER INTRUSIONS AND DAMPNESS IN UNIT 463 7 40. — The ceiling in Plaintiff HAAR’s bedroom often leaked when it raincd. Despite 8 || Defendant LAURA LYONS being cited in May 2019 by the City of Oakland for the crumbling 9 || cciling, ncither she nor the other Defendants took any steps to remedy the problem. 10 4l, In November 2019, Plaintiff HAAR informed Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY 11 || that water was leaking in through the cciling, but nothing was donc. 12 42, Morcover, Unit 463’s kitchen and bathroom lacked venting. Since the bathroom 13 || window could not be opened for nearly two ycars, damp conditions developed throughout the 14 ||home. Although Defendants were aware of this issuc, thcy did nothing to remedy it. The City of 15 || Oakland cited Defendants in 2019, and Plaintiff HAAR has complained multiple times regarding 16 || the vent. These venting defects remain unaddressed. 17 WINDOW DEFECTS IN UNIT 465 18 43. A couple of days aftcr moving into her apartment, Plaintiff TIGHE informed 19 || Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY that the dining room window did not close or lock. Left 20 || without help, Plaintiff TIGHE had to usc a stick to lock the window. 21 44. Plaintiff TIGHE’s bedroom window was cracked. Despite her repeated 22 || complaints to Defendants, the window was never replaced. 23 BROKEN KITCHEN COUNTER IN UNIT 465 24 45. Plaintiff TIGHE’s kitchen countcr was in disrepair. Multiple tiles were broken, 25 || and several others were missing complctcly. Although Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY 26 || assured her that the counter would be repaired, nothing was ever donc. 27 COMMON AREA DEFECTS 28 46. — There were several habitability issucs in the common arca during Plaintiffs’ COMPLAINT - 8 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg14/28 1 |] tenancy. This included weeds growing over three fect in the backyard, prior squattcrs, and 2 || Defendants’ workers filling the garage and common arcas with discarded, broken, and filthy 3 || furniture. It took months of complaining before Defendants made any effort to clear cither arca. 4 47. On or around February 5, 2019, Plaintiff TIGHE wrote to Defendant RANDALL 5 || WHITNEY asking that the non-locking, collapsing gatc to the backyard be fixcd. Plaintiff 6 || HAAR cchocd similar complaints, but a repair attempt was not made until May 2020. 7 48. The Subject Property’s backstairs have becn in a dangcrous state of disrepair for 8 || years. The stairs shook when walked on and looked as if they could collapse at any moment. At 9 || onc point during Plaintiffs’ tenancy, onc of Defendant KOBIE LYON’s workers ripped out 10 || rotting wood from the basc board, Icaving the stair without support on onc side. It took wecks 11 || before the stairs were replaced, but cven then, the work was conducted by unlicensed day 12 |} laborers without city permits. Latcr, onc of Defendant’s workers carved out an arca of dry rot 13 |} underneath the stairs. Instead of then filling in the gaps in the wood created by his work, the 14 || worker left the stairs in a dangcrous state of disrepair. 15 HARASSMENT 16 49. Plaintiff HAAR’s and Plaintiff TIGHE’s repair requests were mct with 17 || harassment and demands to vacate. For cxamplc, in February 2019, after Plaintiff TIGHE 18 || complaincd about the lack of heat and a power failure at the property, Defendant LAURA 19 || LYONS told Plaintiff TIGHE to move out. When Plaintiff TIGHE cxpressed her fear regarding 20 || this threat to Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY, his response was, “Don’t worry... [Defendant 21 || LAURA LYONS] lashes out and apologizes later... a lot.” In April 2019, Defendant LAURA 22 || LYONS left Plaintiff HAAR a voicemail in responsc to him raising the property’s lack of heat, 23 || attempted to humiliate him by referencing his “broken marriage”, and told him that he is free to 24 || Icave since she misled him regarding the heat. 25 50. In November 2019, when Plaintiff TIGHE complained that the power had gonc 26 || out yct again and that duc to the lack of heat she was going out to her car to get warm, Defendant 27 || RANDALL WHITNEY responded, “I can’t control the weather.” Later that month, when 28 || Defendant KOBIE LYONS had taken over the property, Defendant RANDALL WHITNEY told COMPLAINT - 9 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg15/28 1 || Plaintiff TIGHE, in response to complaints regarding habitability defects, “Your rent is quitc 2 || low. That’s a problem for the new landlord. And remember, your lease is month-to-month.” 3 51. In December 2020, after Plaintiff HAAR made complaints about habitability 4 || defects to Defendant KOBIE LYONS, Defendant KOBIE LYONS responded, “If you don’t like 5 || the way I manage my property, you are free to leave. This isn’t the Hotcl California.” Defendant 6 || KOBIE LYONS then threatened Plaintiff HAAR with cviction, saying, “All this work you arc 7 || asking to gct donc is going to make me go for the nuclear option. I’m going to have to move into 8 || the building to manage this work, and the unit I move into will be yours.” 