Preview
FILED BY FAX
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Andrew Wolff, Esq. (SBN 195092)
pe
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC September 23, 2021
1615 Broadway, 4th Floor CLERK OF
THE SUPERIOR COURT
Oakland, California 94612 By Milagros Cortez, Deputy
Telephone: (510) 834-3300
CASE NUMBER:
Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
Email: andrew @awolfflaw.com
RG21114178
info@awolfflaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12
TONYA CONEY, Case No.:
13
14 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; DEMAND FOR
is vs. JURY TRIAL
16
JOSELITO TABLANTE, SR., individually and
1? as Trustee of Joselito Tablante, Sr. & Crisanith
Tablante Trust; CRISANITH TABLANTE,
18 individually and as Trustee of Joselito Tablante,
Sr. & Crisanith Tablante Trust; and DOES 1-30,
inclusive,
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28 Plaintiff TONYA CONEY (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:
Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 1
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
et
1. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was a competent adult. Plaintiff resided in
the city of Oakland, County of Alameda, and State of California.
2, Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, defendants JOSELITO
TABLANTE, SR., individually and as Trustee of Joselito Tablante, Sr. & Crisanith Tablante
Trust; CRISANITH TABLANTE, individually and as Trustee of Joselito Tablante, Sr. &
Crisanith Tablante Trust; and DOES 1-30 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”),
owned, controlled, and/or managed the unit that Plaintiff resided in during all relevant time
periods in this complaint.
12 3. Defendants DOES 1-30 are individuals, business entities, non-profit
13
corporations, other organizations and entities, and/or alter egos of other defendants, doing
14
business in the County of Alameda and/or contracted to do work in the County of Alameda.
is
4, Plaintiff is further informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times
16
i? relevant herein, named defendants and defendants sued as DOES 1-30 were the agents,
18 employees, and representatives of their fellow co-defendants, and in doing the things alleged in
19
this complaint, were acting within the course and scope of that agency and employment, and,
20
therefore, are vicariously liable for the acts of each other. Each act was ratified by each other
22
defendant. Each defendant is liable, in whole or in part, for Plaintiff’s damages and injuries.
23 5. Plaintiff does not know the true names of defendants sued, as DOES 1-30, but
24
will seek leave to amend this complaint when Plaintiff discovers the identity of any of the
25
Defendants now sued under the fictitious names DOES 1-30.
26
6. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, Defendants were negligently
27
28 and legally responsible for the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, and for Plaintiff’s damages
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 2
and injuries.
et
7. This Court is the proper court because Defendants do business in its
jurisdictional area. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s jurisdictional
area. The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s
jurisdictional area. The breach of contract causes are founded upon a contract entered into
within this Court’s jurisdictional area. The contractual obligations were to be performed within
this Court’s jurisdictional area.
wo
8. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times,
10
ii Defendants were Plaintiff’s landlords, and Plaintiff was the tenant of Defendants as those terms
12 “landlord” and “tenant” are defined under California common law, under California Code of
13
Civil Procedure sections 1161 et seq., and under California Civil Code section 1980.
14
9. On or about June 2009, Plaintiff, as tenant, and defendants, as owner and/or
is
landlord and/or lessor, entered into a written rental agreement to rent the premises located at
16
i? 10801 Foothill Blvd., Apt. A, Oakland, California 94605, to Plaintiff. Such address is
18 hereinafter referred to as “Subject Premises.” The material terms of this residential rental
19
agreement required Plaintiff to pay monthly rent of $1,400.00 and a security deposit of
20
$1,700.00. A true and correct copy of this agreement is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A.
22
10. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were the owners and/or property
23 managers or the agents, employees, and/or representatives of the owners and/or property
24
managers of the Subject Premises.
25
11. Since becoming owners and/or property managers or the agents and/or
26
employees of the owners and/or property managers of the Subject Premises, Defendants have
27
28 allowed the Subject Premises to contain several substantial habitability defects, which rendered
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 3
it unfit for human occupancy under California common law and statutes. The defects were due
et
to Defendants’ failure to maintain the Subject Premises. These substantial habitability defects
constituted violations of applicable housing laws, including but not limited to California Civil
Code sections 1941.1, California Health and Safety Code sections 17920 et seq., and local
housing and building codes.
12. At all times relevant herein, substantial defective conditions within and related to
the Subject Premises include, but are not limited to, the following: inadequate/defective wiring,
wo
mold/mildew, defective plumbing, water leaks intrusions, defective stove, and general
10
ii dilapidation and lack of maintenance. These defects were severe and longstanding. These
12 defects resulted in injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
13
13. Defendants were on notice of the aforementioned defects. For example, Plaintiff
14
sent several repair requests to Defendants to have the aforementioned defects remedied. Plaintiff
is
complained both, verbally and in writing. Further, the defective conditions were severe and
16
i? longstanding such that Defendants would have noticed them had they conducted a reasonable
18 inspection of the Subject Premises.
19
14. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges, Defendants violated California Health
20
and Safety Code section 17920.3 because they allowed the Subject Premises to contain general
22
dilapidation and improper maintenance, constitute a nuisance, and to be substandard in every
23 way identified herein and as defined by applicable statutes, including Section 17920.3.
24
15. Despite Defendants having adequate opportunity and notice to repair said
25
defects prior to Plaintiff filing this complaint. Defendants failed and refused to repair the defects
26
existing in the Subject Premises.
27
28 16. Defendants have also engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 4
towards Plaintiff, which included, but was not limited to, the following: refusing to repair
et
substantial habitability defects; turning off utilities to Plaintiff’s unit.
17. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, Defendants engaged in the
aforementioned neglect, retaliation, harassment and intimidation, to make Plaintiff’s life at the
Subject Premises as uncomfortable as possible such that she would eventually move-out.
18. On or about Ocotber 10, 2019, a fire broke out at the subject premises due to
defective stove. The fire damaged subject premises and rendered the unit completely
uninhabitable and Plaintiff was displaced from the unit. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
relocation payments. Moreover, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with a move-back option
12 when the unit became available.
13
19. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort
14
and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property,
15
overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses, due to both Defendants’ acts and omissions
16
i? and the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises.
18 20. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages below.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ.
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
23
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
24
25
22. Plaintiff made requests for repairs and reported uninhabitable conditions to
26 Defendants. However, these requests were ignored, refused, denied, or inadequately addressed.
27
This resulted in Defendants failing to provide and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable
28
condition.
Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial §
23. Defendants had an obligation pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1941 et
be
seq., and common law, to provide and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable condition.
Under these obligations, Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiff to use due care to provide
and maintain a habitable premises. Defendants breached their legal duty to Plaintiff by making
inadequate repairs, by failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary
repairs to the Subject Premises after they both knew and should have known of the poor
conditions existing at the Subject Premises.
