(OT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet 0ct-10.2017 3:24 pm Case Number: CGC-17-561800 Filing Date: Oct-10-2017 3:19 Filed by: NEYL WEBB Image: 06058376 COMPLAINT RICHARD PADILLA ET AL VS. LESLIE WAN ET AL 001C06058376 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.cM.o1 Mie TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. 126 Hyde Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA’ 94102 seusrvone no: (415) 771-9850 xrronwey Fon wens). Plaintiffs roxwo: (415) 771-1287 FILED ‘San Francisco County Superior Court smeeraponess. 400 McAllister Street cmrravo ze cove. San Francisco, CA 94102 [SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco OCT 10 2017 CLERK; m2 seanci nave Unlimited Civil ‘CASE NAME: Richard Padilla, et al. v. Leslie W. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Untimited — [_] Limited (Amount (Amount apa Ck etal. C@C-17-561809 ‘Complex Case Designation 2 counter [J Joinder demanded demanded is Filed with fist appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) ‘Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) err THems 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2) [i- Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: ‘Auto Tort Contract visionally Complex Cuil Litigation ‘Auto (22) [2 Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) [1 Rute 3.740 cotections (09) (Z Antitrusttrade regulation (03) Other PUPOMD (Persona njuryProperty _ [] oer cobectons (08) TE) Construction detect (10) ‘Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort [insurance coverage (18) Mass tort (40) LJ Aevestos 04) TH otrer contact 37) TF secures ingaton (2 TE) Product tity (24) Real Property EnvionmentaToxic to (30) Medical malpractice (48) otner puronnn 23) Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort Eminent domaininverse ‘condemnation (14) Wrongtul eviction (33) Insurance coverage claims arising from the ‘above Isted provisional complex case ‘ypes a) [1 usiness torvuntairbusiness practice (o7) LZ] Other real property (26) Enforcomont of Judgment 2) civirights (08) Unlawful Detainer [1 Enforcement of judgment (20) [J Defamation (13) ‘Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Frawscs6) Residential (32) fesaeaea {1 intetiectual property (18) CO onugs 38) (Totter complaint (not specified above) (42) 0 Professional negligence (25) (1 other non-PuPOWD tort (35) Employment Wrongful termination (36) (1) other employment (15) 7 udicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition ‘Asset forfeiture (05) J Partnership and corporate governance (21) Petition ve: arbitration award (11) [""] other petition (not spectied above) (43) ‘Writ of mandste (02) Other ucicia review (3 Oo CI Z Thiscase Lis LTisnot complex under rule 3.400 ofthe Calfomia Rules of Coun. the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: [2] Large number of separately represented parties d. (Large number of winesses ©. extensive mation practice raising diffcut or novel e. L—] Coordination wih related actions pending in one of more courts issues that willbe time-consuming o resolve in other counties, states, or counties, orn a federal cour ©. Substantial amount of documentary evidence _, [Substantial posjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (chock althat apply): a7] monetary b.[Z'] nonmonetary; dectaratory or injunctive reef ¢- [punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): Eight 5. This ca is Zlienot actass action suit 6. Itthere are any known related cases, fle and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CMO15,) Date: October 10, 2017 Raquel Fox rAd ‘OE PART OR ATTORNEY FOR FART NOTICE U « Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper fled in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Fallure to file may result in sanctions. ‘ File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. * If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. ofthe California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding + Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet willbe used for statistical purposes only. TPE OR PANT ROE) Po reaecietcaice ‘hate hay 20 pe EL) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEETee SUMMONS (soto Pana Uso bE La CORTE (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): Leslie Wan, Brian Keller, and Does 1-20, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Richard Padilla, Jennifer Emperador, William Carmichael, Donald C. Branchflower, and Fredy Miranda NOTICET Vou have boon cued The cour ay decide agaist you wihou your being heard uness you respond wit 30 days, Read te wformaon below ‘You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after tis summons and legal papers aro served on you to fle writen response at this court and have a copy ‘served onthe plitif.Alettr or phona cal wil not protect you. Your writen response must bein proper legal frm i you want the court o hear your case, There may be a court form that you can use fr your reponco. Yeu can find ths court forme an more information atthe Cakfonia Courts Gnlne SetHelp Center (www courtnf.ca.gov/selap), your count law Worary, ote courthoues nearest you, I you cannot pay the hing fee. ack