1-877-cmsynergy/1-877-267-9637
Hyde Mulvihill APC Lawyers
216 W. Foothill Blvd (91016) PO Box 1007
Monrovia CA 91017
(626) 358-7471 Fax: (626) 358-2894
|
|
|
|
Greene/Silverman v. Park LaBrea Added 02/06/2003: See pictures of what we fondly refer to as 'Lake Park LaBrea'. These pictures were taken of the roof of Park LaBrea Tower Building No. 39, by Steve Silverman, in early 2002. These were provided in response to Park LaBrea's request for production of documents. Also, here's a page of photos of the inside of a Park LaBrea apartment. **** Park LaBrea bills itself as Southern California's most extraordinary apartment community. In this case, two apartments in Park LaBrea had extraordinary leaks. When our clients moved after months of unsuccessful repairs, Park LaBrea attempted to fine them more than $4,000. That's when this lawsuit was filed. Remember, the Complaint is verified. Lee Greene and Steve Silverman have sworn, under penalty of perjury, that what is described in the Complaint is true. Click here to access Park LaBrea's website. Park LaBrea is represented by Trevor Ingold of Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold. Mr. Ingold can be reached at (213) 615-8035. Cynthia Coulter
Mulvihill, SBN 171909 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
Comes now Plaintiffs LEE GREENE and Plaintiff STEVE SILVERMAN, and alleges against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs LEE GREENE and STEVE SILVERMAN are and were residents of the County of Los Angeles. 2. At all times herein mentioned, PLB MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California Corporation doing business as PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT (hereinafter “PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT”), was and is authorized to do business in the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT’S principal place of business is 6200 W. Third Street, Los Angeles, California 90036. Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT is the agent of Defendant PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, L.P. 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon information and belief alleges that defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT is organized into several departments. Those departments include PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department, PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Leasing, and PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Collections. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief alleges, that employees of PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT wear uniforms that consist of blue button down shirts and khaki pants. 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon information and belief alleges that “Curtis” was and is an employee of Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, assigned to the PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege that Curtis has the authority to make representations about repairs and about leasing terms on behalf of his employer, Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. Curtis is about 5 foot 8 inches tall, weighs around 140 pounds, and appears to be of Asian decent. 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon information and belief alleges that “Deidrich Rodgers” was and is an employee of PARK LAGREA MANAGEMENT, and assigned to the PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege that Deidrich Rodgers has the authority to make representations about repairs and about leasing terms on behalf of his employer, Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. Deidrich Rodgers is about 5 foot 10 inches tall, slender, and appears to be African-American. 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon information and belief alleges that Tony Reyes is an employee of PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, and is assigned to the PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege that Tony Reyes has the authority to make representations about repairs and about leasing terms on behalf of his employer, Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon information and belief alleges that “Barbara Barsi” was and is an employee of PARK LAGREA MANAGEMENT, and assigned to PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Leasing. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege that Barbara Barsi has the authority to make representations about repairs and about leasing terms on behalf of her employer, Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon information and belief alleges that Mike Blake is an employee of PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, and assigned to PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Collection Department. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege that Mike Blake has the authority to make representations about lease terms and collection actions on behalf of his employer, Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. 9. At all times herein mentioned, PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership, was and is authorized to do business in the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. Its principal place of business is 50 California Street, Suite 920, Los Angeles, California 94111. PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, L.P. is the owner of certain real property, including apartment premises and common areas, which are collectively known as PARK LABREA. 10. The true names or capacities whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Cross-Complaint to show the true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the fictitiously named Defendants named herein, and each of them, are in some way indebted to the Plaintiffs for the acts and obligations alleged herein. 11. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each of their Co-Defendants, and in doing the things herein mentioned, were acting in the scope of their authority as such agents and employees, and with the permission and consent of their Co-Defendants. 12. All of the acts and omissions alleged herein occurred within the jurisdiction of this court. 13. In 2001, Plaintiff GREENE was a tenant of 401 S. Burnside Avenue, Apartment 12—D, Los Angeles, California (hereinafter APT 12‑D). APT 12‑D is located on the top floor of Building 39, and is called a PARK LABREA Tower Apartment. Plaintiff GREENE’S lease agreement was with Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, acting as the agent for Defendant PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, L.P. Plaintiff GREENE’S monthly rent on APT 12‑D was $1195 per month. 