9 52. | When Plaintiff TIGHE cxpressed that she was scared, as a seventy-five-ycar-old 10 |} woman living alone, to live in a frigid apartment with malfunctioning clectricity, Defendant 11 ||KOBIE LYONS callously responded “Lots of people live in the dark.” 12 53. On May 26, 2021, after Plaintiff TIGHE had moved out of Unit 465, Plaintiff 13 || TIGHE visited the property to spend time with Plaintiff HAAR and some other friends. 14 || Unfortunatcly, her time was cut short when Defendants’ agent approached Plaintiff TIGHE and 15 |} told her to leave the Subject Property immediatcly. Plaintiffs were stunned and humiliated. 16 || Defendants had no Icgal justification to prevent Plaintiff TIGHE from visiting her fricnds at the 17 || property, or to prevent Plaintiff HAAR from having invited guests. Fearing for her safcty, 18 || Plaintiff TIGHE was shaken by the experience. 19 CONSTRUCTIVE/WRONGFUL EVICTION FROM UNIT 465 20 54. In late-February 2021, after cnduring severe habitability defects, cmpty promises 21 || of repairs, harassment, and demands to vacate, Plaintiff TIGHE provided notice that she would 22 || vacate. In late March 2021, she vacated the Subject Property. Plaintiff TIGHE, at seventy-five 23 || years old, had hoped that Unit 465 would be her home for the remainder of her life. 24 55. Plaintiff TIGHE’s forced move from the Subject Property and Defendants’ 25 || unlawful conduct caused Plaintiff TIGHE to suffer cmotionally and physically, including but not 26 || limited to cxpericncing anguish, inconvenicnec, annoyance, anxicty, slecplessness, loss of 27 || enjoyment of life, stress, worry, and humiliation. 28 |] /// COMPLAINT - 10 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg16/28 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE 2 BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 3 56. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all foregoing paragraphs. 4 57. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care as landlords and managers of residential] 5 || property. 6 58. | Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to repair the 7 || aforementioned habitability defects in Unit 463 and Unit 465 throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancy, 8 || harassing Plaintiffs, wrongfully cvicting Plaintiff TIGHE without just causc in violation of the 9 || Oakland Rent Ordinance, influencing Plaintiff TIGHE to vacate her rental unit through fraud, 10 |} intimidation, and cocrcion, trespassing in Unit 465 after wrongfully cvicting Plaintiff TIGHE, 11 || wrongfully depriving an cldcr of her property rights, and giving Plaintiff TIGHE no choice but to} 12 || vacate. 13 59. Defendants’ acts and omissions were in violation of the following state and local 14 || laws: 15 a. Civil Code scction 1927, prohibiting landlord infringement of quict cnjoyment; 16 b. Civil Code section 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code section 17920.3, defining 17 minimum requirements for a habitable building; 18 c. Civil Code scction 1942.4, prohibiting landlords from demanding or collccting 19 rent after the issuance of a notice of violation; 20 d. Civil Code scction 1954, prohibiting landlord trespass; 21 c. Fair Employment and Housing Act section 12955, prohibiting housing 22 discrimination on the basis of marital status, familial status, and disability; 23 f. Oakland Rent Ordinance scction 8.22.360, prohibiting a landlord from 24 endeavoring to recover posscssion or recovcring posscssion of a rental unit in the 25 City of Oakland unlcss the landlord has a Icgitimate just cause for eviction; 26 g. Oakland Tenant Protection Ordinance scction 8.22.640, prohibiting tenant 27 harassment, including by failing to provide housing services required by contract 28 or by Statc, County or municipal housing, health, or safcty laws; failing to COMPLAINT - 11 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg17/28 1 perform required repairs and/or maintenance; influcncing Plaintiffs to vacate their 2 rental units through fraud, intimidation, and cocrcion; abusing Defendants’ right 3 of access to Plaintiffs’ units; and other acts amounting to tenant harassment; and 4 h. Welfare and Institutions Code scction 15610.30, prohibiting financial clder abusc. 5 60. These statutes arc designed to protect Plaintiffs from the very harms complaincd 6 || about herein. All these laws were in effect at all relevant times. 7 61. | Defendants’ violations of thesc law were a substantial factor in causing harm to 8 || Plaintiffs. 