24. The defective conditions were substantial. Defendants’ breaches of their legal
duty caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort
12 and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property,
13
overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages in amounts to be proven at
14
trial. Defendants’ breaches were both, actual and legal causes of Plaintiff’s complained of
15
injuries and damages. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on their damages.
16
i? 25. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
CONTRACTUAL BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ.
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
23
27. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a written rental agreement to lease the
24
25
Subject Premises. Every lease for residential property contains an implied warranty of
26 habitability.
27
28. During Plaintiff’s tenancy and prior to filing this complaint, Plaintiff performed
28
her obligations or was excused from performing obligations under the written rental agreement.
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 6
29. Here, Defendants breached said agreements by making inadequate repairs, by
et
failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary repairs to the Subject
Premises after they knew and should have known of the poor conditions of the Subject
Premises.
30. Defendants further breached the rental agreement on multiple occasions by
collecting rent from Plaintiff to which Defendants were not entitled because of the substantial
habitability defects.
31. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages, including
overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to
12 be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages.
13
32. | Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
14
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
15 BREACH OF CONTRACT
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3300 ET SEQ.
16
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
i?
33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
18
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
34. Defendants were obligated to perform under the terms of their rental agreement
with Plaintiff. Plaintiff performed, or was excused from performing, her obligations under the
22
rental agreements. A covenant to provide a habitable premises and a covenant of good faith and
23
fair dealing are contained in every residential rental agreement in the State of California.
24
25
35. Regarding the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendants made an
26 implied promise not to do anything that would unfairly interfere with Plaintiff’s rights to
27
receives benefits under the residential rental agreement. Defendants also made an implied
28
promise not to mislead or take unfair advantage of Plaintiff.
Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 7
36. Furthermore, Defendants warranted that the Subject Premises was in a habitable
be
condition at the time of entering into each agreement.
37. Defendants breached the terms of each agreement on multiple occasions during
the period preceding the filing of this complaint by failing to make requested repairs, failing to
provide a habitable premises to Plaintiff, and collecting rent without repairing habitability
defects at the Subject Premises after being given notice and reasonable opportunity to do so.
Defendants also failed to reasonably inspect the Subject Premises for defects, including health
and safety hazards. Defendants also failed to warn and protect Plaintiff from harm due to the
aforementioned defective conditions, and health and safety hazards.
12 38. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages including over-
13
payment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be
14
ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages.
15
39. | Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
16
i? FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
18 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1927
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
22
41. Every residential rental agreement includes the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
23
This covenant prohibits lessors and landlords from taking actions and inactions that diminish
24
25
Plaintiff’s beneficial enjoyment of the Subject Premises. The covenant also places on lessors
26 and landlords, an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment
27
of the Subject Premises from interference by other persons on or about the Subject Premises.
28
42. Defendants, by and through the acts and omissions alleged herein, breached the
Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 8
covenant of quiet enjoyment. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the
et
Subject Premises by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions to exist after both,
knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these conditions.
43. Defendants also breached Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment by engaging in a pattern of
harassment, intimidation and retaliation towards Plaintiff, as alleged throughout this complaint.
44, — Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages including
overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to
be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages.
45. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PRIVATE NUISANCE
13
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3501 ET SEQ.
14 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
15 46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
16
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
i?
47. Defendants owned, controlled and/or managed the Subject Premises.
18
48. Defendants created a nuisance on the Subject Premises by interfering with
Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment, by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions, and others,
to exist after being knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these
22
defective conditions.
23
49, These conditions were harmful to Plaintiff’s health, offensive to her senses, and
24
25
an obstruction to her free use of the Subject Premises, which substantially interfered with the
26 comfortable enjoyment of Plaintiff’s life and property.
27
50. Plaintiff made several complaints to Defendants regarding the uninhabitable
28
conditions of the Subject Premises. Plaintiff complained of these and other disturbances to her
Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr., et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 9
possession and quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Defendants failed and refused to repair
et
the defective conditions of the Subject Premises. Defendants’ failure to make repairs was
intentional and unreasonable because Defendants knew of the defects, and still failed and
refused to make repairs. In the alternative, Defendants’ conduct was negligent and/or reckless.
31. Any reasonable person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by
Defendants’ conduct.
52. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. As a direct and proximate result
of the aforementioned defective conditions, Plaintiff was harmed. Plaintiff suffered injuries and
damages, including the following: emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, loss of use,
12 bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of
13
rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiff is
14
also seeking statutorily authorized interest on her damages.
15
53. The harm to Plaintiff outweighs any potential benefit, if any, of Defendants’
16
i? conduct.
18 54. | Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
19
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 PREMISES LIABILITY
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1714
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
22
35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
23
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
24
25
56. Defendants owned, controlled, and/or managed the Subject Premises. Plaintiff
26 suffered injuries and damages because of the way Defendants owned, controlled, and/or
27
managed the Subject Premises.
28
57. As tenants, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care that included maintaining
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 10
the Subject Premises and performing repairs in a reasonable and safe manner.
et
58. The Subject Premises contained substantial habitability defects, which included,
but were not limited to, the following: inadequate/defective wiring, mold/miidew, defective
plumbing, water leaks intrusions, defective stove and general dilapidation and lack of
maintenance.
59. Defendants knew and should have known about the aforementioned substantial
habitability defects, and that exposure to these defective conditions posed a risk of injuries and
wo
damages to Plaintiff. For example, Plaintiff complained to Defendants about the aforementioned
10
ii defective conditions. Moreover, a reasonable inspection would have revealed the
12 aforementioned defective conditions.
13
60. After Defendants knew and should have known of the aforementioned defects,
14
Defendants failed and refused to repair the defective conditions. Defendants also had the ability
is
and opportunity to warn Plaintiff about the defective conditions, including the risk of injuries
16
i? and damages, but did not do so.
18 61. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ negligence. At a
19
minimum, Defendants were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
20
62. Plaintiffs injuries and damages included the following: emotional distress,
22
discomfort and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal
23 property, overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiff is seeking statutorily
24
authorized interest on her damages.
25
63. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
26
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
27
NEGLIGENCE
28 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
64. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial il
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
et
65. Defendants owed a duty of care to maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable
condition, and not violate Plaintiff’s rights. When Defendants knew and should have known of
the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises, Defendants had a duty to take action
such as repairing the defective conditions.
66. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff by failing to maintain the Subject
Premises, and by failing to repair the aforementioned defective conditions.
wo
67. Defendants also breached their duties by retaliating against Plaintiff for
10
ii exercising her rights as described above.