14. In or about April, 2001, Plaintiff GREENE began noticing foul and filthy water coming through the ceiling of APT 12‑D. The water had the consistency, appearance and smell of raw sewage. Large dirty, damp brown stains also started appearing on the carpet in the main hallway. Fetid brown water also covered a smoke detector in APT 12‑D. That smoke detector eventually had to be replaced. 15. Plaintiff GREENE promptly reported the problem with the grimy water coming through the ceiling of APT 12‑D PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department. Plaintiff GREENE reported the problem by telephone to a woman that answered the PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department phone. 16. In or about April, 2001, a PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department employee inspected APT 12‑D. At that inspection that took place in or about April, 2001, Plaintiff GREENE watched the PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department employee leave the hallway of the top floor of Building 39 and enter a stairwell area which leads to the roof of Building 39. The PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department employee was gone for several minutes. Plaintiff GREENE believes, and based thereon alleges, that a PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department employee went to the roof of Building 39. Plaintiff GREENE does not remember the name or description of the PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department employee, but does remember the individual was a man who was wearing a PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department uniform. 17. The PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department employee told Plaintiff GREENE that Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT would promptly make repairs to the interior of APT 12‑D and that Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT would make repairs to stop the water coming through the ceiling of APT 12‑D. 18. Based upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that at the time of this inspection, the PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department employee would have seen an area of the roof of Building 39 with in excess of 100 square feet surface area of water ponding. 19. Based upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that at the time the PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department employee made the representation in April, 2001, that repairs would be made, that Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT had no intention of making the repairs it said it would. 20. At the time the PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department employee made the representation to PLAINTIFF GREENE, Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT actually intended to and did make improvements to the common area, using funds that could have been used to make repairs to Building 39. Those improvements included: (a) Construction on a decorative fountain for the Curson Square area of PARK LABREA. (b) Installation of colored rock on parking garages. (c) Laying of decorative pathways in Curson Square. (d) Repainting the exterior of some Garden Apartments, in order to explore different color options. (e) Remodeling of the main entrance on Third Street, which included installation of a new garden and new palm trees. 21. As late as May 2001 and early June 2001, even though there had been no rain for quite some time, gross, disgusting water that appeared to be like sewage still seeped through the ceiling of APT 12‑D. In fact, the leaking grew worse, spreading to the bedroom of APT 12‑D. 22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, through PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department, never repaired the problem causing the water to come through the ceiling of APT 12‑D. Plaintiff are further informed and believe, and based thereon allege, and that Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT never did anything to eliminate the source of the water coming through the ceiling. The only repairs that were made to APT 12‑D were cosmetic repairs to its interior. 23. In late May or early June, 2001, after having slimy and disgusting water come through the ceiling of APT 12‑D for nearly two months, and knowing that APT 12‑D was not habitable, Plaintiff GREENE asked Curtis to be allowed to terminate his lease and move out of APT 12‑D. 24. Curtis told Plaintiff GREENE that he would be penalized two months’ rent, $2,390, if he terminated his lease for APT 12‑D, because the one-year term of the lease had not run out. Further, Curtis told Plaintiff GREENE the fine would be imposed even if Plaintiff GREENE leased a different apartment from Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. Plaintiff GREENE is informed and believes that Curtis had the authority to make those representations on behalf of Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. 25. Thereafter, on or about early to mid-June, 2001, Barbara Barsi offered Plaintiff GREENE Apartment APT 12‑F of 401 S. Burnside, Los Angeles California 90036 (APT 12‑F). APT 12‑F is also located on the top floor of Building 39. The front door of APT 12‑F is approximately 3 yards from the front door of APT 12‑D. At the time Barbara Barsi offered Plaintiff GREENE the lease on APT 12‑F, she represented that PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT would waive the $2,390 fine for early termination of the lease on APT 12‑D. Plaintiff GREENE is informed and believes that Barbara Barsi had the authority to make those representations on behalf of Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. 26. Barbara Barsi demanded that Plaintiff GREENE execute a new lease agreement with a term of one year in order to occupy APT 12‑F without having to pay a penalty of $2,390. Barbara Barsi also demanded that Plaintiff GREENE pay 22½% more in rent to occupy APT 12‑F. Plaintiff GREENE is informed and believes that Barbara Barsi had the authority to make those representations on behalf of Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. 