9 62. Plaintiffs suffered from scrious cmotional distress, including anguish, 10 || inconvenience, annoyance, anxicty, slecplessncss, loss of enjoyment of life, stress, worry, and 11 ||} humiliation. The cmotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs was sufficicntly severe that an 12 || ordinary person would have been unable to deal with it. 13 63. As aproximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their duty and obligations under 14 || the above-mentioned laws, Plaintiffs suffered from a lcaschold worth substantially less than rent 15 || paid, bodily injury, property damage, propcrty loss, out-of-pockct expenses, loss of usc and 16 || enjoyment of their rental unit, loss of a rent-controlled unit, attorney fees and costs, and moving 17 || costs. 18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION 19 IN VIOLATION OF THE OAKLAND RENT ORDINANCE 20 BY PLAINTIFF TIGHE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 21 64. Plaintiff TIGHE re-alleges and incorporates by reference all forcgoing 22 || paragraphs. 23 65. Under section 8.22.360 of the Oakland Rent Ordinance, a landlord shall not 24 || endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit unless the landlord has a legitimate just causc for 25 || eviction. The Oakland Rent Ordinance cnumcrates only cleven just causcs. 26 66. Section 8.22.370 of the Oakland Rent Ordinance provides that whenever a 27 || landlord endeavors to recover possession of a dwelling unit in violation of Scction 8.22.360, the 28 || tenant may suc for not less than three times actual damages, attorncy fecs, and whatever other COMPLAINT - 12 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg18/28 1 ||relicf the court decms appropriate. 2 67. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff TIGHE suffered from 3 || severe cmotional distress, including but not limited to, anguish, inconvenicncc, annoyance, 4 || anxicty, sleeplessness, loss of enjoyment of lifc, stress, worry, and humiliation. 5 68. As aproximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged hercin, Plaintiff 6 || TIGHE was forced out of Unit 465 and has incurred damages, including loss of her rental unit, 7 || bodily injury, moving costs, property loss, property damage, cmotional distress, out-of-pocket 8 || cxpenscs, statutory damages, attorncy fecs and costs, and treble damages. 9 69. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive, and Defendants acted with 10 || knowing or reckless disregard of Plaintiff TIGHE’s rights under the Rent Ordinance. As a result, 11 || Plaintiff TIGHE is entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof and to the 12 || trebling of damages awardcd for Plaintiff TIGHE’s cmotional distress. 13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION 14 BY PLAINTIFF TIGHE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 15 70. ~~ Plaintiff TIGHE re-alleges and incorporates by reference all forcgoing 16 || paragraphs. 17 71. Defendants owed a duty of care as managers and owncrs of residential rental 18 || property. 19 72. Defendants breached that duty by failing to make repairs to and failing to 20 || maintain Plaintiff TIGHE’s unit in habitable condition, harassing Plaintiff TIGHE, and giving 21 || Plaintiff TIGHE no other choice but to vacate. 22 73. Defendants’ acts and omissions were disturbances and/or interferences with 23 || Plaintiff TIGHE’s possession of the premiscs and rendered the premises unfit for the purposcs 24 || for which it was lcased or had the cffect of depriving Plaintiff TIGHE of the beneficial 25 || enjoyment or use of the premiscs. 26 TA. As arcsult of Defendants’ actions and omissions, Plaintiff TIGHE was forced to 27 || vacate the Subject Property. 28 75. Plaintiff TIGHE vacated her unit within a reasonable period of time after COMPLAINT - 13 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg19/28 1 || Defendants’ acts and omissions rendered her premiscs unfit for the purposes for which thcy were 2 || Icased. 3 76. As a proximate result of the constructive cviction, Plaintiff TIGHE suffered from 4 || moncy damages, property loss, property damage, cmotional distress, mental injury, bodily and 5 || personal injury, loss of usc and enjoyment of her rental home, moving costs, and attorncy feces 6 || and costs. 7 77. Defendants’ conduct warrants an award of punitive damages because Defendants 8 || were willful, malicious, and oppressive. 9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TENANT HARASSMENT 10 IN VIOLATION OF THE OAKLAND TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE ll BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 12 78. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all forcgoing paragraphs. 13 79. Under section 8.22.640 of the Tenant Protection Ordinance, no landlord or agent 14 || ofa landlord shall harass a tenant in bad faith. 15 80. Defendants violated section 8.22.640 of the Tenant Protection Ordinance by 16 || failing to provide housing services required by contract or by Statc, County or municipal 17 || housing, health, or safety laws and by failing to perform required repairs and/or maintenance. 