the court clerk fra fee waiver frm. If you do no fle your response on time, you may lose the case By deau, and your wages, money, and property ‘may be taken wibout futher waning fom the cou, ‘There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an atomey right away. Ifyou do not know an atomey, you may want to call an atormey feferal sevice. I you cannot aford an attomey, you may be elite far fee lagal services from a nonprottlagal services program. You can locale these nonprofit groups atthe California Legal Swrvices Web sto (wi lawholpcalforia. org), te Callomia Courts Onine Sal-Halp Canter (Grn courinto.ca.gow'satvep), oF by contacting yout local court or county bar assocaion NOTE: The cou has a staulory len fr waived fees and ‘2stson any setlement or arbivalon award of $10,000 or more in 8 cv case, The court's len must be pais before the court wil dismiss the case JAVISO! Lo han demandado. Sino responde dent de 30 das, la corte puede decisren su conra sin eecuchar su versin. Lea fa iformaciin Continuacisn Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entroquen esta ctacion y papels legales para presenter una respuesta por escrito on esta corte hacer que se entreque una copa af demancante. Una carta o una lamada taerenica nolo protegen. Su respuesta por escrao ane que estar {n fonmato legal corectos desea que procasen su caso en la crte. Es posible que haya un formularo ue usted pueda usar para Su respuesta. uade encontrar estos formulas dels corte y mas inormacion an ol Cantra de Ayuda do las Cortes do Cafoia (aw sucartaca.gov), en le bibfioteca doleyes desu candado 0 en a corte que fe quade mas cerca, Sino puede pagar lacuote de prosentacdn, pid al secrete dela cots ‘Que le dé un formuiario de exencién de pago de cvotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a lomo, puede perder al caso por incumphimanto la corte ard qutar su sueldo, dinero y benes sin mas advortoncia, Hay otros requstos legates. Es recorendable que lame a un abogadoinmodiatamente. Sno canoce 9 un abogade, puede lamar aun servicio de ‘ramision a abogados. Sno puede pagar @un abogado, 6s posible que cumpla can los requisfos pare obtener servis gales gratutos de un ‘rograma de servicios logales sin fines de cre. Puede encontrar estos grupos sn fines do cre en el to wob de Calferia Legal Services, {wa lawhelpcaliioria or), en el Centr de Ayuda de las Cortes do Calfomia, (www sucorte.ca gov) 0 pontendase on contacto con la corte el ‘colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, le corte lane derecho a rclamar las cuolas y ls costs exantos por Impona un gravamen eabre ‘cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 6 més de valor recitita mediante un acuerdo o una cancesion de arbiaje en un caso Ge derecho cl. Tans QUe pagar el gravamen de a carte antes de que fa corte pueda desechar caso, ‘The name and address ofthe cout - lagenneee (Einombrey dreceén ela corte es): San Francisco Superior Court "CGO: 17-561809 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 ‘The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintif without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la drecci6n y ef numero de toléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Raquel Fox, Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. 126 Hyde Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, 415-771-9850 DATE: (Fecha) OCT 10207 “Deputy (Adjunto) 3, [1 on behalt of (speciy): under: C=] cop 416.10 (corporation) cor 416.60 (minor (6c? 416.20 dotunct corporation) E=] CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CoP 416.40 (association or parinership) [==] CCP 416.00 (authorized person) coset eet by personal dolvery on (date): Form Roos ‘Mandatory Use ~ —— vat a cea ce ‘SUMMONS inca Pan rh stNCon low Sy 89)Rot lc eo 10 i 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 an 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RAQUEL FOX, ESQ., SB#131675 TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC. 126 Hyde Street, 2" Floor F I L E D San ene AS 94102 San Francteco County Superior Court ‘elephone: (415) 771-9850 Facsimile: (415) 771-1287 OCT 10 2017 E-mail: Raquel@thclinic.org CLERK, om. Attomey for Plaintiffs spay SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION RICHARD PADILLA, JENNIFER ) CaseN@GE-17-561809 EMPERADOR, WILLIAM ) CARMICHAEL, DONALD C. ) Gury Trial Demanded) BRANCHFLOWER, AND FREDY ) MIRANDA ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, ) (LANDLORD/TENANT) vs. LESLIE WAN, BRIAN KELLER, AND, DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs Richard Padilla, Jennifer Emperador, William Carmichael, Donald C. Branchflower, and Fredy Miranda (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: 1. Plaintiff's are, and at all times relevant herein, were the long-term residents of the City and County of San Francisco, California. 2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Leslie Wan and Brian Keller, (“Defendants Owners”) are and, at all times relevant herein, were the owners of 1779-1781-1781A 15” Street, San Francisco, California (“PREMISES”). 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFRon Seceir.ay rT 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 24 2 23 25 26 27 28 3. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names under the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the ‘occurrences herein alleged, and negligently or otherwise caused and continue to cause injuries and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiffs as herein alleged. 4, Atall relevant times herein mentioned, each of the named and fictitiously named defendants was the agent, servant, and/or employee of each of his, her, their, or its co-defendants, and at all of said times each of the named or fictitiously named defendants was acting within the course and scope of said agency, service, and/or employment. At all times herein relevant, each of the acts of defendants was ratified by each of the other defendants. 5. InJuly 1996, Plaintiffs Richard Padilla and Jennifer Emperador, and two other family members (Pauline Padilla and Bernadine Emperador) took possession of and began renting 1779 15" Street, San Francisco (“Subject Premises-1”) pursuant to a written rental agreement with Defendants Owners’ predecessor in interest. Subsequently, Plaintiffs Donald C. Branchflower and William Carmichael, with permission and consent of the prior owners, moved into Subject Premises-1 and replaced family members that vacated. Plaintiffs Richard Padilla, Jennifer Emperador, Donald Branchflower and William Carmichael’s tenancy also includes use, enjoyment, access, and storage in the basement and use and enjoyment of the communal backyard and garden area. 6. In December 2006, Plaintiff Fredy Miranda took possession of and began renting 1781A 15" Street, San Francisco (“Subject Premises-2") pursuant to a written rental agreement with Defendants Owners’ predecessor in interest. Plaintiff Fredy 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFRO oly et) 10 ul 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 an 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Miranda's tenancy also includes use, enjoyment, access, and storage in the basement and use and enjoyment of the communal backyard and garden area. 7. Plaintiffs’ tenancies at the PREMISES are and were subject to San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 37, originally enacted June 13, 1979, and thereafter amended (hereinafter “the Rent Ordinance”) at all times relevant herein. 8. PREMISES, built in 1908, is a multi-family home in the Mission Dolores neighborhood of San Francisco. It is a two story building above a garage and ground level apartment. There are three residential dwelling units and a communal backyard. 9. Defendants Owners acquired ownership of the PREMISES on or about April 23, 2014 for a below market price of $1,450,000. They recorded their ownership interest of the PREMISES at the San Francisco Assessor-Recorder’s Office on or about the same date. 10. — Upon acquiring ownership of the PREMISES, Defendants Owners entered into a landlord-tenant relationship with each Plaintiff. The landlord-tenant relationships are and were, at all times relevant herein, subject to the Rent Ordinance. 11. Soon after acquiring ownership of the PREMISES, Defendants Owners rented 1781 15" Street, the vacant top residential dwelling unit. The top unit is the only remodeled unit at the PREMISES. It also has new appliances. It is the sunniest, the quietest and most desirable unit of the three units at the PREMISES. Thereafter, they proceeded to attempt to evict Plaintiffs Richard Padilla, Jennifer Emperador, William ‘Carmichael, and Donald C. Branchflower, under the auspices of the owner-move-in provisions of the Rent Ordinance. Plaintiffs Richard Padilla and Jennifer Emperador are the longest term tenants at the property and their unit (1779) has deferred maintenance. Defendants Owners ultimately dismissed the questionable and suspect owner-move-in eviction. 12, Defendants Owners and their young child moved into 1781 15" Street in or about late December 2015 pursuant to an owner-move in eviction of the tenants residing in 1781 15" Street whom they rented to in 2014. Since moving into the 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFewer) 10 12 B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 an 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PREMISES, Defendants Owners, in particular Owner Leslie Wan, have attempted to create intolerable living conditions so that Plaintiffs move out. Defendants Owners, in particular Leslie Wan, have demonstrated prejudice and expressed disgust and disapproval of Plaintiff's Richard Padilla, William Carmichael, Donald C. Branchflower, and Fredy Miranda, because of their sexual orientation, sexual expression, and practice of dressing in drag. Plaintiffs Richard Padilla, William Carmichael, Donald C. Branchflower, and Fredy Miranda are homosexual men and three of them (Richard Padilla, William Carmichael and Fredy Miranda) dress as drag queens at times. Defendants Owners look at these Plaintiffs in disgust, and when their son is around, cover his eyes. Plaintiff Fredy Miranda is employed at Divas Nightclub and has been employed at the nightclub for the past 30 years. Plaintiff Fredy Miranda, a gay man, dresses as a woman five or more times per week while working as