27. Plaintiffs had no way of knowing that the roof above APT 12‑F actually had substantially more ponding water than the roof above APT 12‑D. The standing water on the roof above APT 12‑F was several inches deeper than the standing water on the roof above APT 12‑D. The murky, scummy water on the roof above APT 12‑F covered a much wider area than the ponding water on the roof above APT 12‑D. The water on the roof above APT 12‑F, like the water above APT 12‑D, had no outlet except evaporation, or into the ceiling and the walls of the living units below. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that the roofing membrane on Building 39 was not water tight or water proof. Therefore, Defendants, and each of them, knew that the stagnant, particulate-filled water would seep into the ceiling and walls of the apartment below. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that water was seeping into APT 12‑F at the time they demanded Plaintiff GREENE move into APT 12‑F, in lieu of assessing him with a fine. 28. Plaintiff SILVERMAN also became a lessee under the terms of the lease for APT 12‑F. A true and correct copy of the lease agreement for APT 12‑F is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. The terms of the lease are $1,460 per month, an additional $35 per month fee for parking, and an additional $1 per month as a rent control recovery fee. 29. Plaintiff GREENE and Plaintiff SILVERMAN are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT did not fix the cause of the water intrusion or eliminate the source of the water coming through the ceiling of APT 12‑D after Plaintiff GREENE moved, nor did they have any intention of doing so. Instead, Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT immediately found a new lessee for APT 12‑D. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT made no repairs to APT 12‑D before leasing it to a new tenant. 30. On Christmas Day, December 25, 2001, Plaintiffs noticed brown bubbling marks in the master bedroom of APT 12‑F that appeared to be caused by water coming through the ceiling. Those brown, murky marks were visible on the ceiling and on two separate walls of APT 12‑F. The evening of December 25, 2001, Plaintiff GREENE called Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department and left a message on an answering machine about the problem. 31. On December 26, 2001, at around 10:00 a.m., a male identifying himself as an employee of Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service called Plaintiffs and told them that Deidrich Rodgers would come to look at their apartment. 32. On December 27, 2001, Deidrich Rodgers inspected the interior of APT 12‑F. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Deidrich Rodgers also went to the roof of the building to inspect the roof and find out why water was coming through the ceilings and walls of APT 12‑F. Deidrich Rodgers told Plaintiffs that there was a large amount of standing water on the roof directly above APT 12‑F. 33. On December 27, 2001, Plaintiffs heard what sounded like a vacuum on the roof of Building 39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the purpose of the vacuum they heard was to remove the water ponding on the roof. 34. Deidrich Rodgers told Plaintiffs that the damage to APT 12‑F at the ceiling and walls of the master bedroom would be painted and repaired within a few days. 35. On December 28, 2001, Plaintiffs went to work. Plaintiffs returned to APT 12‑F and found a note from Deidrich Rodgers saying that Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT had entered APT 12‑F to reassess the damage. Plaintiffs found a bucket in the corner of the master bedroom of APT 12‑F., which caught the constantly flowing drops of contaminated water which actually ran, rather than seeped, from the ceiling. 36. From December 26, 2001 to January 8, 2002, Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT made no repairs to the interior of APT 12‑F. The bucket remained in the corner of the master bedroom. Plaintiffs continued to make regular requests to PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department. 37. On January 9, 2002, Tony Reyes told Plaintiffs that repairs would be made to APT 12‑F that day. Tony Reyes told Plaintiffs repairs to the interior of APT 12‑F would take 2 to 3 hours. 38. On January 9, 2002, Tony Reyes told Plaintiffs that repairs to the roof of Building 39 had already been made. 39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege, that at the time Tony Reyes told Plaintiffs that repairs had been made to the roof of Building 39, no repairs had been made. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that at the time Tony Reyes made the representation, that Tony Reyes knew that his representation that the roof of Building 39 had been repaired was false. 40. Tony Reyes showed a shocking disregard for the health and safety of the Plaintiffs, who were subjected to an unabated flow of disgusting, brown water into their apartment. Tony Reyes’ representations that repairs had been made were solely for the economic gain of this employer, PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. 41. Deidrich Rodgers asked PLAINTIFF GREENE to disassemble the computer in that room, which was connected to Plaintiff GREENE’S DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) Internet Service. DSL service was only wired to the master bedroom of APT 12‑F. Plaintiff GREENE is an Internet consultant and uses the computer and DSL line extensively, although he did not run a business from either APT 12-D or APT 12-F. In order to mitigate his damages, Plaintiff GREENE set up a lap top computer in the dining room as a temporary computer station. Because the DSL service could not be moved to the dining room, Plaintiff GREENE used a regular phone line with a modem for Internet service, slowing Internet access to less than 10% of the speed available by DSL, directly affecting his ability to use his computer effectively. 42. On January 9, 2002, without completing any repairs, the entire master bedroom was covered in clear plastic tarps. Tony Reyes told Plaintiffs that repairs would be completed on January 10, 2002. 