12 68. Defendants violated California Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 because
13
Defendants intentionally and/or negligently failed and refused to remedy the defective,
14
dilapidated, and appalling conditions at the Subject Premises.
is
69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered
16
i? injuries and damages.
18 70. Plaintiff is also in the class of persons that California Civil Code sections 1941.1,
19
and 1942.5 were intended to protect. The harm that Plaintiff suffered is the kind that California
20
Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 was designed to prevent. Defendants violated these
22
statutes by failing and refusing to repair defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises.
23 Defendants’ conduct constitutes a breach of said statutes. Therefore, Defendants’ statutory
24
breaches constitute negligence per se.
25
71. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of Defendants,
26
Plaintiff suffered harm, including emotional distress, physical discomfort and annoyance, bodily
27
28 injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent, out-
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 12
of-pocket expenses, and other injuries and damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiff
et
also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages.
72, Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
OAKLAND JUST CAUSE ORDINANCE
VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 8.22.300 ET SEQ.
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
73. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
the proceeding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein.
74. Asatenant of residential property located in Oakland, California, and subject to
Oakland Municipal Code Sections 8.22.300 et seq. (the “Just Cause Ordinance”), Plaintiff is
12
entitled to bring an action against all defendants who have violated the Just Cause Ordinance to
13
14 Plaintiff’s detriment.
15 75. The Just Cause Ordinance provides safeguards for Oakland tenants. When a
16
landlord wrongfully endeavors to recover possession of a property in violation of the Just Cause
i?
Ordinance, Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including damages for emotional distress.
18
19
76. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by failing to make repairs to the
20 Subject Premises and by not advising Plaintiff of the Just Cause Ordinance or her right to
contact the City of Oakland Residential Rent Adjustment Program.
22
77. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by unlawfully influencing or
23
attempting to influence Plaintiff to relinquish possession outside of the legal eviction process.
24
25 78. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by wrongfully endeavoring to
26 recover possession of the Subject Premises when Plaintiff exercised his [OR her] rights as a
27
tenant, including demanding repairs.
28
79. Plaintiff also suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ violations.
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 13
Here, Plaintiff’s injuries and damages included emotional distress and out-of-pocket expenses.
et
Plaintiff also suffered rent differential damages.
80. Defendants acted in knowing violation or reckless disregard of the Just Cause
Ordinance, which justifies an award of treble damages to Plaintiff.
81. | Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
OAKLAND TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE
VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 8.22.600 ET SEQ.
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
82. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
proceeding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein.
12
83. Asa tenant of residential property located in Oakland, California, and subject to
13
14 Oakland City Ordinance 8.22.600, et seq. (the “Tenant Protection Ordinance”), Plaintiff is
15 entitled to bring an action against all defendants who have violated the Tenant Protection
16
Ordinance to Plaintiff’s detriment.
i?
84. The Tenant Protection Ordinance provides safeguards for Oakland tenants.
18
When a landlord and property manager, or agent thereof, wrongfully harass their tenant or fails
to provide a habitable premises, Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including damages for
emotional distress.
85. Here, Defendants have violated the Tenant Protection Ordinance by wrongfully
23
endeavoring to recover possession of the Subject Premises, by failing to make repairs to the
24
25
Subject Premises, influencing or attempting to influence Plaintiff to vacate the Subject
26 Premises, substantially interfering with Plaintiff’s rights to quiet use and enjoyment of the
27
Subject Premises, and retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising her rights as a tenant.
28
86. Plaintiff was harmed by these violations in that she suffered emotional distress,
Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 14
bodily injury, pain and suffering, physical discomfort and annoyance, over-payment of rent, loss
oot
of personal property, and out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiff has also been forced to hire an
attorney to enforce her rights.
87. | Defendants acted in knowing violation or reckless disregard of the Tenant
Protection Ordinance, justifying an award of treble damages to Plaintiff.
88. | Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
OAKLAND RESIDENTIAL RENT ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCE
VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 8.22 ET SEQ.
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
89. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
12
the proceeding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein.
13
14 90. As a tenant of residential property located in Oakland, California and subject to
15 Oakland City Ordinance 8.22 et seq. (the “Rent Adjustment Program Ordinance” or “RAP
16
Ordinance”), Plaintiff is entitled to bring an action against all defendants who have violated the
i?
Rent Adjustment Program Ordinance to Plaintiff’s detriment.
18
91. Oakland’s RAP Ordinance provides safeguards for tenants in Oakland. When a
landlord wrongfully increases a tenant’s rent, that tenant is entitled to just compensation,
including damages for overpayment of rent. Pursuant to the RAP Ordinance, Defendants can
only increase Plaintiff’s rent based on the CPI Rent Adjustment or Banking, or by filing a
23
petition to increase rent in excess of that (CPI or Banking) amount.
24
25
92. At all times relevant herein, the Subject Premises was subject to the RAP
26 Ordinance.
27
93. When Plaintiff’s tenancy began, Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff about the
28
existence and scope of the RAP Ordinance.
Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 15
94. Defendants increased Plaintiff’s rent in excess of the permissible rent increase
et
based on a CPI Rent Adjustment and Banking. In addition, the Rent Adjustment Program did
not approve Defendants’ rent increases. Therefore, the rent increases are void and
unenforceable.
95. In addition, Defendants failed and refused to make repairs at the Subject
Premises, which constitutes a decrease in housing services. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and
alleges, the decrease in housing services constitutes a rent increase pursuant to Section
8.22.070(F) of the RAP Ordinance.
96. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ violations.
12 97. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
13
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14 OAKLAND UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL TENANT RELOCATION ORDINANCE
VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 8.22.800 ET SEQ.
15 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
16
98. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
i?
proceeding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein.
18
99. Asa tenant of residential property located in Oakland, California, and subject to
Oakland City Ordinance 8.22.800, et seq. (“Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation
Ordinance”), Plaintiff is entitled to bring an action against all Defendants who have violated the
Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance to Plaintiff’s detriment.
23
100. The Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance requires landlords to
24
25
provide relocation payments to their tenants when an event or vacancy triggers a tenant’s right
26 to relocation payments. Additionally, when a member of the tenant household is low income,
27
elderly, disabled, and/or a minor, landlords are required to make an additional relocation
28
payment.
Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 16
101. Here, Plaintiff was displaced from the Subject Premises due to a Qualifying
oot
Relocation Event, as those terms are defined in the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation
Ordinance. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was entitled to relocation payments pursuant to
the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance. Defendants were required to make
relocation payments to Plaintiff but failed and refused to do so.
102. When a landlord or agent refuses to make relocation payments, tenants like
Plaintiff can file a civil action to recover the relocation payment, plus an equal amount as
damages.