a bartender and entertainer. Plaintiffs Richard Padilla and William Carmichael are also entertainers and dress as women (drag queens.) A recent example of Defendant Owner Leslie Wan's disgust and disapproval occurred in or about September 2017. Plaintiff Richard Padilla and a friend were dressed in drag, and were waiting for a cab when Defendant Owner Leslie Wan and her child drove up to the PREMISES on a bicycle. Plaintiff Richard Padilla said hello to Defendant Owner Leslie Wan and she did not return the welcome, Instead, she gathered her child and bicycle and rushed into 1781 15" Street, the upper unit at the PREMISES. On another occasion, Defendant Leslie Wan saw Plaintiff Fredy Miranda, dressed as a drag queen, getting into a cab double parked in front of the PREMISES, and immediately covered her son's eyes and on this occasion, she actually told him not to look at Plaintiff Fredy Miranda and to go upstairs. Other transgressions include Defendant Owner Leslie Wan falsely blaming Plaintiffs Richard Padilla and the other tenants of 1779 15" Street of not timely paying rent and threatening to issue a three day notice to pay or quit. When Defendant Owner Leslie Wan claimed she had not been paid rent and was threatening to serve the three day notice to pay or quit, Plaintiff Richard Padilla had already placed the rent check in Defendants Owners’ 4 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFCar awe 10 4 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 mailbox. Subsequently, Defendant Owner Leslie Wan admitted that she and her husband had lost the rent check and needed Richard Padilla to write another check. Defendant Owner Leslie Wan also had Plaintiffs’ friends’ cars towed that were parked in front of the PREMISES instead of simply asking that the cars be moved. Defendants Owners also took away the storage rooms from Plaintiff Fredy Miranda (1781 15" Street) and Richard Padilla, Jennifer Emperador, William Carmichael, and Donald C. Branchflower (1779 15" Street) even though the storage rooms were part of Plaintiffs’ original tenancies. To make matters worse, Defendants Owners disposed of Plaintiffs’ personal belongings in their storage rooms. For example, Defendants Owners threw out a large bag of Plaintiff Richard Padilla’s’ drag queen clothing and Plaintiff William Carmichael’s Dahon folding bicycle. Defendants Owners refused to reinstate use of the storage rooms and Defendant Owner Leslie Wan had the audacity to inform Plaintiff. Fredy Miranda that he could use the storage room if he paid another $300.00 for the storage room. Defendants Owners also instructed Plaintiffs to remove their personal items from the communal backyard and threatened to dump Plaintiffs’ personal items if they were not removed. Defendants Owners followed through with their threat and threw out Plaintiffs’ personal belongings in the communal yard. For example, Defendants Owners threw out Plaintiff Fredy Miranda's BBQ Professional Gas grill, patio furniture including four seats with cushions, a table, and an umbrella, a separate small table, and two propane tanks. Defendants Owners claimed they were renovating the communal backyard from September 2016 through December 2016 and Plaintiffs could not use the backyard until further notice. To date, Defendants Owners have not reinstated Plaintiffs’ use of the backyard. Plaintiff's Richard Padilla, William Carmichael, Donald C. Branchflower, and Fredy Miranda also allege Defendants Owners did not want them using the backyard because of their sexual orientation and sexual expression and did not want gay men or drag queens barbecuing or socializing in the communal backyard. 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFwe ww ee 10 WL 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 4 25 26 27 28 13. Defendants Owners had and continue to have actual and constructive knowledge of the dilapidated and substandard conditions at Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2. Defendants Owners and their agents have entered and personally observed the severely dilapidated and substandard conditions. In fact, Defendant Owner Leslie Wan and her contractors have entered to measure and photograph Plaintiffs’ homes. The defective and severely substandard conditions, include but are not limited to the following: Common Areas at the PREMISES (a) Plumbing problems; (b) Rodents; (©) Roaches Subject Premises-1 (1779 15" Street) (a) __ Insufficient heat. There is only one heater in the hallway and none in any bedroom; (b) Roach infestation; (©) Rodents and vermin; (d) Kitchen sink was defective and leaked water; (©) Bathroom sink was defective and leaked water; (6) Water backs up in the tub and drains slowly; (g) Front door lock and latch do not function. The deadbolt is the only locking mechanism that functions; (bh) Oven’s glass door slips out of place; (i) Backdoor lacked weatherproofing. Defendants Owners had door repaired in the recent past; (Bathroom door lacks a locking mechanism; (k) Damaged floors and floor coverings, including old deteriorated carpet; (Windows lacking weatherproofing; 6 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFwa wn care 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 