18 81. Defendants violated section 8.22.640 of the Tenant Protection Ordinance by 19 || influencing Plaintiffs to vacate their units through fraud, intimidation, or cocrcion, including by 20 || telling Plaintiffs to vacate without providing a just cause for cviction, and by committing other 21 || acts amounting to harassment. 22 82. Defendants did these acts with the intent to cause Plaintiffs to vacate their units. 23 83. Plaintiff TIGHE did vacate Subject Unit 465, at least in part, duc to Defendants’ 24 || harassment. 25 84. Defendants did thesc acts in bad faith and knowing violation of the Rent 26 || Ordinance. 27 85. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from severe 28 || cmotional distress, including but not limited to, anguish, inconvenicncc, annoyance, anxicty, COMPLAINT - 14 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg20/28 1 || sleeplessness, loss of enjoyment of lifc, stress, worry, and humiliation. 2 86. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered from a lcaschold 3 || worth substantially less than rent paid, bodily injury, property damage, property loss, cmotional 4 || distress, loss of use and enjoyment of their rental home, loss of a rental unit, moving costs, 5 || attorney fees and costs, statutory damages, and treble damages. 6 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT 7 BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST LANDLORD DEFENDANTS 8 87. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 9 88. — Implicd in Plaintiffs’ residential lease agrecment is an implicd warranty of 10 || habitability and an implicd covenant of quict enjoyment, wherein Landlord Defendants promised 11 |} to inspect and maintain Unit 463 and Unit 465 in clean, safc, and habitable condition and to 12 || provide Plaintiffs quict enjoyment of their respective units. 13 89. Landlord Defendants breached the implicd warranty of habitability and the 14 ||implicd covenant of quite cnjoyment by failing to inspect and maintain Unit 463 and Unit 465 in 15 ||a clean, safc, and habitable condition, tclling Plaintiffs to vacate without just causc, trespassing 16 |} in Plaintiffs’ units, harassing Plaintiffs in violation of the Oakland Rent Ordinance, and giving 17 || Plaintiffs no other choice but to vacate the Subject Property. 18 90. ‘Plaintiffs met all their obligations under the Icasc. 19 91. Plaintiffs notified Landlord Defendants and/or their agent(s) of all the repair 20 |/issucs at their units. In addition, Landlord Defendants actually knew or could have known with 21 || reasonable diligence about all the repair issucs in and around Unit 463 and Unit 465. 22 92. Landlord Defendants ignored all repair issucs, failed to repair or timely repair the 23 || issucs, or negligently repaired the issucs. 24 93. Landlord Defendants forced Plaintiffs to live in uninhabitable conditions despite 25 || having the financial ability to remedy the repair issucs. 26 94, As a proximate result of Landlord Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs suffered from a 27 || Icaschold worth substantially less than rent paid, property loss, property damage, out-of-pockct 28 || expenses, and loss of usc and cnjoyment of their rental homes. COMPLAINT - 15 09/07/21 04:03PM PDT °'4154183492' -> 5102671546 Pg21/28 1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE 2 BY PLAINTIFF TIGHE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 3 95. Plaintiff TIGHE re-alleges and incorporates by reference all forcgoing 4 || paragraphs. 5 96. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff TIGHE as landlords, property 6 || managers, and/or agents of landlords or property managers of real property who collected rental 7 || moncy from Plaintiff TIGHE in exchange for providing housing to Plaintiffs. Dcfcndants all 8 || profited from the elder abuse of Plaintiff TIGHE. 9 97. Plaintiff TIGHE is seventy-five ycars old. 10 98. The Eldcr Abuse Act, specifically Welfare and Institutions Codc scction 15610.30 11 || prohibits the financial abuse of cldcrly individuals. Under the Elder Abuse Act, a person or 12 || entity commits financial abusc against an cldcr by taking, sccrcting, appropriating, obtaining, or 13 || retaining an clder’s real property. Under the Elder Abuse Act, a person or entity takes, scerctes, 14 || appropriates, obtains, or retains real property when an clder is deprived of any property right. 15 99. Defendants violated the Elder Abuse Act by willfully and consciously depriving 16 || Plaintiff TIGHE of her property rights to use and cnjoy her rented residential unit. 17 100. Defendant KOBIE LYONS told Plaintiff TIGHE to vacate her unit if she was 18 |} unhappy about the habitability defects. Defendants repeatedly made harassing comments to 19 || Plaintiff TIGHE with the intention of driving her out of her rental unit. Defendants willfully and 20 || consciously deprived Plainti