103. In addition, Defendants failed and refused to make the relocation payments in
12 bad faith. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to the relocation payments plus three times the amount
13
of the relocation payments.
14
104. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Uniform
15
Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance.
16
i? 105. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
18 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
OAKLAND CODE COMPLIANCE RELOCATION PROGRAM
VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 15.60 ET SEQ.
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
106, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the
proceeding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein.
23
107. Asa tenant of residential property located in Oakland, California, and subject to
24
25
Oakland City Ordinance 15.60 et seq. (“Code Compliance Relocation Program’), Plaintiff is
26 entitled to bring an action against all Defendants who have violated the Code Compliance
27
Relocation Program to Plaintiff’s detriment.
28
108. The Code Compliance Relocation Program requires landlords to provide
Tonya Coney vy. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 17
relocation payments to residential tenants who are displaced due to compliance with building,
et
housing and/or fire codes. Additionally, when a member of the tenant household is low income,
elderly, disabled, and/or a minor, landlords are required to make an additional relocation
payment.
109. Here, Plaintiff was displaced from the Subject Premises due to code compliance
activities concerning the Subject Premises, which included but was not limited to substantial
defective conditions affecting habitability. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was entitled to
relocation payments pursuant to the Code Compliance Relocation Program. Defendants were
required to make relocation payments to Plaintiff but failed and refused to do so.
12 110. When a landiord refuses to make relocation payments, tenants like Plaintiff can
13
file a civil action to recover damages.
14
111. In addition, Defendants willfully failed and refused to make the relocation
is
payments. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to trebie damages.
16
i? 112. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Code
18 Compliance Relocation Program Ordinance.
19
113. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
20
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATORY EVICTION
22
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
23 114. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
24
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
25
115. Plaintiff consistently exercised her rights to inform Defendants about the above-
26
mentioned habitability defects, which also constituted a nuisance and breach of Plaintiff’s quiet
27
28 enjoyment. In response to Plaintiff making complaints about habitability defects, Defendants
harassed, intimidated, retaliated, and, ultimately, evicted Plaintiff.
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr., et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 18
116. Plaintiff was within her rights to make the aforementioned requests and
et
complaints and is, and was, protected under the laws of California from being retaliated against
for making said requests and complaints.
117. Within 180 days of Plaintiff exercising her rights, Defendants wrongfully
endeavored to recover possession.
118. Defendants’ dominant motive in engaging in the aforementioned misconduct was
to retaliate against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity and lawfully exercising her rights
as a tenant.
119. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ retaliatory eviction, Plaintiff
12 suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, rent
13
differential, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial.
14
120. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
is
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16
CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
i? (Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
18 121. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
19
the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
20
122. Due to the landlord-tenant relationship, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to
22
exercise reasonable care in the ownership, management, and control of the Subject Premises.
23 Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty not to unreasonably interfere with Plaintiff’s quiet use and
24
enjoyment. Defendants also had a duty to maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable
25
condition.
26
123. Contrary to Defendants’ duties, Defendants failed to make repairs, and,
27
28 ultimately, failed to properly manage and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 19
condition.
et
124. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct, Defendants deprived
Plaintiff of her rights to peaceable and quiet possession of the Subject Premises. Defendants
constructively evicted Plaintiff from the Subject Premises. That is, through Defendants’
misconduct, they terminated Plaintiff’s tenancy without good cause, and in violation of the
rental agreement.
125. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ constructive eviction, Plaintiff
suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, rent
differential, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial.
12 126. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
13
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14 UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
15 SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ.
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
16
i? 127. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
18 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
128. By reason of Defendants’ failure to comply with state and local laws for the
management of real property, Defendants’ conduct constitutes an unfair business practice under
22
California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and 17500 et seq.
23 129. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, it is the regular practice of
24
Defendants to intentionally disregard the rights of tenants and violate applicable laws relating to
25
tenancies in their buildings in ways that include, but are not limited to, failing to provide quiet
26
enjoyment, retaliating against tenants, and allowing the defects identified herein to continue to
27
28 exist despite having adequate opportunity to remediate said defects.
130. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were conducting business under the laws
Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 20
of the State of California, the County of Alameda, and City of Oakland. In conducting said
et
business, Defendants were obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California, the
County of Alameda, and the City of Oakland.
131. As adirect and proximate resuit of Defendants’ conduct, Defendants have
accrued unjust enrichment.
132. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for an order for restitution requiring Defendants to
restore to Plaintiff, all money obtained from Plaintiff, including but not limited to, all monthly
rent payments.
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RETALIATION
12 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1942.5
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
13
14 133. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of
15 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
16
134. Plaintiff made requests for repairs and complained about habitability defects
i?
existing at the Subject Premises to Defendants. In particular, Plaintiff consistently her rights to
18
inform Defendants about the above-mentioned nuisance and breach of Plaintiff’s quiet
enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Plaintiff was within her rights to make the aforementioned
requests for repairs and complaints and are, and were, protected from being retaliated against
22
for making these requests and complaints.
23
135. Plaintiff was not in default as to rent payments. Further, Plaintiff is informed,
24
25
believes, and alleges, no rent was owed because the substantial habitability defects negated rent
26 for each month.
27
136. Defendants violated Section 1942.5 because they decreased services such as
28
repairs; recovered possession. Defendants continually denied repairs and maintenance at the
Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr., et al.
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 21
Subject Premises, and common areas, for the stated reason of retaliating against Plaintiff for
et
engaging in protected activity.
137. Defendants engaged in the aforementioned conduct within 180 days of Plaintiff
complaining to Defendants about habitability defects.
138. The aforementioned retaliatory conduct constitutes harassment and intimidation.
Further, Defendants engaged in the aforementioned retaliatory conduct for the stated reason of
retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising her rights, which included, but were not limited to, the
wo
following: making complaints about tenantability; organizing as tenants to resist Defendants’
10
1i efforts to deprive Plaintiff of beneficial use and enjoyment; and demanding respect and
12 accountability from Defendants.
13
139. Plaintiff suffered actual damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Defendants are
14
also liable for punitive damages.
is
140. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below.
16
i? CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
(Plaintiff v. All Defendants)
18
141. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this claim for exemplary damages, the
19
20 allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein.
142, Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiff’s rights and retaliated against Plaintiff
22
for enforcing her rights as tenants.