43. On January 9, 2002, Tony Reyes offered Plaintiffs a stay in a furnished apartment for one night while work on APT 12‑F was completed. Rather than relocate for what they were told would be one night, in an effort to mitigate expense to Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, and to spare them the inconvenience of having to move furniture for one day, Plaintiff GREENE and Plaintiff SILVERMAN decided to sleep on the living room floor of APT 12‑F on January 9, 2002. The bedroom of APT 12‑F was uninhabitable at this time. 44. On January 10, 2002 Plaintiff GREENE observed repairs being made to other apartments on this floor of Building 39, including vacant Apartment 12‑A, and APT 12‑D. 45. On January 10, 2002, Plaintiffs came home from work and discovered a 1-foot wide by 5 feet long section of a wall in APT 12‑F had been torn down. A 4 feet long section of the ceiling of APT 12‑F was chipped into and exposed to reveal two wide cracks. Stinking black roofing tar was put on the drywall of APT 12‑F, covering some areas of water damage. Additional, new water stains were visible on APT 12‑F below the putrid roofing tar. Three additional buckets had been placed in APT 12‑F to catch water steadily dripping from the ceiling. Photos of the damage visible on January 10, 2002, are attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference. 46. Plaintiff SILVERMAN immediately called Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department. No one answered the telephone at Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department. Plaintiff SILVERMAN left two detailed messages for Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department. Although a woman answered the phone for Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department, she refused to provide an emergency contact number to report this problem. 47. On January 10, 2002, Tony Reyes sent two housekeepers to clean the master bedroom. The housekeepers were two Hispanic men who told Plaintiff SILVERMAN they were employed by PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Services Department. Plaintiff SILVERMAN asked them to leave, as he and Plaintiff GREENE were going out of state for several days would not be in APT 12‑F to monitor cleaning activities. Furthermore, in an effort to minimize expenses to Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, Plaintiff SILVERMAN did not want to have a cleanup done when Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT had not finished the repair work for APT 12‑F. Cleaning before repairs were completed would have necessitated another cleanup when the repairs were completed. 48. By January 11, 2002, the repairs had not been completed. Before leaving town for several days, Plaintiff SILVERMAN took the day off work in order to address problems with APT 12‑F. Plaintiff SILVERMAN told Tony Reyes that Plaintiffs would be out of town, and authorized repairs while the apartment was empty. Tony Reyes told Mr. Silverman that repair work to APT 12‑F would be completed over the weekend, while Plaintiffs were gone. 49. On January 13, 2002, Plaintiffs returned to APT. APT 12‑F. No additional repair work had been done. Over the weekend, the roofing tar and sealant filled APT 12‑F with a foul, disgusting and nauseating odor. 50. Plaintiffs were not able to use the bedroom of APT 12‑F for approximately a week. 51. On January 14, 2002, Plaintiff SILVERMAN took another day off work. Plaintiff GREENE took half a day off work. Plaintiffs met with Tony Reyes in Tony Reyes’ office. Tony Reyes informed Plaintiffs that repairs were not made on January 12, 2002, because the paint and Spackle could not be applied because the walls were too wet to make repairs. 52. On January 14, 2002 Plaintiffs explained to Tony Reyes their concern about the effect that the constantly dripping water, possible mold growth resulting from standing water, foul odors from the repair efforts, and contaminated drywall would have on their health. Tony Reyes told Plaintiffs that water was trapped in the insulation adjoining APT 12‑F. Tony Reyes told Plaintiffs the water would dry out in a few more days, or possibly weeks. Tony Reyes then contradicted the previous representations made by Curtis, Deidrich Rodgers, and himself, and told Plaintiff that PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT had no intention of fixing the roof of the building until after the rainy season, no earlier than March or April of 2002. In addition, Tony Reyes told Plaintiffs that the interior of APT 12‑F, specifically, the walls, would not be repaired until after the rainy season, sometime in March or April 2002. Tony Reyes drew a picture showing water trapped in the insulation of the walls of APT 12‑F by way of explanation why the interior would not be repaired for more than three months. 53. On or about January 14, 2002, Tony Reyes had the housekeepers employed by PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Service Department clean master bedroom of APT 12‑F. 54. The ceiling of APT 12‑F continued to drip water after January 14, 2002. Tony Reyes told Plaintiffs they still could not Spackle and paint the interior of APT 12‑F because of the continuing water intrusion. 55. On or about January 14, 2002, contractors that Plaintiffs are informed and believe were retained by Defendant PARK LABREA told Plaintiff GREENE that a pond of water was sitting on the ceiling between APT 12‑F and the roof. The representations were made by two men wearing blue work pants and striped blue shirts with a company name on them that Plaintiffs do not remember. They were accompanied by Deidrich Rodgers. Plaintiffs reached the conclusion that those individuals were retained by PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT because they were accompanied by Deidrich Rodgers, but not employees of PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT because they were wearing different uniforms. Those individuals showed Plaintiff GREENE cracks that were starting to appear in the dining room and bathroom. 56. Deidrich Rodgers recommended that Plaintiffs move, and find another place to live because Deidrich Rodgers could not guarantee that leaking and damage would not continue to happen in APT 12‑F. Plaintiffs are informed and believed that Deidrich Rodgers had the authority to make those representations on behalf of his employer, PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. In addition, one of the contractors described in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint recommended that Plaintiffs move from APT 12‑F. 57. Some time between January 14, 2002 and January 29, 2002, water started dripping into the bathroom of APT 12‑F, on the ceiling just above the water closet. The stain was golden brown and looked like coffee. At the same time, a crack appeared above the dining room table. The crack lengthened. 58. On January 15, 2002, sealant was applied to the wall in that APT 12‑F had been exposed, sealing existing water into the drywall. Water promptly began running down the wall from areas of the drywall that had not been sealed. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the sealant was employed by employees or contractors of Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. 59. On or about January 17, 2002 Deidrich Rodgers offered to Spackle and paint APT 12‑F, but Deidrich Rodgers said that the damage would continue to occur, and reoccur, as water was still trapped between the ceiling of APT 12‑F and the roof. 60. Water continued to drip from the ceiling from approximately January 14, 2002 to January 21, 2002, caught by the buckets in the APT 12‑F. 61. On or about January 29, 2002, after being told by Tony Reyes that APT 12‑F would not be repaired for three months, Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record, The Law Offices of Cynthia Coulter Mulvihill, requested that they be released from their lease obligation because of the continuing water intrusion; the possibility of mold growth; foul odors; inconvenience; and other breaches of the lease agreement, as well as the implied warranty of habitability present in every lease for property. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. 62. On or about February 4, 2002, having received no response from Defendants, Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record, The Law Offices of Cynthia Coulter Mulvihill, gave notice that they would vacate APT 12‑F no later than February 28, 2002. A true and correct copy of that letter notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”. 63. Plaintiffs paid rent for the entire month of February 2002, on February 5, 2002. That amount included the $35 parking fee and the $1 rent control fee, for a total of $1496. 64. On February 16, 2002, Plaintiffs moved from APT 12‑F to property that is not owned by Defendant PRIME/PARK LA BREA HOLDINGS, L.P. or managed and maintained by Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT. Plaintiffs returned possession of APT 12‑F, all keys, all parking cards, all parking passes, and all remote controls to Tony Reyes. 65. On February 26, 2002 Plaintiffs hired professional housecleaners to clean APT 12‑F. On February 28, 2002, Plaintiffs turned in keys, parking passes, and a remote control to a young Hispanic woman receptionist in the main PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT Administration office. The receptionist signed a receipt of those items. 66. On March 13, 2002, by letter dated March 12, 2002 Plaintiffs received a letter from Mike Blake demanding payment of $4,653.64. The invoice included $6,764.66 in rent for February 2002. Credit was given for the $1,496 paid by Plaintiff GREENE on February 5, 2002, as well as for deposits paid by Plaintiff GREENE for APT 12‑D. Partial credits were given for rent control and for parking. The remaining amount Mike Blake demanded from Plaintiffs was there penalty for terminating the lease of APT 12‑F early. In the cover letter accompanying the bill, Mike Blake told Plaintiffs that failure to fulfill their “credit obligation”, in actuality, a penalty, could cause a negative credit rating to be reported to “Credit Bureaus.” A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”. 67. Plaintiffs have not been refunded their deposit. 68. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at the time Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT told Plaintiffs that repairs would be made to the roof of Building 39 in order to stop the water intrusion, Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT did not intend to make those repairs. Rather, it intended to make improvements to the common areas that did not affect habitability, and in fact, it made those improvements. 69. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that no repairs whatsoever were made to the roof of Building 39 from the time Plaintiff GREENE first began complaining of leaks in APT 12‑D and the time Plaintiffs vacated APT 12‑F. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANTS PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT AND PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, LP AND DOES 1-20) 70. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 69 by reference. 71. On or about June 20, 2001, Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, the agent of Defendant Owner PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, LP (Exhibit “A”) for APT 12‑F. The terms of the lease provided that Plaintiffs were to pay $1,460 per month. Among other things, Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, the agent of Defendant Owner PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, LP agreed that if the premises were rendered uninhabitable, LEE GREENE and Plaintiff SILVERMAN were entitled to vacate the premises with thirty days’ notice. Plaintiff GREENE and Plaintiff SILVERMAN were also entitled to rent abatement for the period of time the premises were uninhabitable (¶16 of the lease). 72. Plaintiffs fulfilled their obligations under the terms of the lease agreement, except for those terms they were excused from performing under ¶16 and ¶18 of the lease. 73. Defendants were in breach of the portion of the lease agreement that required that the premises be habitable. Plaintiffs hereby allege that the premises were rendered uninhabitable, pursuant to paragraph ¶16 of the lease agreement. 74. Plaintiffs were entitled to vacate the premises in accordance with ¶16 and ¶18 of the lease agreement, as well as in accordance with Civil Code §1942, without being penalized for doing so. 75. Plaintiffs were damaged by the breach of contract in the following manner: (a) Compensatory damages, including Plaintiff GREENE’S loss of income from his consulting business and Plaintiff SILVERMAN’S loss of income as a contract television producer, as well as costs of movers and other relocation expenses; (b) The amount of deposits paid to Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT now wrongfully withheld; (c) Refund of a painting expense charged for APT 12‑D; (d) General damages; (e) Interest on those damages (Civil Code §3287); (f) Attorneys’ fees, as permitted by 32 (a) of the Lease Agreement (Exhibit “A”) and California Civil Code §1717. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 76. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 75 by reference. 77. On or about June 20, 2001, Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, the agent of Defendant Owner PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, LP (Exhibit “A”). 