4 25 26 27 28 (m) @) ) (P) @ © () Damaged ceilings;; Damaged walls; Plumbing problems, including water leaks; Electrical problems, including lack of electrical outlets; Mold; Defective refrigerator which Defendants Owners refuse to replace; and Deteriorated kitchen cabinet and island. Subject Premises-2 (1781A 15" Street) (a) (b) (©) (d@) (e) oo) (g) (h) @ co) (k) oO No permanent source of heat; Rodents; Roaches; Slugs; Fleas; Spiders; Plumbing problems, including water leaks; outside drain backups which caused water to leak into the bathroom floor, leaky shower handles, leaky sink, and toilet backups. Plaintiff Fredy Miranda ultimately replaced the bathroom sink in 2015 and the shower handles in 2016. Damaged floors and floor coverings, including carpet in areas of the apartment, and bathroom floor damaged from water leaks. Plaintiff Fredy Miranda ultimately replaced the bathroom floor and paid to have the carpet steam cleaned. Dilapidated windows, windows lacking weatherproofing; Electrical problems: Lack of electricity; Damaged ceilings, especially in the kitchen and porch room, including cracks and holes, mold, and peeling paint. Recently, Defendants Owners made repairs to the ceiling but did not paint the area; Damaged walls; al COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFao Coran 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (m) Mold and mildew. Plaintiffs did nothing to cause, create, or contribute to the existence of the above- listed defective conditions listed in paragraph 13. 14, Plaintiff's requested repairs and Defendants Owners and their agents personally observed conditions d ibed in paragraph 13. Despite having actual and ‘constructive notice of the substandard conditions described in paragraph 13 of this Complaint, Defendants Owners failed to timely repair all of the substandard conditions described in paragraph 13. 15. Defendants Owners’ failure to make all necessary repairs is and was without substantial justification at all times relevant herein. 16. Defendants Owners failed to provide all Plaintiff's any corresponding rent reduction for the decreased housing services. Some decreased housing services resulted from the substandard conditions in all Plaintiffs’ homes (Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2). The decreases in housing services also include removing Plaintiffs’ use of the backyard and taking away storage rooms. Defendants Owners instructed Plaintiffs to remove their personal belongings and threatened to dump any personal belongings left behind in the communal backyard, The decrease in housing services also includes the interference with all Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of their respective homes at the PREMISES as described in the following paragraph. 17. Defendants Owners engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to disrupt and interfere with all Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of their respective homes at Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2, and common areas at the PREMISES. These disruptions include but are not limited to entries without any written notice by Defendants Owners and their agents. At times Defendants Owners and their workers/agents simply showed up and demanded entry into Plaintiffs’ homes in violation of Civil Code section 1954. The disruptions also include failure to make necessary repairs and delaying or ignoring or trivializing Plaintiffs’ requests for repairs. Italso includes threatening to serve a three day notice to pay or quit when rent was not 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF* Cc oranu 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 due. It also includes taking away Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of the communal backyard and their storage rooms, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence-- against Defendants Owners) 18. _ All Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 19. By reason of the landlord-tenant relationship and that of property owner and occupant, Defendants Owners owed and continue to owe Plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, maintenance, and control of the PREMISES, including the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2. The duty to exercise reasonable care includes, but is not limited to, the following duties: the duty to refrain from interfering with Plaintiffs’ full use and quiet enjoyment of their homes at the PREMISES; the duty to comply with the warranty of habitability; the duty to maintain the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2 in compliance with state and local health, housing, fire and safety codes; and the duty to comply with all applicable state and local laws governing Plaintiffs’ legal rights as tenants and occupants of the PREMISES. 20. Defendants Owners breached and continue to breach the duty of care owed to all Plaintiffs. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendants Owners negligently and carelessly operated, maintained, and controlled the PREMISES, including the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2 to Plaintiffs’ detriment, The negligent conduct is ongoing. 21. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants Owners’ conduct, all Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer actual damages, including emotional distress and economic losses. 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFSECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitabi against Defendants Owners) 22. All Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 23. During Defendants Owners’ ownership of the PREMISES, all of the Plaintiffs’ homes (Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2) had and continue to have some of the substandard conditions as described in paragraph 13. Shabby repairs were made to all of Plaintiffs’ homes and based on information and belief; all Plaintiffs allege that the substandard conditions described in paragraph 13 will reoccur within a ‘matter of months. 24. By failing to timely correct the substandard conditions in all Plaintiffs" homes (Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2), Defendants Owners acted unreasonably and in want of ordinary care, and breached the warranty of habitability imposed on all residential landlords by state and local law. Defendants Owners continue to act unreasonably and to breach the implied warranty of habitability. 25. Defendants Owners had actual and constructive notice of the substandard conditions at the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2. Plaintiffs also requested repairs for their respective units at the PREMISES. 26. Despite actual and constructive notice of the substandard conditions, Defendants Owners failed to make proper and timely necessary repairs to the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2. At all relevant times, Defendants Owners were and are fully aware of the deferred maintenance and overall deteriorated condition of the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2. 27. Defendants Owners’ lack of maintenance to Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2 at the PREMISES caused further deterioration of longstanding substandard conditions. None of the Plaintiffs caused or contributed to these 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFCer .e 10 u 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 25 26 27 28 substandard conditions. Nor did any of the Plaintiffs prevent Defendants Owners from making repairs or maintaining Plaintiffs’ respective units at the PREMISES. 28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Owners’ breaches of the implied warranty of habitability, all Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain, anxiety, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, distress, and economic loss all to their detriment in amounts to be determined at trial. These damages include property damage and property loss. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment--against Defendants Owners) 29. All Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 30. Defendants Owners engaged and continue to engage in activities which disrupted, and were designed to disrupt, all Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of their respective homes at the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2 and common areas at the PREMISES, such as the communal backyard and garden. 31. Defendants Owners breached and continue to breach all Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of their respective homes at the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2 by failing to maintain the residential units in habitable condition; and by making or attempting to make entries which are in violation of Civil Code section 1954, Defendants Owners also breached all Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of their respective homes by preventing Plaintiffs from the use and enjoyment of the communal backyard and storage rooms which are part of Plaintiffs’ tenancies. Defendants Owners also breached all Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of their respective homes as described in paragraph 17. 32. By the acts and omissions described above, Defendants Owners interfered with, interrupted, and deprived all Plaintiffs of the full and beneficial use of their respective homes at the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2 and of the u COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFScam wvianeon u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 communal backyard and storage rooms. Defendants Owners disturbed all Plaintiffs’ peaceful possession of their respective homes and communal backyard. They also took away Plaintiffs’ storage rooms and disposed of personal items in the storage rooms. ‘These acts and omissions are ongoing to the present. 33. These acts of interference, interruption, deprivation, and disturbance by Defendants Owners amount to breaches of the covenant of quiet enjoyment implied in all rental agreements and codified in California Civil Code section 1927. 34. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants Owners’ violations of all Plaintiffs" respective rights to the quiet enjoyment of their respective homes at the Subject Premises-1 or Subject Premises-2, all Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, anxiety, economic loss, and mental anguish all to their detriment in amounts to be determined at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION st Defendants Owners) (Exces: e Rent Charges—ag: 35. All Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 36. All Plaintiffs’ tenancies at the PREMISES are and were within the jurisdiction of the Rent Ordinance at all times relevant herein. 37. The defective conditions described in paragraph 13 constitute substantial decreases in housing services. Additionally, the conditions and conduct described in paragraphs 16 and 17 constitute decreases in housing services. Also, there were prior illegal rent increases. In March 2017, Defendants Owners reinstated Plaintiffs’ original base rents as a way to mitigate damages based on the prior illegal rent increases. Defendants Owners had actual and constructive notice of these decreases in housing services listed in paragraphs 13, 16, and 17 but did not grant any of the Plaintiffs any corresponding rent reductions. 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFa a 10 i 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 38. By failing to reduce all Plaintiffs’ rents to compensate for the decreases in housing services as listed in paragraphs 13, 16, and 17, Defendants Owners charged rent and continue to charge all Plaintiffs rent amounts which exceed the limitations set forth in the Rent Ordinance 39. Rent Ordinance section 37.11A provides that excessive rent charges in violation of the Rent Ordinance entitle tenants to initiate a civil proceeding for money damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. 40. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants Owners’ violations of the Rent Ordinance, all Plaintiffs paid and continue to pay excessive rent in amounts to be proven at trial. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTI (Nuisance-- against Defendants Owners) 41. All Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 42. Atall times relevant herein, Defendants Owners failed to properly repair and maintain the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2 with the result that the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2, were dangerous and unsafe. The dangerous and defective conditions maintained by Defendants Owners at the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2 were injurious to all Plaintiffs” health, offensive to their senses, and an obstruction to the use of their respective long-term homes so as to constitute a nuisance that deprived all Plaintiffs of the safe, healthy, and comfortable use and enjoyment of their respective homes and communal backyard and garden. 43. Defendants Owners are and were required by law to abate these nuisances, but failed to do so. Some of the nuisances are ongoing. 44. Asa direct and proximate result thereof, all Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer pain, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, anxiety, economic loss and mental anguish, all to their detriment in an amount to be determined at trial. 1B COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFwa ww 10 rt 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 45. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3479 and Code of Civil Procedure section 731, all Plaintiffs seek a Court order requiring Defendants Owners to abate any nuisance at the Subject Premises-1 and Subject Premises-2, and the common areas at the PREMISES. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Business Practices-- against Defendants Owners) 46. All Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs I through 45 of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set. forth herein. 47. All Plaintiffs bring this action under Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq. as private persons affected by the acts described in this Complaint. 48. Atall times relevant herein, Defendants Owners were duly authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State of California and of the City and County of San Francisco. In conducting said business, Defendants Owners were obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California and the City and County of San Francisco. 49. Plaintiff's are informed and believe and thereon allege that it is the regular practice of Defendants Owners to ignore and neglect their responsibility and obligation to properly maintain their tenants’ rental units. Defendants Owners also unlawfully and fraudulently evict and/or attempt to evict their tenants, discriminate against their tenants, and disrupt their tenants’ quiet enjoyment of their respective rental units, all in violation of the law. By reason of said acts, Defendants Owners have engaged and continue to engage in unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 er seq. 50. Asa direct and proximate result of said unfair business practices, all Plaintiffs and members of the public have been and will be damaged. 