23
143. Defendants’ actions were willful and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
24
25
rights. Such willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights justifies an award of punitive
26 damages because Defendants’ conduct was oppressive and malicious as defined by California
27
Civil Code section 3294, The willful failure and refusal to repair longstanding defects existing
28
in Plaintiff’s units also merits an a
Preview
FILED BY FAX ALAMEDA COUNTY Andrew Wolff, Esq. (SBN 195092) pe LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC September 23, 2021 1615 Broadway, 4th Floor CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Oakland, California 94612 By Milagros Cortez, Deputy Telephone: (510) 834-3300 CASE NUMBER: Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 Email: andrew @awolfflaw.com RG21114178 info@awolfflaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 12 TONYA CONEY, Case No.: 13 14 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; DEMAND FOR is vs. JURY TRIAL 16 JOSELITO TABLANTE, SR., individually and 1? as Trustee of Joselito Tablante, Sr. & Crisanith Tablante Trust; CRISANITH TABLANTE, 18 individually and as Trustee of Joselito Tablante, Sr. & Crisanith Tablante Trust; and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff TONYA CONEY (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 1 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS et 1. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff was a competent adult. Plaintiff resided in the city of Oakland, County of Alameda, and State of California. 2, Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, defendants JOSELITO TABLANTE, SR., individually and as Trustee of Joselito Tablante, Sr. & Crisanith Tablante Trust; CRISANITH TABLANTE, individually and as Trustee of Joselito Tablante, Sr. & Crisanith Tablante Trust; and DOES 1-30 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), owned, controlled, and/or managed the unit that Plaintiff resided in during all relevant time periods in this complaint. 12 3. Defendants DOES 1-30 are individuals, business entities, non-profit 13 corporations, other organizations and entities, and/or alter egos of other defendants, doing 14 business in the County of Alameda and/or contracted to do work in the County of Alameda. is 4, Plaintiff is further informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times 16 i? relevant herein, named defendants and defendants sued as DOES 1-30 were the agents, 18 employees, and representatives of their fellow co-defendants, and in doing the things alleged in 19 this complaint, were acting within the course and scope of that agency and employment, and, 20 therefore, are vicariously liable for the acts of each other. Each act was ratified by each other 22 defendant. Each defendant is liable, in whole or in part, for Plaintiff’s damages and injuries. 23 5. Plaintiff does not know the true names of defendants sued, as DOES 1-30, but 24 will seek leave to amend this complaint when Plaintiff discovers the identity of any of the 25 Defendants now sued under the fictitious names DOES 1-30. 26 6. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, Defendants were negligently 27 28 and legally responsible for the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, and for Plaintiff’s damages Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 2 and injuries. et 7. This Court is the proper court because Defendants do business in its jurisdictional area. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s jurisdictional area. The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s injuries and damages occurred within this Court’s jurisdictional area. The breach of contract causes are founded upon a contract entered into within this Court’s jurisdictional area. The contractual obligations were to be performed within this Court’s jurisdictional area. wo 8. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times, 10 ii Defendants were Plaintiff’s landlords, and Plaintiff was the tenant of Defendants as those terms 12 “landlord” and “tenant” are defined under California common law, under California Code of 13 Civil Procedure sections 1161 et seq., and under California Civil Code section 1980. 14 9. On or about June 2009, Plaintiff, as tenant, and defendants, as owner and/or is landlord and/or lessor, entered into a written rental agreement to rent the premises located at 16 i? 10801 Foothill Blvd., Apt. A, Oakland, California 94605, to Plaintiff. Such address is 18 hereinafter referred to as “Subject Premises.” The material terms of this residential rental 19 agreement required Plaintiff to pay monthly rent of $1,400.00 and a security deposit of 20 $1,700.00. A true and correct copy of this agreement is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. 22 10. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were the owners and/or property 23 managers or the agents, employees, and/or representatives of the owners and/or property 24 managers of the Subject Premises. 25 11. Since becoming owners and/or property managers or the agents and/or 26 employees of the owners and/or property managers of the Subject Premises, Defendants have 27 28 allowed the Subject Premises to contain several substantial habitability defects, which rendered Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 3 it unfit for human occupancy under California common law and statutes. The defects were due et to Defendants’ failure to maintain the Subject Premises. These substantial habitability defects constituted violations of applicable housing laws, including but not limited to California Civil Code sections 1941.1, California Health and Safety Code sections 17920 et seq., and local housing and building codes. 12. At all times relevant herein, substantial defective conditions within and related to the Subject Premises include, but are not limited to, the following: inadequate/defective wiring, wo mold/mildew, defective plumbing, water leaks intrusions, defective stove, and general 10 ii dilapidation and lack of maintenance. These defects were severe and longstanding. These 12 defects resulted in injuries and damages to Plaintiff. 13 13. Defendants were on notice of the aforementioned defects. For example, Plaintiff 14 sent several repair requests to Defendants to have the aforementioned defects remedied. Plaintiff is complained both, verbally and in writing. Further, the defective conditions were severe and 16 i? longstanding such that Defendants would have noticed them had they conducted a reasonable 18 inspection of the Subject Premises. 19 14. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges, Defendants violated California Health 20 and Safety Code section 17920.3 because they allowed the Subject Premises to contain general 22 dilapidation and improper maintenance, constitute a nuisance, and to be substandard in every 23 way identified herein and as defined by applicable statutes, including Section 17920.3. 24 15. Despite Defendants having adequate opportunity and notice to repair said 25 defects prior to Plaintiff filing this complaint. Defendants failed and refused to repair the defects 26 existing in the Subject Premises. 27 28 16. Defendants have also engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 4 towards Plaintiff, which included, but was not limited to, the following: refusing to repair et substantial habitability defects; turning off utilities to Plaintiff’s unit. 17. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, Defendants engaged in the aforementioned neglect, retaliation, harassment and intimidation, to make Plaintiff’s life at the Subject Premises as uncomfortable as possible such that she would eventually move-out. 18. On or about Ocotber 10, 2019, a fire broke out at the subject premises due to defective stove. The fire damaged subject premises and rendered the unit completely uninhabitable and Plaintiff was displaced from the unit. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff relocation payments. Moreover, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with a move-back option 12 when the unit became available. 13 19. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort 14 and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, 15 overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses, due to both Defendants’ acts and omissions 16 i? and the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises. 18 20. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages below. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ. (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 23 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 24 25 22. Plaintiff made requests for repairs and reported uninhabitable conditions to 26 Defendants. However, these requests were ignored, refused, denied, or inadequately addressed. 27 This resulted in Defendants failing to provide and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable 28 condition. Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial § 23. Defendants had an obligation pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1941 et be seq., and common law, to provide and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable condition. Under these obligations, Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiff to use due care to provide and maintain a habitable premises. Defendants breached their legal duty to Plaintiff by making inadequate repairs, by failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary repairs to the Subject Premises after they both knew and should have known of the poor conditions existing at the Subject Premises. 24. The defective conditions were substantial. Defendants’ breaches of their legal duty caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries and damages, including emotional distress, discomfort 12 and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, 13 overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages in amounts to be proven at 14 trial. Defendants’ breaches were both, actual and legal causes of Plaintiff’s complained of 15 injuries and damages. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on their damages. 16 i? 25. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION CONTRACTUAL BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1941 ET SEQ. (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 23 27. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a written rental agreement to lease the 24 25 Subject Premises. Every lease for residential property contains an implied warranty of 26 habitability. 27 28. During Plaintiff’s tenancy and prior to filing this complaint, Plaintiff performed 28 her obligations or was excused from performing obligations under the written rental agreement. Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 6 29. Here, Defendants breached said agreements by making inadequate repairs, by et failing and refusing to make repairs, and by delaying in making necessary repairs to the Subject Premises after they knew and should have known of the poor conditions of the Subject Premises. 30. Defendants further breached the rental agreement on multiple occasions by collecting rent from Plaintiff to which Defendants were not entitled because of the substantial habitability defects. 31. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages, including overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to 12 be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages. 13 32. | Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 14 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 15 BREACH OF CONTRACT VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3300 ET SEQ. 16 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) i? 33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 18 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 34. Defendants were obligated to perform under the terms of their rental agreement with Plaintiff. Plaintiff performed, or was excused from performing, her obligations under the 22 rental agreements. A covenant to provide a habitable premises and a covenant of good faith and 23 fair dealing are contained in every residential rental agreement in the State of California. 24 25 35. Regarding the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendants made an 26 implied promise not to do anything that would unfairly interfere with Plaintiff’s rights to 27 receives benefits under the residential rental agreement. Defendants also made an implied 28 promise not to mislead or take unfair advantage of Plaintiff. Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 7 36. Furthermore, Defendants warranted that the Subject Premises was in a habitable be condition at the time of entering into each agreement. 37. Defendants breached the terms of each agreement on multiple occasions during the period preceding the filing of this complaint by failing to make requested repairs, failing to provide a habitable premises to Plaintiff, and collecting rent without repairing habitability defects at the Subject Premises after being given notice and reasonable opportunity to do so. Defendants also failed to reasonably inspect the Subject Premises for defects, including health and safety hazards. Defendants also failed to warn and protect Plaintiff from harm due to the aforementioned defective conditions, and health and safety hazards. 12 38. Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages including over- 13 payment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be 14 ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages. 15 39. | Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 16 i? FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT 18 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1927 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 22 41. Every residential rental agreement includes the covenant of quiet enjoyment. 23 This covenant prohibits lessors and landlords from taking actions and inactions that diminish 24 25 Plaintiff’s beneficial enjoyment of the Subject Premises. The covenant also places on lessors 26 and landlords, an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment 27 of the Subject Premises from interference by other persons on or about the Subject Premises. 28 42. Defendants, by and through the acts and omissions alleged herein, breached the Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 8 covenant of quiet enjoyment. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the et Subject Premises by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions to exist after both, knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these conditions. 43. Defendants also breached Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment by engaging in a pattern of harassment, intimidation and retaliation towards Plaintiff, as alleged throughout this complaint. 44, — Because of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered damages including overpayment of rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other compensatory and special damages to be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages. 45. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION PRIVATE NUISANCE 13 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3501 ET SEQ. 14 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 15 46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 16 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. i? 47. Defendants owned, controlled and/or managed the Subject Premises. 18 48. Defendants created a nuisance on the Subject Premises by interfering with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment, by allowing the aforementioned defective conditions, and others, to exist after being knowing of their existence and having an opportunity to correct these 22 defective conditions. 23 49, These conditions were harmful to Plaintiff’s health, offensive to her senses, and 24 25 an obstruction to her free use of the Subject Premises, which substantially interfered with the 26 comfortable enjoyment of Plaintiff’s life and property. 27 50. Plaintiff made several complaints to Defendants regarding the uninhabitable 28 conditions of the Subject Premises. Plaintiff complained of these and other disturbances to her Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr., et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 9 possession and quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Defendants failed and refused to repair et the defective conditions of the Subject Premises. Defendants’ failure to make repairs was intentional and unreasonable because Defendants knew of the defects, and still failed and refused to make repairs. In the alternative, Defendants’ conduct was negligent and/or reckless. 31. Any reasonable person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by Defendants’ conduct. 52. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defective conditions, Plaintiff was harmed. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages, including the following: emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance, loss of use, 12 bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of 13 rent, out-of-pocket expenses, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiff is 14 also seeking statutorily authorized interest on her damages. 15 53. The harm to Plaintiff outweighs any potential benefit, if any, of Defendants’ 16 i? conduct. 18 54. | Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 19 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 20 PREMISES LIABILITY VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1714 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 22 35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 23 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 24 25 56. Defendants owned, controlled, and/or managed the Subject Premises. Plaintiff 26 suffered injuries and damages because of the way Defendants owned, controlled, and/or 27 managed the Subject Premises. 28 57. As tenants, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care that included maintaining Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 10 the Subject Premises and performing repairs in a reasonable and safe manner. et 58. The Subject Premises contained substantial habitability defects, which included, but were not limited to, the following: inadequate/defective wiring, mold/miidew, defective plumbing, water leaks intrusions, defective stove and general dilapidation and lack of maintenance. 59. Defendants knew and should have known about the aforementioned substantial habitability defects, and that exposure to these defective conditions posed a risk of injuries and wo damages to Plaintiff. For example, Plaintiff complained to Defendants about the aforementioned 10 ii defective conditions. Moreover, a reasonable inspection would have revealed the 12 aforementioned defective conditions. 13 60. After Defendants knew and should have known of the aforementioned defects, 14 Defendants failed and refused to repair the defective conditions. Defendants also had the ability is and opportunity to warn Plaintiff about the defective conditions, including the risk of injuries 16 i? and damages, but did not do so. 18 61. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ negligence. At a 19 minimum, Defendants were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 20 62. Plaintiffs injuries and damages included the following: emotional distress, 22 discomfort and annoyance, bodily injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal 23 property, overpayment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiff is seeking statutorily 24 authorized interest on her damages. 25 63. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 26 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 27 NEGLIGENCE 28 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 64. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial il the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. et 65. Defendants owed a duty of care to maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable condition, and not violate Plaintiff’s rights. When Defendants knew and should have known of the defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises, Defendants had a duty to take action such as repairing the defective conditions. 66. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff by failing to maintain the Subject Premises, and by failing to repair the aforementioned defective conditions. wo 67. Defendants also breached their duties by retaliating against Plaintiff for 10 ii exercising her rights as described above. 12 68. Defendants violated California Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 because 13 Defendants intentionally and/or negligently failed and refused to remedy the defective, 14 dilapidated, and appalling conditions at the Subject Premises. is 69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered 16 i? injuries and damages. 18 70. Plaintiff is also in the class of persons that California Civil Code sections 1941.1, 19 and 1942.5 were intended to protect. The harm that Plaintiff suffered is the kind that California 20 Civil Code sections 1941.1 and 1942.5 was designed to prevent. Defendants violated these 22 statutes by failing and refusing to repair defective conditions existing at the Subject Premises. 23 Defendants’ conduct constitutes a breach of said statutes. Therefore, Defendants’ statutory 24 breaches constitute negligence per se. 25 71. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of Defendants, 26 Plaintiff suffered harm, including emotional distress, physical discomfort and annoyance, bodily 27 28 injury, pain and suffering, rent differential, loss of personal property, overpayment of rent, out- Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr. et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 12 of-pocket expenses, and other injuries and damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiff et also seeks statutorily authorized interest on her damages. 72, Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION OAKLAND JUST CAUSE ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 8.22.300 ET SEQ. (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 73. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of the proceeding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein. 74. Asatenant of residential property located in Oakland, California, and subject to Oakland Municipal Code Sections 8.22.300 et seq. (the “Just Cause Ordinance”), Plaintiff is 12 entitled to bring an action against all defendants who have violated the Just Cause Ordinance to 13 14 Plaintiff’s detriment. 15 75. The Just Cause Ordinance provides safeguards for Oakland tenants. When a 16 landlord wrongfully endeavors to recover possession of a property in violation of the Just Cause i? Ordinance, Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including damages for emotional distress. 18 19 76. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by failing to make repairs to the 20 Subject Premises and by not advising Plaintiff of the Just Cause Ordinance or her right to contact the City of Oakland Residential Rent Adjustment Program. 22 77. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by unlawfully influencing or 23 attempting to influence Plaintiff to relinquish possession outside of the legal eviction process. 24 25 78. Defendants violated the Just Cause Ordinance by wrongfully endeavoring to 26 recover possession of the Subject Premises when Plaintiff exercised his [OR her] rights as a 27 tenant, including demanding repairs. 28 79. Plaintiff also suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ violations. Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 13 Here, Plaintiff’s injuries and damages included emotional distress and out-of-pocket expenses. et Plaintiff also suffered rent differential damages. 80. Defendants acted in knowing violation or reckless disregard of the Just Cause Ordinance, which justifies an award of treble damages to Plaintiff. 81. | Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION OAKLAND TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 8.22.600 ET SEQ. (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 82. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of proceeding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein. 12 83. Asa tenant of residential property located in Oakland, California, and subject to 13 14 Oakland City Ordinance 8.22.600, et seq. (the “Tenant Protection Ordinance”), Plaintiff is 15 entitled to bring an action against all defendants who have violated the Tenant Protection 16 Ordinance to Plaintiff’s detriment. i? 84. The Tenant Protection Ordinance provides safeguards for Oakland tenants. 18 When a landlord and property manager, or agent thereof, wrongfully harass their tenant or fails to provide a habitable premises, Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including damages for emotional distress. 85. Here, Defendants have violated the Tenant Protection Ordinance by wrongfully 23 endeavoring to recover possession of the Subject Premises, by failing to make repairs to the 24 25 Subject Premises, influencing or attempting to influence Plaintiff to vacate the Subject 26 Premises, substantially interfering with Plaintiff’s rights to quiet use and enjoyment of the 27 Subject Premises, and retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising her rights as a tenant. 28 86. Plaintiff was harmed by these violations in that she suffered emotional distress, Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 14 bodily injury, pain and suffering, physical discomfort and annoyance, over-payment of rent, loss oot of personal property, and out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiff has also been forced to hire an attorney to enforce her rights. 87. | Defendants acted in knowing violation or reckless disregard of the Tenant Protection Ordinance, justifying an award of treble damages to Plaintiff. 88. | Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION OAKLAND RESIDENTIAL RENT ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 8.22 ET SEQ. (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 89. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 12 the proceeding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein. 13 14 90. As a tenant of residential property located in Oakland, California and subject to 15 Oakland City Ordinance 8.22 et seq. (the “Rent Adjustment Program Ordinance” or “RAP 16 Ordinance”), Plaintiff is entitled to bring an action against all defendants who have violated the i? Rent Adjustment Program Ordinance to Plaintiff’s detriment. 18 91. Oakland’s RAP Ordinance provides safeguards for tenants in Oakland. When a landlord wrongfully increases a tenant’s rent, that tenant is entitled to just compensation, including damages for overpayment of rent. Pursuant to the RAP Ordinance, Defendants can only increase Plaintiff’s rent based on the CPI Rent Adjustment or Banking, or by filing a 23 petition to increase rent in excess of that (CPI or Banking) amount. 24 25 92. At all times relevant herein, the Subject Premises was subject to the RAP 26 Ordinance. 27 93. When Plaintiff’s tenancy began, Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff about the 28 existence and scope of the RAP Ordinance. Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 15 94. Defendants increased Plaintiff’s rent in excess of the permissible rent increase et based on a CPI Rent Adjustment and Banking. In addition, the Rent Adjustment Program did not approve Defendants’ rent increases. Therefore, the rent increases are void and unenforceable. 95. In addition, Defendants failed and refused to make repairs at the Subject Premises, which constitutes a decrease in housing services. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges, the decrease in housing services constitutes a rent increase pursuant to Section 8.22.070(F) of the RAP Ordinance. 96. Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages because of Defendants’ violations. 12 97. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 13 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 OAKLAND UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL TENANT RELOCATION ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 8.22.800 ET SEQ. 15 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 16 98. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the i? proceeding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein. 18 99. Asa tenant of residential property located in Oakland, California, and subject to Oakland City Ordinance 8.22.800, et seq. (“Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance”), Plaintiff is entitled to bring an action against all Defendants who have violated the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance to Plaintiff’s detriment. 23 100. The Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance requires landlords to 24 25 provide relocation payments to their tenants when an event or vacancy triggers a tenant’s right 26 to relocation payments. Additionally, when a member of the tenant household is low income, 27 elderly, disabled, and/or a minor, landlords are required to make an additional relocation 28 payment. Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 16 101. Here, Plaintiff was displaced from the Subject Premises due to a Qualifying oot Relocation Event, as those terms are defined in the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was entitled to relocation payments pursuant to the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance. Defendants were required to make relocation payments to Plaintiff but failed and refused to do so. 102. When a landlord or agent refuses to make relocation payments, tenants like Plaintiff can file a civil action to recover the relocation payment, plus an equal amount as damages. 103. In addition, Defendants failed and refused to make the relocation payments in 12 bad faith. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to the relocation payments plus three times the amount 13 of the relocation payments. 14 104. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Uniform 15 Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance. 16 i? 105. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 18 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION OAKLAND CODE COMPLIANCE RELOCATION PROGRAM VIOLATIONS OF OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 15.60 ET SEQ. (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 106, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the proceeding paragraphs of the complaint, as if the same were set out at length herein. 23 107. Asa tenant of residential property located in Oakland, California, and subject to 24 25 Oakland City Ordinance 15.60 et seq. (“Code Compliance Relocation Program’), Plaintiff is 26 entitled to bring an action against all Defendants who have violated the Code Compliance 27 Relocation Program to Plaintiff’s detriment. 28 108. The Code Compliance Relocation Program requires landlords to provide Tonya Coney vy. Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 17 relocation payments to residential tenants who are displaced due to compliance with building, et housing and/or fire codes. Additionally, when a member of the tenant household is low income, elderly, disabled, and/or a minor, landlords are required to make an additional relocation payment. 109. Here, Plaintiff was displaced from the Subject Premises due to code compliance activities concerning the Subject Premises, which included but was not limited to substantial defective conditions affecting habitability. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was entitled to relocation payments pursuant to the Code Compliance Relocation Program. Defendants were required to make relocation payments to Plaintiff but failed and refused to do so. 12 110. When a landiord refuses to make relocation payments, tenants like Plaintiff can 13 file a civil action to recover damages. 14 111. In addition, Defendants willfully failed and refused to make the relocation is payments. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to trebie damages. 16 i? 112. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Code 18 Compliance Relocation Program Ordinance. 19 113. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 20 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATORY EVICTION 22 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 23 114. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 24 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 25 115. Plaintiff consistently exercised her rights to inform Defendants about the above- 26 mentioned habitability defects, which also constituted a nuisance and breach of Plaintiff’s quiet 27 28 enjoyment. In response to Plaintiff making complaints about habitability defects, Defendants harassed, intimidated, retaliated, and, ultimately, evicted Plaintiff. Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr., et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 18 116. Plaintiff was within her rights to make the aforementioned requests and et complaints and is, and was, protected under the laws of California from being retaliated against for making said requests and complaints. 117. Within 180 days of Plaintiff exercising her rights, Defendants wrongfully endeavored to recover possession. 118. Defendants’ dominant motive in engaging in the aforementioned misconduct was to retaliate against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity and lawfully exercising her rights as a tenant. 119. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ retaliatory eviction, Plaintiff 12 suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, rent 13 differential, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. 14 120. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. is FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 16 CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION i? (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 18 121. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 19 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 20 122. Due to the landlord-tenant relationship, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to 22 exercise reasonable care in the ownership, management, and control of the Subject Premises. 23 Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty not to unreasonably interfere with Plaintiff’s quiet use and 24 enjoyment. Defendants also had a duty to maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable 25 condition. 26 123. Contrary to Defendants’ duties, Defendants failed to make repairs, and, 27 28 ultimately, failed to properly manage and maintain the Subject Premises in a habitable Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 19 condition. et 124. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her rights to peaceable and quiet possession of the Subject Premises. Defendants constructively evicted Plaintiff from the Subject Premises. That is, through Defendants’ misconduct, they terminated Plaintiff’s tenancy without good cause, and in violation of the rental agreement. 125. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ constructive eviction, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages, including emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, rent differential, and other damages, in amounts to be proven at trial. 12 126. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 13 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 15 SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ. (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 16 i? 127. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 18 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 128. By reason of Defendants’ failure to comply with state and local laws for the management of real property, Defendants’ conduct constitutes an unfair business practice under 22 California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and 17500 et seq. 23 129. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, it is the regular practice of 24 Defendants to intentionally disregard the rights of tenants and violate applicable laws relating to 25 tenancies in their buildings in ways that include, but are not limited to, failing to provide quiet 26 enjoyment, retaliating against tenants, and allowing the defects identified herein to continue to 27 28 exist despite having adequate opportunity to remediate said defects. 130. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were conducting business under the laws Tonya Coney v., Joselito Tablante, Sr, et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 20 of the State of California, the County of Alameda, and City of Oakland. In conducting said et business, Defendants were obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California, the County of Alameda, and the City of Oakland. 131. As adirect and proximate resuit of Defendants’ conduct, Defendants have accrued unjust enrichment. 132. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for an order for restitution requiring Defendants to restore to Plaintiff, all money obtained from Plaintiff, including but not limited to, all monthly rent payments. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION 12 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1942.5 (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 13 14 133. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this cause of action the allegations of 15 the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 16 134. Plaintiff made requests for repairs and complained about habitability defects i? existing at the Subject Premises to Defendants. In particular, Plaintiff consistently her rights to 18 inform Defendants about the above-mentioned nuisance and breach of Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the Subject Premises. Plaintiff was within her rights to make the aforementioned requests for repairs and complaints and are, and were, protected from being retaliated against 22 for making these requests and complaints. 23 135. Plaintiff was not in default as to rent payments. Further, Plaintiff is informed, 24 25 believes, and alleges, no rent was owed because the substantial habitability defects negated rent 26 for each month. 27 136. Defendants violated Section 1942.5 because they decreased services such as 28 repairs; recovered possession. Defendants continually denied repairs and maintenance at the Tonya Coney v. Joselito Tablante, Sr., et al. Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief; Demand for Jury Trial 21 Subject Premises, and common areas, for the stated reason of retaliating against Plaintiff for et engaging in protected activity. 137. Defendants engaged in the aforementioned conduct within 180 days of Plaintiff complaining to Defendants about habitability defects. 138. The aforementioned retaliatory conduct constitutes harassment and intimidation. Further, Defendants engaged in the aforementioned retaliatory conduct for the stated reason of retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising her rights, which included, but were not limited to, the wo following: making complaints about tenantability; organizing as tenants to resist Defendants’ 10 1i efforts to deprive Plaintiff of beneficial use and enjoyment; and demanding respect and 12 accountability from Defendants. 13 139. Plaintiff suffered actual damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Defendants are 14 also liable for punitive damages. is 140. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the damages stated below. 16 i? CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES (Plaintiff v. All Defendants) 18 141. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates into this claim for exemplary damages, the 19 20 allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as if the same were set out at length herein. 142, Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiff’s rights and retaliated against Plaintiff 22 for enforcing her rights as tenants. 23 143. Defendants’ actions were willful and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 24 25 rights. Such willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights justifies an award of punitive 26 damages because Defendants’ conduct was oppressive and malicious as defined by California 27 Civil Code section 3294, The willful failure and refusal to repair longstanding defects existing 28 in Plaintiff’s units also merits an a