78. Defendants, and each of them, are Lessors within the meaning of California Civil Code §1941. 79. The lease agreement carried with it an implied warranty of habitability. As such, the defendants had an obligation to make both Apt 12-D and Apt 12-F fit for occupation of human beings. 80. Civil Code § 1941.1 states, in relevant part, “Untenantable dwelling. A dwelling shall be deemed untenantable for purposes of Section 1941 if it substantially lacks any of the following affirmative standard characteristics: (a) Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls . . . (f) Building, grounds and appurtenances at the time of the commencement of the lease or rental agreement in every part clean, sanitary, and free from all accumulations of . . filth . . . and all areas under control of the landlord kept in every part clean, sanitary, and free from all accumulations of . . . filth . . .” 81. Health & Safety Code §17920.3 states, in relevant part, § 17920.3. “ Substandard buildings. Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit . . . in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the . . . health, property, safety, or welfare of . . . the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building: (a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to . . . (11) Dampness of habitable rooms . . . (13) General dilapidation or improper maintenance . . . (b) Structural hazards shall include, but not be limited to, the following . . . (4) Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that split, lean, list, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration . . . (6) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceilings and roof supports, or other horizontal members which sag, split, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. . . . (g) Faulty weather protection, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Deteriorated, crumbling, or loose plaster. (2) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof, foundations, or floors . . .” 82. Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, as the manager of PARK LABREA, had a duty to Plaintiff GREENE, the occupant of APT 12‑D, to maintain APT 12‑D in a manner so that it was inhabitable. 83. Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT had a duty to Plaintiffs, as the lessees of APT 12‑F, to maintain APT 12‑F in a manner so that both were habitable to its occupants. 84. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duties to Plaintiffs by: (a) Failing to provide Plaintiff GREENE a habitable apartment, APT 12‑D; (b) By inducing Plaintiff GREENE to move to APT 12‑F and sign a new lease, with the promise that APT 12‑F was habitable; (c) By making an inadequate response to repair requests made on December 26, 2001, by leaving a bucket and plastic tarp in APT 12‑F for more than two weeks; (d) By subsequently using roofing tar on drywall, making the premises smell terrible, look terrible, with water continuing to drip outside of the tar anyway; (e) By leaving holes in the walls of APT 12‑F for days at a time; (f) By making repairs in such a manner that exacerbated leaking, meaning that four buckets were needed to catch leaks; (g) By failing to make repairs when promised; (h) By allowing conditions at Building 39 to continually deteriorate; (i) By failing to repair crumbling, deteriorating plaster and drywall in APT 12‑D and APT 12‑F; (j) By failing to repair sagging ceilings; (k) By failing to provide weather tight exterior walls; (l) By failing to provide weather tight interior walls; 85. Plaintiffs are entitled to all damages arising from the breach of the implied warranty of habitability, in an amount that exceeds the jurisdiction of this court and includes but is not limited to: (a) Compensatory damages, including Plaintiff GREENE’S loss of income from his consulting business; Plaintiff SILVERMAN’S loss of income as a contract television producer; the costs of movers and other relocation expenses; refund of the deposits paid to Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT; (b) General damages; (c) Interest on those damages (Civil Code §3287); (d) Attorneys’ fees, as permitted by 32 (a) of the Lease Agreement (Exhibit “A”); California Civil Code §1717; THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, LP, AND DOES 21-40) 86. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 85 by reference. 87. Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, as the manager of PARK LABREA, had a duty to Plaintiff GREENE, as the occupant of APT 12‑D, to use ordinary care in the maintenance of APT 12‑D, so that it was inhabitable. 88. Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT had a duty to Plaintiffs, as the lessees and occupants of APT 12‑D and APT 12‑F, to use ordinary care in the maintenance of APT 12‑D and APT 12‑F, so that the apartments were inhabitable. 89. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to use ordinary care by: (a) Failing to provide Plaintiff GREENE a habitable apartment, APT 12‑D; (b) By making an inadequate response to repair requests made on December 26, 2001, by leaving a bucket and plastic tarp in APT 12‑F for more than two weeks; (c) By subsequently using roofing tar on drywall, making the walls smell terrible, look terrible, and, despite the tar, continue to drip anyway; (d) By leaving holes in the walls of APT 12‑F for days at a time; (e) By making repairs in such a manner that exacerbated leaking, meaning that four buckets were needed to catch leaks; (f) By failing to make repairs when promised, or at all. 74 Plaintiffs are entitled to all damages arising from the Defendants’ negligence, in an amount that exceeds the jurisdiction of this court and includes but is not limited to: (a) Compensatory damages (Civil Code §3333), including Plaintiff GREENE’S loss of income from his consulting business and Plaintiff SILVERMAN’S loss of income as a contract television producer, as well as costs of movers and other relocation expenses; and the amount of deposits paid to Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT and to the landlord of the property now leased by Plaintiffs; (b) General damages; (c) Interest on those damages (Civil Code §3287); (d) Refund of a painting expense charged for APT 12‑D; (e) Attorneys’ fees and costs. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(TRESPASS AGAINST DEFENDANTS PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT AND 90. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 89 by reference. 91. As described above, Plaintiff GREENE was in actual and legal possession of APT 12-D. 92. As described above, Plaintiffs were in actual and legal possession of APT 12-F. 93. Defendants PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT and PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, LP, by failing to make repairs to either APT 12-D or APT 12-F, unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiffs’ possession of their property by subjecting it to continuing contamination and to physical damage. 94. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all damages arising from Defendants’ PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT and PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, LP trespass, including: (a) Compensatory damages (Civil Code §3333), including Plaintiff GREENE’S loss of income from his consulting business and Plaintiff SILVERMAN’S loss of income as a contract television producer, as well as costs of movers and other relocation expenses; (b) General damages; (c) Punitive damages (Civil Code §3294). (d) Interest on those damages (Civil Code §3287). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(PRIVATE NUISANCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT AND 95. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 94 by reference. 96. As described above, Plaintiff GREENE was in actual and legal possession of APT 12-D. 97. As described above, Plaintiffs were in actual and legal possession of APT 12-F. 98. Defendants PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT and PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, LP, by failing to make repairs to either APT 12-D or APT 12-F, unlawfully created a private nuisance by substantially and unreasonably interfering with the Plaintiffs’ possession of their property by subjecting it to continuing contamination and to physical damage. 99. Defendants unreasonably failed to make repairs that would have discontinued or abated the nuisance. 100. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all damages arising from Defendants’ PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT and PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS, LP trespass, including: (a) Compensatory damages (Civil Code §3333), including Plaintiff GREENE’S loss of income from his consulting business and Plaintiff SILVERMAN’S loss of income as a contract television producer, as well as costs of movers and other relocation expenses; (b) General damages; (c) Punitive damages (Civil Code §3294); (d) Interest on those damages (Civil Code §3287). SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION(VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §§1941,
1941.1, 1942.4, and 1942.5, AGAINST DEFENDANTS PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, 101. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 100 herein by reference. 102. California Civil Code §1941 states, “Lessor to make dwelling-house fit for its purpose. The lessor of a building intended for the occupation of human beings must, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, put it into a condition fit for such occupation, and repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof . . . .” 103. Defendants, and each of them, are Lessors within the meaning of Civil Code §1941. As such, the defendants had an obligation to make both Apt 12-D and Apt 12-F fit for occupation of human beings. 104. Defendants, and each of them, had a statutory duty to maintain the property in a habitable condition. California Civil Code § 1941.1 states, in relevant part, “Untenantable dwelling. A dwelling shall be deemed untenantable for purposes of Section 1941 if it substantially lacks any of the following affirmative standard characteristics: (a) Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls . . . (f) Building, grounds and appurtenances at the time of the commencement of the lease or rental agreement in every part clean, sanitary, and free from all accumulations of . . filth . . . and all areas under control of the landlord kept in every part clean, sanitary, and free from all accumulations of . . . filth . . .” 105. Plaintiff GREENE and Plaintiff SILVERMAN did not cause any damages as described in Civil Code §1929, which would have excused Defendants’ performance under Civil Code §1941.1. 106. Plaintiff GREENE and Plaintiff SILVERMAN fulfilled all their affirmative obligations to maintain the premises, as required by Civil Code §1941.2. 107. Civil Code §1942.4 states, “(a) Any landlord who demands or collects rent when all of the following conditions exist is liable to the tenant or lessee for the actual damages sustained by the tenant or lessee and special damages in an amount not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) . . .” Those conditions include a rental dwelling substantially lacking any affirmative standard characteristics listed in Civil Code §1941.1; citation by a public officer; failure to abate the conditions after notice; and that the tenant did not cause those conditions.” 108. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief alleges that Defendants were inspected by one or more public entities during the time of their tenancy. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that those inspections may have resulted in citations and notice to abate as described in Civil Code §1942.4. 109. Civil Code §1942.5, provides “Remedies for lessor's retaliation. (a) If the lessor retaliates against the lessee because of the exercise by the lessee of his rights under this chapter . . . (1) After the date upon which the lessee . . . has made an oral complaint to the lessor regarding tenantability; or (2) . . (4) After the filing of appropriate documents commencing a judicial . . . proceeding involving the issue of tenantability . .(f) Any lessor or agent of a lessor who violates this section shall be liable to the lessee in a civil action for all of the following: (1) The actual damages sustained by the lessee. (2) Punitive damages in an amount of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each retaliatory act where the lessor or agent has been guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice with respect to such act . . .(h) The remedies provided by this section shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by statutory or decisional law. 110. Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against Plaintiff GREENE for exercising his rights under the lease agreement for APT 12-D. Specifically, Defendants, and each of them, demanded that Plaintiff GREENE sign a lease for a new, one year period; pay 22% in additional rent, in order to move from an uninhabitable apartment. Defendants told Plaintiff GREENE that if he did not agree to move to APT 12-F, he would be assessed a punitive fine, when Plaintiff GREENE was actually entitled to vacate the premises in accordance with Civil Code §1942. 111. Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against Plaintiffs for exercising their rights under the lease agreement for APT 12-F. Plaintiffs terminated their lease for APT 12-F in accordance with the terms of the lease (Exhibit “A”). Plaintiffs retained counsel to assist them in the lease termination. Plaintiffs’ counsel told PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, in writing, that Plaintiffs would be terminating their lease. Mike Blake continued to communicate directly to Plaintiffs, sending them an unitemized bill for nearly $5,000 after termination of the lease. Mike Blake then sent letters directly to Plaintiffs threatening to destroy their credit rating unless they paid the unitemized bills. Plaintiffs were actually entitled to vacate the premises, without penalty, in accordance with Civil Code §1942. 112. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to damages as follows: (a) Compensatory damages (Civil Code §3333), including Plaintiff GREENE’S loss of income from his consulting business and Plaintiff SILVERMAN’S loss of income as a contract television producer, as well as costs of movers and other relocation expenses; (b) General damages; (c) Statutory special damages (§1942.4 and §1942.5) (d) Punitive damages (Civil Code §3294); (e) Attorneys’ fees (Civil Code §1942.4 and §1942.5) (f) Interest on those damages (Civil Code §3287). SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION(VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
§17920 et. seq. AGAINST DEFENDANTS PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, 113. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 112 herein by reference. 114. Health & Safety Code §17920.3 states, in relevant part, § 17920.3. “ Substandard buildings. Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit . . . in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the . . . health, property, safety, or welfare of . . . the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building: (a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to . . . (11) Dampness of habitable rooms . . . (13) General dilapidation or improper maintenance . . . (b) Structural hazards shall include, but not be limited to, the following . . . (4) Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that split, lean, list, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration . . . (6) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceilings and roof supports, or other horizontal members which sag, split, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. . . . (g) Faulty weather protection, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Deteriorated, crumbling, or loose plaster. (2) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof, foundations, or floors . . .” 115. Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT, as the manager for PARK LABREA, had a duty to Plaintiff GREENE, the occupant of APT 12‑D, to maintain APT 12‑D in a manner so that it was inhabitable within the meaning of the Health & Safety Code. 116. Defendant PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT had a duty to Plaintiffs, as the lessees and occupants of APT 12‑D and APT 12‑F, to maintain APT 12‑D and APT 12‑F in a manner so that both were habitable to its occupants, and so that both could be safely occupied. 117. Defendants, and each of them, breached their statutory duties to Plaintiffs by: (a) Failing to provide Plaintiff GREENE a habitable apartment, APT 12‑D; (b) By inducing Plaintiff GREENE to move to APT 12‑F and sign a new lease, with the promise that APT 12‑F was habitable; (c) By making an inadequate response to repair requests made on December 26, 2001, by leaving a bucket and plastic tarp in APT 12‑F for more than two weeks; (d) By subsequently using roofing tar on drywall, making the premises smell terrible, look terrible, with water continuing to drip outside of the tar anyway; (e) By leaving holes in the walls of APT 12‑F for days at a time; (f) By making repairs in such a manner that exacerbated leaking, meaning that four buckets were needed to catch leaks; (g) By failing to make repairs when promised, or at all. 118. The failure to make those repairs adequately were a violation of the Health & Safety Codes. 119. Plaintiff GREENE and Plaintiff SILVERMAN are entitled to all damages arising from the Defendant’s violation of the Health & Safety Code, including (a) Compensatory damages (Civil Code §3333), including but not limited to Plaintiff GREENE’S loss of income from his consulting business and Plaintiff SILVERMAN’S loss of income as a contract television producer, as well as costs of movers and other relocation expenses; (b) General damages; (c) Statutory special damages (§1942.4 and §1942.5) (d) Punitive damages (Civil Code §3294); (e) Attorneys’ fees (Civil Code §1942.4 and §1942.5) (f) Interest on those damages (Civil Code §3287). EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION(FRAUD AGAINST DEFENDANTS PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT AND PRIME/PARK LABREA HOLDINGS LP AND DOES 41-50) 120. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 119 by reference. 121. On or about 2001, Plaintiff GREENE began experiencing foul, disgusting water seeping through the ceiling of APT 12‑D. The brown water oozing through APT 12‑D did not stop while Plaintiff GREENE lived in APT 12‑D. 122. On or about June 2001 Curtis told Plaintiff GREENE that PARK LABREA MANAGEMENT would not release him from the lease for APT 12‑D unless Plaintiff GREENE agreed to pay a penalty of two months’ rent, $2,390. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief alleges that at the time Curtis made the representation to Plaintiff GREENE, Curtis knew or should have known that Plaintiff GREENE was not required to pay a penalty for vacating an uninhabitable apartment, under Civil Code §1942. 123. As an alternative to paying a penalty of $2,390 to leave APT 12‑D, Barbara Barsi offered Plaintiff GREENE APT 12‑F, directly across the hall from APT 12̴ |