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFCer awes 10 uw 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Harassment - Violation of San Francisco Rent Ordinance §37.10B --against Defendants Owners) 51. All Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs | through 50 of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein. 52. Atall relevant times, Defendants Owners engaged and continue to engage in the conduct described below in bad faith, and in knowing violation and in reckless disregard of San Francisco Rent Control Ordinance § 37.10B. 53. Atall relevant times, Defendants Owners failed to perform repairs and maintenance required by all Plaintiffs’ rental agreements and by State and local housing, health and safety laws. 54, Atall relevant times, Defendants Owners failed to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance once undertaken. 55. Atall relevant times, Defendants Owners violated laws which prohibit discrimination based on actual or perceived gender, sexual preference, and sexual orientation. 56, — Atall relevant times, Defendants Owners interfered with a tenant's right to quiet use and enjoyment of a rental housing unit as that right is defined by California. 57. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants Owners’ conduct, all Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer actual and special damages including but not limited to: fear, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, economic loss, and mental anguish, all to their detriment in amounts to be determined at trial. 58. Pursuant to San Francisco Rent Ordinance § 37.10B, all Plaintiffs are entitled to three times their actual damages, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFAuk ww 10 uM 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Housing Discrimination--Violation of Fair Housing and Employment Act, Govt. Code Section 12900 et seq—Against Defendants Owners) 59. Plaintiffs Richard Padilla, William Carmichael, and Fredy Miranda reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs | through 58 of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as though fully set forth herein, 60. Defendants Owners discriminated and continue to discriminate against Plaintiff's Richard Padilla, William Carmichael, and Fredy Miranda because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and based on their source of income as entertainers. Plaintiffs Richard Padilla, William Carmichael, and Fredy Miranda make an effort to avoid encountering Defendants Owners. They look out their windows and/or front door to make sure Defendants Owners are not in front of the building. Plaintiff's Richard Padilla, William Carmichael, and Fredy Miranda are oppressed and intimidated by Defendants Owners. Therefore, Defendants Owners violated Government Code Section 12955. The unlawful conduct is ongoing. 61. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants Owners’ violations of Government Code Section 12955, Plaintiffs Richard Padilla, William Carmichael, and Fredy Miranda were and continue to be specially injured and suffered physical injury, bodily injury, pain, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, anxiety, economic loss, loss of use, and mental anguish, all to their detriment in amounts to be determined at trial. 62. Based on violations of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (“FEHA”) Plaintiffs Richard Padilla, William Carmichael, and Fredy Miranda are entitled to three times their actual damages, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS PRAY FOR JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS: 1. Under the First, S cond, and Third Causes of Action a. Actual damages in amounts to be determined at trial. 2. Under the Fourth Cause of Action: a. Actual damages in amounts to be determined at trial; 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEFou) 10 uw 12 B 14 15 16 7 18, 19 20 2 22 23 25 26 27 28 b. Restitution of all money acquired by Defendants Owners as a result of illegal rent overcharges pursuant to Rent Ordinance § 37.11A; c. Damages according to statute; and d. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost pursuant to Rent Ordinance § 37.114. 3. Under the Fifth Cause of Action: a, General and special damages in amounts to be determined at trial; and b. _ Aninjunction ordering Defendants Owners to abate all substandard conditions and nuisances at the Subject Premises-1, Subject Premises-2, and common areas at the PREMISES. 4. Under the Sixth Cause of Action: a. An injunction prohibiting Defendants Owners from engaging in the unfair business practices alleged; and b. Restitution of all money obtained by Defendants Owners as a result of its unfair business practices. 5. Under the Seventh Cause of Action: a, Trebled actual damages in amounts to be determined at trial; b. Foran injunction prohibiting Defendants Owners from harassing Plaintiff's pursuant to Rent Ordinance Section 37.10B; and c. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 6. Under the Eighth Cause of Action: a, Trebled actual damages in amounts to be determined at trial; b. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 7. Under All Causes of Action: a. Costs of suit (including reasonable attorney's fees); and b. Any other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: October 10, 2017 By: S Raquel Fo} Attorney 7 or Plaintiffs COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF