Vagle V Archstone Communities Exhibit 1 Carpet Cleaning Painting Tenant Lawsuit PDF

Exhibit 1
Case 2:14-cv-03476-RGK-AJW Document 1-1 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:11
54619248
Nov262013
11:49AM
EXHIBIT 1
Page 11
,
.
4
5
R. Rex Parris, Esq. (SBN 96567)
Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. (SBN 239541 )
Kitty Szeto, Esq. (SBN 2581 36)
John M. Bickford, Esq. (SBN 280929)
R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 1 0th Street West
Lancaster_ Cal ifrnia 93534
Tele
J
hone: ( 661 ) 949-2595
F acsnnil e: (661 ) 949-7524
6
Attorney s fr Plaintifs and t he Putative Class
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE
PONCE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly sit uated;
Plaintifs,
v.
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC, a
Delaware limited l iabil ity corporation, ASN
WARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware
l imited l iability corporation, and
ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH LP, a
Delaware limited partnership, and DOES I
t hrough I 00, inclusive;
Defendant s.
Case No. BC48093 l
CLASS ACTION
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
( 1) Violat ions of Civil Code section
1 950.5
(2) Unjust Enrichment
(3) Violation of Business and
Profssions Code sections
1 7200 et seq.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EXHIBIT 1
Page 12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 410.10 and Articl e VI, section 10 of the Cal ifrnia Constitution.
2. This court has jurisdiction over Defndants because Defendants have
sufficient minimum contacts in Califrnia, or otherwise intentional l y avail themselves
of the Cal ifrnia market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over them by the
Cal ifornia courts consistent with traditional notions of fir pl ay and substantial justice.
3. Venue is proper in this court because Defendants maintain offces, have
agents, and transact business in Los Angel es County. At al l material times mentioned
herein, Pl aintifs resided in Los Angel es County.
4. Pl aintifs are infrmed and bel ieve, and based thereon al l ege, that the
amount in controversy with respect to Pl aintifs' individual cl aims is l ess than $75,000.
PARTIES
5. Pl aintif JENIFER VAGLE ("Pl aintif VAGLE") is, and at al l times
15 mentioned herein was, an individual residing in Los Angel es County, in the State of
16 Cal ifrnia. Pl aintif VAGLE brings this action on behalf of hersel f, al l others simil arl y
17 situated, and the general publ ic.
18 6. Pl aintif GEORGE PONCE ("'Pl aintif PONCE") is, and at al l times
19 mentioned herein was, an individual residing in Los Angel es County, in the State of
20 Cal ifrnia. Pl aintif PONCE brings this action on behalf of himself, al l others simil arly
21 situated, and the general publ ic.
22 7. Defndant ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC ("Defendant ASN WARNER
23 CENTER") is a l imited l iabil ity corporation frmed under the l aws of the State of
24 Del aware, having its principl e pl ace of business at 9200 E Panorama Circl e, S uite 400,
25 Engl ewood, Col orado, 80 112.
26 8. Defndant Archstone Long Beach LP ("Defendant ARCHSTONE LONG
27 BEACH") is a l imited partnership frmed under the l aws of the State of Del aware,
28 having its principl e pl ace of business at 9200 E Panorama Circl e, Suite 400,
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EXHIBIT 1
Page 13
Engl ewood, Col orado, 80 1 12.
2 9. Defndant ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC ("Defndant
3 ARCHSTONE") is a l imited l iabil ity corporation frmed under the l aws of the State of
4 Del aware, having its principl e pl ace of business at 9200 E Panorama Circl e, Suite 400,
5 Engl ewood, Col orado, 80 1 12.
6 10. Pl aintifs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued
7 herein as DOES I through I 00, incl usive, and therefre sued said Defndants by such
8 fctitious names. Pl aintifs wil l amend this Third Amended Compl aint to all ege the true
9 names and capacities of DOES I through 100 when ascertained. Pl aintifs are infrmed
1 O and bel ieve, and based thereon al l ege, that each of these fictitiousl y named defendants,
11 participated or acted in concert with Defendant ASN WARNER CENTER, Defndant
12 ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH, and Defndant ARCHSTONE and are therefre
13 responsibl e in some manner for the acts, occurrences. and/or omissions al l eged herein.
14 and have thereby proximately caused damages to Pl aintiffs, and are l iabl e to Pl aintiffs
15 by reason of the facts al l eged herein.
16 11. Plaintifs are infrmed and believe, and based thereon al lege, that at all
17 times herein mentioned, Defndants and DOES 1 through I 00 are the agents, partners,
1 8 successors, or empl oyees of each other, and, in doing the things compl ained of herein;
19 are acting within the course and scope of such agency, partnership. succession. or
20 empl oyment. All acts and omissions al l eged to have been done by Defendants were
21 done with the consent, knowl edge and ratifcation of all other Defendants.
22 12. Pl aintif is infrmed and bel ieves. and based thereon all eges, that there
23 exists, and at all times herein mentioned there existed, a unity of ownership between the
24 Defendants such that any individuality or separateness between them has ceased and
25 each of them is the al ter ego of the others. Defndants share essentiall y identical
26 ownership and officers, share the same corporate headquarters, and util ize the services
27 of the same empl oyees. Adherence to the fction of the separate existence of
28
Defendants, and each of them, woul d, under the circumstances, sanction faud and/or
2
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EXHIBIT 1
Page 14
promote injustice.
"
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
3 Defndant ARCHSTONE
4 13. Defndant ARCHSTONE manages and operates approximately 70 multi-
5 unit apartment complexes throughout the State of California. These apartment
6 complexes operate under the collective name "Archstone".
7 14. Plaintifs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
8 Defendant ARCHSTONE markets its California apartment complexes through, among
9 other things, its website-archstoneapartments.com. The website cl aims that Archstone
10 is a recognized leader in apartment operations with a portflio concentrated in many of
11 the most desirable neighborhoods in the nation. [Archstone's] communities reside in
12 Washington DC. Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Seattle and
13 Boston metropolitan areas, to name a fw. Backed by industry-leading customer
14 service guarantees, Archstone strives to provide great apartments and great service to
15 [its] customers. " The website also has a fature that allows prospective tenants to
16 "[l]ease apartments online, anytime. " To rent an apartment, all a tenant "'need[s] is an
17 Internet connection and about 15 minutes. "
18 15. Plaintifs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
1 9 Defndant ARCHSTONE maintains another "residents'' website called
20 myarchstone.com, which allows any of the tenants residing at its Califrnia apartment
2 1 complexes to, among other things, pay their rent online, submit and track service
22 requests, and fnd community forms and policies.
23 16. Plaintifs are infrmed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the
24 employees at Defndant ARCHSTONE' s California apartment complexes are
25 uniformly trained and employed by Defndant ARCHSTONE. Defndant
26 ARCHSTONE claims that "L]obs at Archstone run the gamut from corporate positions
27 at [their] Denver headquarters to positions throughout the United States at [their]
28 apartment communities and regional offces." I t also claims to provide "frmal and
3
EXHIBIT 1
Page 15
i nformal traini ng.' ' Thi s i ncl udes "on-boardi ng" traini ng, whi ch i s "a multi-week
2 program that combi nes cl assroom, onli ne and structured on-the-job activiti es to bui l d
3 the ski l l s and confidence needed to i nteract with cust omers and deli ver outstanding
4 service. '' With regards to its prope1iy managers, Defendant ARCHSTONE has "created
5 a uni que l eadershi p devel opment series to hel p [their] managers improve their exi sting
6 l eadershi p skil l s and bui l d new ones. The program begins with a multi-day hi ghl y
7 i nt eractive session fcused on driving performance and buil ding teams. Managers fom
8 across the country have the opportuni ty t o interact with peers whi l e l earning from
9 executive sponsors. Coll aborative opportuniti es continue in both fce-to-fce and
1 0 onli ne environment s. "
1 1 1 7. Defendant ARCHSTONE monitors and regul ates its empl oyees to ensure
12 that they compl y with its uniform pol i ci es and procedures. For exampl e, "[e]very
1 3 quarter. [Archst one] sel ects [its] circl e of Excell ence' wi nners, whi ch are [its] t op
1 4 performing associates at [it s] apartment properti es. Every year, each regi on holds a
1 5 cel ebration to recognize these winners and many of [ Archstone's] l ocal associates
16 attend.''
1 7 Plaintif V AGLE' s Experience at Archstone Warner Center
1 8 18. On or about August 16, 2009 to about August 15, 2010, Pl aint iff VAGLE
19 l eased an apartment unit at Archstone Warner Center, l ocat ed at 2 1200 Kittri dge Street,
20 Woodl and Hil l s, Cal i fornia, 91303. Archst one Warner Center was l egal l y owned by
2 1 Defendant ASN WARNER CENTER, but was managed by Defendant ARCHSTONE.
22
.
24
25
1 9. Defndant ARCHSTONE required Pl ainti f VAGLE t o pay a $399.00
standard securit y deposit, a $400.00 pet deposit and, and $50.00 deposit fr a second set
of keys, fr a tot al securit y deposit of $849.00.
20. On or about August 15, 2010, Pl ainti ff VAGLE vacated her apartment
26 unit, l eavi ng it cl ean and in the same condit ion it was at the inception of her tenancy,
27 subject to reasonabl e wear and tear.
28 21. On or about August 25, 2010, Defendant AR CHS TONE provi ded
4
EXHIBIT 1
Page 16
3
4
5
6
Plaintif VAGLE with a Statement of Deposit, withholding $362. 13 of her $849.00
deposit. Of the $362. 13 withholding, the fll owing deductions, totaling $282.27. that
are the subject of this lawsuit:
a.
b.
c.
$80.00 fr apartment cleaning;
$60.00 for carpet cleaning; and
$ 142.27 fr painting.
7 22. Afer Plaintif VAGLE' s lease expired, Pl aintiff VAGLE spoke to
8 individual s who also leased apmiment units managed by Defndant ARCHSTONE. al l
9 of whom were charged fr apartment cleaning and painting and carpet
10 cl eaning/repl acement at the end of their tenancies even though they lef their apartment
11 units clean and in the same condition it was at the inception of their tenancies, subject
1 2 to reasonabl e wear and tear.
1 3 Plaintif PONCE' s Experience at Archstone Long Beach
1 4 23. On or about November 28, 2010 to about November 27. 20 1 1, Plaintiff
1 5 PONCE leased an apartment unit at Archstone Long Beach, l ocated at 1609 Ximeno
1 6 Ave, #154, Long Beach, CA 90804. Archstone Long Beach was l egal l y owned by
1 7 Defendant ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH, but was managed by Defndant
1 8 ARCHSTONE.
1 9 24. Defendant ARCHSTONE required Pl aintif PONCE to pay a $99.00
20 security deposit.
21 25. On or about November 27, 20 1 L Pl aintiff PONCE vacated his apartment
22 unit leaving it cl ean and in the same condition it was at the inception of his tenancy,
23 subject to reasonable wear and tear.
24 26. On or about December 4, 20 11. Defendant ARCHSTONE provided
25 Plaintiff PONCE with a Statement of Deposit, withhol ding the entirety of his $99.00
26 deposit and charging him an additional $273.74, total ing $372.74. Of the $372.74
27 charge, the fll owing deductions, total ing $300.00, are the subject of this lawsuit:
28 a. $80.00 fr apartment cleaning;
5
EXHIBIT 1
Page 17
2
3 27.
b. $60.00 for carpet cl eaning; and
c. $160. 00 for painting.
On or about December 31, 2011, Pl aintiff PONCE compl ained about these
4 charges to Defendant ARCHSTONE in writing and att ached pictures of his apartment
5 unit the day he moved out showing that he l ef his apartment cl ean and in t he same
6 condition it was at t he inception of his tenancy, subject to reasonabl e wear and tear. He
7 requested t hat t he charges be dropped and that Defndant ARCHSTONE return his
8 $99.00 deposit.
9 28. On or about January 9, 2012, Defendant ARCHSTONE responded to
10 Pl aintif PONCE' s compl aint, agreeing, as a "court esy", to waive t he $80. 00 apartment
11 cl eaning fee. The other charges remained.
12 29. Pl aintiff PONCE refused to pay these other charges. Consequentl y,
13 Defndant ARCHSTONE sent his bil l to coll ections sometime in earl y to mid-2012.
14 Putative Class Members' Experiences
15 30. Pl aintiffs are informed and bel ieve, and based thereon all ege, that their
1 6 experiences mirror those of the other ex-tenants of apartment communit ies managed
1 7 and operated by Defndant ARCHSTONE. Pl aint ifs have searched t he int ernet and
18 discovered t hat most-if not all -of t he apartment communit ies managed and operated
19 by Defendant ARCHSTONE have negative reviews l ef by ex-tenant s all eging that they
20 were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or repl acement
21 at the end of t heir l ease, even though they l ef their apartment cl ean and in the same
22 condition it was at t he incepti on of t heir t enancy. subject t o reasonabl e wear and tear.
23 For exampl e: 1
24
25
26
27
28
(a) Archstone Aurora Hills-Agoura Hills, CA:
1
h sere iews represent nly a mall ampl e of t he negat ive reviews fund by
Plaintif . he number of negati e review Plaintifs have found number in the hundreds.
PlaintiftS make these allegations as upporl fr their good fith bel ief that Defendant
ARCHSTONE has a ystematic policy and pr cedure of always charging for apartment
cleaning ad painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement at t he end of every tenancy,
regard le of the actual condition of the apartment unit.
6
EXHIBIT 1
Page 18
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(b)
Upon moving out, I had the carets cl eaned, wal l s painted and
patched, and the ent ire apartment was spotl ess. Archstone charged
me fr paint, carpets cl eaned and shampooed, caret patched when
no stains were there, and a total cl ean of the apartment total ing
over $500 when the deposit is onl y $299 . . . . . this pl ace is a rip-of
They do not care about you they onl y care about how much money
they make off each individual .
Posted 411212012 by Denese P.
Archstone Aliso Viejo Aliso Viejo, CA:
Archstone apparentl y has a policy of charging cl eaning, painting
and carpet cl eaning on move out no matter the actual condition of
the property. Upon move out, I cl eaned the rugs with a
profssional machine, cleaned the kitchen and bath compl etel y,
and cleaned and repainted as needed. The apartment was seen by
Carol yn who commented that it was cl eaner than when I moved
in. Despite this, I was charged fr fll cl eaning, caret cl eaning
and repainting. This was ridicul ous. It strikes me as dishonest.
Posted 611612008 by lindaandpeter
( c) Archstone Calabasas-Calabasas, CA:
(d)
(e)
They charge you $180 fr painting no matter what, no prorated
fe based on wear-and-tear. not hing. On top of that my mom and
I spent the better part of a weekend compl etel y cl eaning t he pl ace
out. I mean spotl ess, and t hey still charged me $100 fr cl eaning,
saying that if it wasn't done "Profssionall y" they charge you.
Woul da been nice to know this before I cl eaned my fingers to the
bone.
Posted 212412006 by Anonymous
Archstone City Place-Long Beach, CA:
I traveled during the week and was gone a l ot of the weekend, so
the pl ace was basicall y untouched and spotl ess, and at the end of
my rent they charged me cl eaning and carpet cl ean (i was
supposed to get a free one). took the rest of the $500 deposit.
Posted 101412011 by Casey J
Archstone Cupertino-Cupertino, CA:
7
EXHIBIT 1
Page 19
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(t)
Wait till you move out they try to charge you for painting,
cleaning, and mg cleaning at a cost of over $500.
Posted 712912009 by Diane U
Archstone Del Mar Heights-San Diego, CA
Let's not frget the amount of money I had to pay to move out. I
was tol d by the inspector that my apartment was in absolutel y
PERECT condition upon fnal inspection. Yet, they still forced
me to pay their ridiculous fees to I) profssionall y cl ean the
apartment 2) profssional carpet cl ean the apartment and 3)
professionall y repaint the apartment.
Posted 411612012 by Jackie K
(g) Archstone Del Mar Station-Pasadena, CA
The day afer I moved everything out of my apartment I hired my
l oyal cleaning l ady to do a deep and thorough cl eanse of the
apartment. The pl ace didnt have a speck in it. I received a bill 3
eeks l ater fr $1, 100.00 in move out costs. $80 fr a
professional cl eaning, which woul d be impossibl e to fathoms
what was cl eaned and $900 fr new caret.
Posted 412712012 by YANYARKER
(h) Archstone Emerald Park-Dublin, CA:
(i)
They made ill egal deductions to my security deposit. It's nice
that they paint the unit for new tenants, but the security deposit
isn' t a fnd fr the l andl ord to retur a unit to brand-new
condition. They al so apparentl y try to charge a set $100 cleaning
fee to each departing tenant. Talk to your l awyer about Cal . Civ.
Code 1 950.5 (onl ine at http//l egal inf.ca. gov) and he or she is
l ikel y to tell you that in your circumstances charging for painting
is ill egal when onl y ordinar wear and tear is present, and
charging a set cl eaning fe without accounting fr actual tasks
and time spent cleaning is al so ill egal . The l aw was passed in
2003, apparentl y Archstone's standard screw-the-tenant
procedures haven't caught up with the law.
Posted 91912012 by Tm M
Archstone Emeryville-Emeryville, CA:
My onl y real compl aint is that when I moved out they tacked on
8
EXHIBIT 1
Page 20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a bunch of random fes and I ended up paying $350. I am a very
carefl , neat person who takes care of her things, so to be
charged 100 fr professional cleaning-well ok, but not a random
100 for a paint job and then another 150 that I was never tol d
about. Moving out I flt ripped of.
Posted 711112012 by Nicole S
(j)
Archstone Escondido-Escondido, CA:
(k)
We spent hours cleaning the apartment up to get it looking
spotl ess. The place looked better than when we moved in. When
they came to l ook at it the guy said it was one of the best cleaned
apartments t hat he'd seen. He charged us $95 general clean, $50
caret clean, and $85 for touch up paint. More than half our
deposit to do al most no cl eaning. If you move in here, don't
expect to get your deposit back.
Posted on 311612012 by Anonymous
Archstone Fox Plaza-San Francisco, CA:
Upon moving out I was charged a $120 cleaning fee and $220 to
paint my unit. My unit was kept in perfct condition, I am a
clean feak. My $199 move in deposit tured into a bill.
Everyone be prepared to pony up money when you l eave because
they charge everyone to clean and repaint, no matter what
Posted on 412712009 by Anonymous
(l ) Archstone Freemont Center-Freemont, CA:
Expect to pay for a moveout clean and professional carpet care.
Posted 912112008 by Tom G.
(m) Archstone Glendale-Glendale, CA:
Befre I moved out, I had to sign a not ice to vacate withi n 30
days of the move-out date, in person. This was a l ittle annoying
fr someone who travels a lot. Afer that , they sent me a whol e
page of cleaning instruct ions. . . . So Archstone expect s you to
fol low most or all of these instructions, but they charge you at
least $80.00 for apartment cleaning always, on top of at l east $60
for caret cleaning. What was t he point of me cleaning t he
9
EXHIBIT 1
Page 21
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(n)
(o)
apartment then?
Posted 1112512011 by Lori Y
Archstone Hacienda-Pleasanton, CA:
I only paid a 99 dollar deposit, but when I moved out, I was
really disappointed. I t hought I was going to get it all back. I
lived t here fr a year and there was t ypical wear and tear on the
carpet and walls, but no major stains, no major holes in the walls,
etc. The day I turned in my keys, I had cleaned out the
microwave/fridge/oven/stove so t hat they looked brand new. I
not only vacuumed, but also steam cleaned the carpets, and flled
the 3 nail holes that were in the wall with putt y. When you move
into a big apartment l ike this where it not a privately owned, but
an actual national corporation, you expect that the wal ls will have
a fresh coat of paint, t he carpets will be clean, etc. This is
because when you move out, t hey run a fresh coat of paint on the
walls artd they clean t he carpets. I already cleaned the carpets,
but still expected them to do it again. Literally, when I moved
out, t he apartment (aside from some wall scuffs) looked exactly
how it did when I moved in. So why di d I get a bil l fom t hem?
Apparentl y, you aren't supposed to even vacuum when you move
out because t hey charge you an arm and leg to move out. On my
itemized bill, I had a carpet cleaning package that I had t o pay
for. they said t hat the paint should last for X numbers of years so
t hey charged me fr the excess years. So, if I woul d have stayed
for 2 years, I would have had to pay l ess even though there
would be more wear on t he walls. Whatever.
Posted 412012012 by Michele M
Archstone La Jolla-La Jolla:
When we were about to move out, t he manager told us t hat we
were responsible for hundreds of dollars to paint t he wall s, cl ean
the carpets, and clean the entire apartment fr the next tenant,
regardless of the fct t hat we l ef the apartment cl ean and without
damages. Had there been damages, they would have charged us
more. Even t hough the rental lease clearl y stated that t he deposit
was supposed to be returned unless there were damages, with the
exception of regular wear and tear, the manager insisted that
regul ar wear and tear wasn' t allowed. He said that all tenants
had to pay to prepare t he apartment for the next tenant.
10
EXHIBIT 1
Page 22
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
Archstone La Mesa-La Mesa, CA
When I moved out I lef the place in outstanding conditions;
However, they are charging me fr a new carpet, cleaning and
painting. At the end I owe them money.
Archstone Las Flores-Rancho Santa Margarita, CA:
Our apartment was cleaned fom top to bottom befre we moved
out and somehow we got sl apped with a bill for over $300 fr
supposed "repairs.' '
Archstone Marina del Rey-Marina del Ray, CA:
We just moved out, and we though our whol e $800. 00 security
deposit was coming back to us - we lef our apartment in
PERFECT condition. We received $48. 00 back. Why do you
ask? They told us they had to air out the carpet and repaint the
walls to refresh them.
Posted 1111112010 by Ryan S
Archstone Placentia Place-Placentia, CA:
They don't tell you but no matter what EVERYONE has to pay
$300.00 when you move out to cover painting and cl eaning. No
Choice! Only one worker told us this. They don't tell you when
you move it. So don't count on your deposit back, IT'S
AUTOMATIC.
Posted 1I1312012 by Lisa P.
Archstone Riverside-Riverside, CA:
Our company rented an apartment here for one year. It was only
occupied three to fur nights a week -- never during the day and
never on weekends. When we gave up the lease, they tried to
charge us fr fll unit painting ($150) and carpet cleaning ($40) .
Under Cal ifria law, this fll s under "normal wear and tear. "
When we complained, the manager, knowing the apartment was in
virtuall y the same condition as when we moved in, decided he
could l et us of the hook for the carpet cl eaning, but he would still
have to charge us $50 for hanging drapes in the bedroom and
dining room. That's $12.50 per drill ed hol e.
11
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAJNT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EXHIBIT 1
Page 23
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Posted 1011312011 by Krusticle
(u) Archstone Sierra Del Oro-Corona, CA:
Very expensive upon moveout! My son l ived here with his dog
that caused some damage. WE TOOK FULL
RESPONSIBILITY! Upon moveout we HI RED A
PROFESSIONAL contractor to repaint interior of apartment (not
damaged!) and to fix a piece of wood (4 in x 1 f) on the patio that
had been damaged. THEY CHARGED US FOR PAINT and
repair afer we had already fxed. In addition, we had carets
profssionall y cleaned. THEY CHARGED US FOR AN ENTIRE
ROOM OF NEW CARPET! The carpet did NOT need to be
repl aced! I received a bill for 600. 00! I WOULD NEVER
RECOMMEND! Unprofessional , expensive.
Posted 9 months ago by Google User
(v) Archstone Terracina-Ontario, CA:
My final bill had the fll owing charges (in addition to the
expensive util ities) :

DMG Compl ete Apt Cl ean .. $95. 00

DMG Full Paint Cl ean . . . .. . . $90.00
1 was charged a ''fll paint cl ean, " even though my apartment and
the paint were spotl ess. The unit had just been painted one year
prior to me renting it. I made no blemishes or marks on the wall s,
either. The property manager tol d me I would "get my deposit
back, " provided the unit was l eft as it was when she inspected it.
This was a total LI E!
Posted 511412012 by David S
(w) Archstone Ventura Colony-Ventura, CA:
(x)
[T]hey charge you "move out costs" no matter how well you take
care of the apartment they charge you to clean paint and shampoo
the carets.
Archstone Walnut Creek-Walnut Creek, CA:
My wif & I l ived there for onl y 2.5 months and l ef it
immaculatel y cl ean (better than when we moved in actual l y) .
She spent 8 hours cl eaning EVERY detail in our 600sf apartment
12
EXHIBIT 1
Page 24
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(y)
to ensure we would get out cleaning deposit back. Later we
talked to one of the receptionists who said we shouldn' t have
bothered because t hey always charge $1 00 for a profssional
cleaning service, NO MATTER how well you cleaned. Sure
enough, we were charged t he $1 00. Also, we asked different
offce personnel three times what paint we could use to dab over
the 10-1 5 small spackle holes where we hung pictures. They
refsed to give us a paint color and said it woul d have to be
professionally painted . .. despite the fact that on the check-out
sheet it says to paint any spots needing it. We received our bill
today and they charged us $250 for a FULL repainting of the one
bedroom apartment (of which I guarantee you didn' t
happen ... the place was immaculate) .
Posted 3 months ago by Google User
Archstone Willow Glen-San Jose, CA:
When we moved out we had the apt profssionally cleaned, and
t he carpets professionally cleaned ... They tried to charge us over
$500 for cleaning and painting, and we had to submit our
pictures and receipts to have t hem t ake the money of and change
the amount owed.
Posted 612412008 by blu232118
(z) The Lofts at Albert Park-San Rafel, CA:
Deposit-you will never see it again. I n addition, additional
$375 is charged to you afer cleaning the apartment repainting
the walls white even though I lived t here for fur years.
Posted 1111112011 by BEWARE B.
Defendant ARCHSTONE' s Uniform Systematic Policies and Procedures
31 . Based on t heir personal experiences and the experiences of other class
members. Plai ntiff are informed and believe, and based t hereon allege, that Defendants
has a systemat ic policy and procedure of: (1 ) charging its tenants fr apartment cleaning
and painting and carpet cleaning or replacement at the end of every tenancy regardless
of the actual condition of t he apartment unit; and (2) making such charges in order to
prepare t he rental unit fr t he next t enancy and labeling t hem as "tum-over" costs.
13
EXHIBIT 1
Page 25
32. Defendant ARCHSTONE's unlawfl policy and procedure of always
'
charging fr apartment cleaning and painting and carpet cleaning or replacement at th e
3 end of every tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit, is done in
4 bad fith and without cause and subjects Defndants to statuto1y damages in addition to
5 actual damages under Civil Code section 1950.5.
6 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
7 33. Plaintifs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
8 similarly situated, and thus, seeks cl ass certifcation under Code of Civil Procedure
9 section 382.
10 34. The proposed class is defned as fllows:
11
12
13
14
15
16
All persons, except those who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code
section 1161 . who leased an apartment in Califrnia managed by
Defndant ARCHSTONE and were charged fr apartment cleaning
and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement in violation of
Civil Code section 1950. 5 within fur years prior to the filing of
Plaintif VAGLE's original Complaint up to final j udgment.
17 3 5. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek to certif the following two subclasses:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a.
b.
section 1 1 61 , who leased an apartment at Archstone Warner Center
and were charged fr apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5
within four years prior to the fling of Plaintif VAGLE's original
Complaint up to final j udgment.
section 1 1 61, who leased an apartment at Archstone Long Beach
and were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5
within four years prior to the fling of Plaintiff VAGLE' s original
1 4
EXHIBIT 1
Page 26
Compl ai nt up to fnal judgment.
2 36. In addition, or in the alternative, to the above-defned Class, Plaintifs
3 reserve the ri ght to establ i sh subclasses as appropri ate to fcili tate the efective
4 management of the Class; however, Pl ai nti fs are informed and beli eve, and based
5 thereon all ege, that the Class as defined above is both objectively and easi l y identifable
6 through Defndant ARCHSTONE's and i ts Califrnia apartment complexes' business
7 records.
8 37. Plai ntifs are infrmed and beli eve, and based thereon allege, that the
9 Class i s ascertainable and there is a well-defned community of interest in the li ti gation:
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a)
b)
Pl aintifs are unable to state the exact number of Class Members
wi thout discovery of Defndant ARCHSTONE's and i ts Cali frni a
apartment complexes' busi ness records; however, Plainti fs are
informed and beli eve, and based thereon all ege, that the Class
Members are so numerous that joinder of all Cl ass Members is
i mpracti cabl e;
Pl ai ntifs are members of the Class, and subcl asses, they seek to
represent, and Pl aintifs' clai ms are typical of the claims of the
other Class Members. The l eases and other documents used by
Defndant ARCHSTONE at its Califoria apartment complexes are
all standardized and Defndant ARCHSTONE has the same
obl igations to Pl aintiffs and the other Cl ass Members with respect
to when charges can be made for apartment cl eani ng and painti ng
and/or carpet cl eaning or replacement. Pl ai ntifs' claim against
Defndant ARCHSTONE fr unfi r competition are al so typi cal of
the Class Members. Pl ainti ffs have suffered actual injury and have
lost money as a result of Defndant ARCHSTONE' s unfir
competition. Furthermore, Plaintifs are infrmed and bel ieve, and
based thereon all ege, that the nature of the damages and thei r
15
EXHIBIT 1
Page 27
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c)
d)
causation wil l be the same fr Pl aint iffs and the other Class
Members;
Pl aintiffs wil l firl y and adequatel y represent and protect the
interests of the class because: (I) Pl aint iff have retained
experienced l itigation counsel with signifcant experience in class
action l it igation and counsel will adequatel y represent the interests
of the cl ass; (2) Plaint ifs and their counsel are aware of no
confl icts of interests bet ween Pl aint ifs and absent Cl ass Members;
and (3) Pl aintiff are knowl edgeabl e concerning the subject matter
of this action and will assist counsel in the prosecution of this
action; and
Pl aintiffs are informed and bel ieve, and based thereon all ege, that a
class action provides a fir and effcient method of adjudicating
this controversy and is superior to other avail abl e methods of
adjudication in that (1) neither the size of the cl ass, nor any other
fct or, make it l ikel y that difculties will be encountered in the
management of this action as a cl ass action; (2) the prosecution of
separate actions by individual Class Members or the individual
joinders of al l Cl ass Members in this action is impracticabl e, and
woul d create a massive and unnecessary burden on the resources of
the courts, and coul d result in inconsistent adjurations, whil e a
singl e cl ass action can determine, with judicial economy, the rights
of each member of the Cl ass; (3) because of the disparit y of
resources avail abl e to Defndants verses those avail abl e to
individual Class Members, prosecution of separate actions woul d
work a financial hardship on many Class Members; ( 4) there is no
pl ain, speedy, or adequat e remedy avail abl e to Class Members
other than by maintenance of this cl ass action because the damages
16
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAfNT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EXHIBIT 1
Page 28
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1 38.
to each Cl ass Member is rel at ivel y modest compared to the costs of
litigating the issues in this action, making it economically
unfeasibl e to pursue remedies other than in a class action; and (5)
the conduct of this action as a cl ass action conserves the resources
of the parties and the Court system and protects the rights of each
members of the class and meets al l due process requirements as to
firness to all parties. A class action is al so superior to the
maintenance of these cl aims on a cl aim by cl aim basis because al l
of the cl aims arise out of the same circumstances and course of
conduct.
There are common questions of l aw and fct as to the cl ass members that
12 predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The fll owing common
13 questions of law or fct, among others, exists as to the members of the cl ass:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a.
b.
c.
d.
Whether Defndants have a systematic policy and procedure of
al ways charging for apartment cl eaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or repl acement at the end of a tenant's tenancy regardless
of the actual condition of the apartment unit;
Whether always charging fr apartment cl eaning and painting
and/or carpet cleaning or repl acement at the end of a tenant' s
tenancy regardl ess of the actual condition of the apartment unit
violates Civil Code section 1950. 5;
Whether Defendant s have a systematic pol icy and procedure of
reducing these charges when a tenant compl ains about being
charged;
Whether Pl aintifs and the other Cl ass Members are entitl ed to
statutory damages of up to twice the amount of their Security
Deposits, in addition to actual damages pursuant to Civil Code
section 1950.5; and
17
EXHIBIT 1
Page 29
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 39.
e. Whether Defndants' systemat ic pol icy and procedure of charging
fr apartment cl eaning and painting and/or carpet cl eaning or
repl acement at the end of a tenant ' s tenancy regardl ess of the actual
condition of the apartment unit constitutes an unfair and unl awful
business practice under Busi ness and Professions Code sections
17200 et seq.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Civil Code section 1950.5)
(Against Defndants and DOES 1-100)
Pl aintiffs, on behal f of themsel ves and the Class Members, repeat and
10 incorporate by this reference the al l egations contained in paragraphs 1 through 38, and
1 1 each and every part thereof with the same frce and effect as though ful l y set frth
12 herein.
13 40. Given the standardized and unitary methods by which Defndant
14 ARCHSTONE manages and operates its Cal ifornia apartment compl exes, Defndant
15 ARCHSTONE was Pl aintiffs' and the other Cl ass Members' l andl ord within the
16
meaning of Civil Code section 1950.5.
17 41. Pl aintifs are informed and bel ieve, and based thereon al l ege, that
18 Defendant s at all rel evant t imes herein, have been viol at ing Civil Code section 1950.5
19 through its systematic uniform pol icies and procedures.
20 42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s' systematic pol icies and
2 1 procedures that viol ate Civil Code section 1950.5, Pl aintifs and the Cl ass Members
22 have been damaged in an amount equal to the unl awfl charges made fr apartment
23 cl eaning and painting and/or carpet cl eaning or repl acement. Pl aintifs and the Cl ass
24 Members are entit l ed to restitution of this amount.
25 43. Pl aint ifs are informed and bel ieve, and based thereon allege, that
26 Defendants assess these charges in bad-faith, and therefre Pl aintifs and the Cl ass
27 Members are entit l ed to statutory damages of up to t wice the amount of their Security
28 Deposits, in additional to act ual damages, as provided for by Civil Code section 1950.5.
18
EXHIBIT 1
Page 30
2
3
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
(Against Defendants and DOES 1-100)
4 44. Plaintifs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members. repeat and
5 incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, and
6 each and every part thereof with the same frce and efect as though flly set forth
7 herein.
8 45. Defendants have unjustly enriched themselves by automatically charging
9 Plaintiffs and the Class Members fr apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
10 cleaning or replacement, regardless of the actual condition of their apartment units, in
11 violation of Civil Code section 1950.5. Under the circumstances it would be unjust fr
12 Defndants to retain this money.
13
46. These sums in equity and good conscience should be returned to Plaintiffs
14 and the Class Members. As such, Plaintifs and the Class Members are entitled to the
15 imposition of a constructive trust on all sums that rightflly belong to them.
16 4 7. Plaintifs and the Class Members are therefre entitled to restitution of
17
18
19
this money unlawfully retained.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Business and Profssions Code sections 17200 et seq.)
(Against Defendants and DOES 1-100)
20 48. Plaintifs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, repeat and
21 incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 47, and
22 each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though flly set frth
23 herein.
24 49. The acts and practices engaged in by Defendants and described herein
25 constitute unlawful and unfir business practices, in that said conduct is immoral,
26 unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to Plaintifs, the Class
27 Members, and the general public. Accordingly, such conduct violates Business and
28 Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.
19
EXHIBIT 1
Page 31
1 50. Defendants' conduct as descri bed herein i s unl awfl i n t hat it
2 automati cal l y charges fr apartment cl eani ng and pai nting and/or carpet cl eani ng or
3 repl acement at the end of a tenant ' s tenancy, regardl ess of the actual conditi on of the
4 apartment unit i n viol ati on of Ci vil Code secti on 1950. 5.
5 51 . Defendants' conduct i s al so unfair under this section i n that i t
6 automatical l y charges fr apartment cl eaning and pai nting and/or carpet cleaning or
7 repl acement at t he end of a tenant' s tenancy, regardl ess of the actual condition of the
8 apartment unit in vi ol ati on of both its standardized l eases and Civil Code secti on
9 1 950. 5.
1 0 52. Defendants' conduct al so constitutes unfair and deceptive busi ness
1 1 practi ces by i ntenti onal l y mi sl eadi ng tenants into bel i evi ng t hey wi l l not be charged for
1 2 apartment cl eaning and pai nting and/or carpet cl eaning or repl acement i f, at t he end of
1 3 their tenancy, t heir apartment uni ts are returned i n the same condition as existed at the
1 4 begi nning of the tenancy, subject to reasonabl e wear and tear.
1 5 53. Pl ai nti fs and the put at ive cl ass members are t herefre entitl ed to
1 6 resti tuti onary disgorgement fom Defndants of the unl awful l y wit hhel d portions of
1 7 their Security Deposits.
1 8 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1 9 WHEREFORE, Pl ainti ffs. i ndi vidual l y and on behalf of all other members of the
20 publ ic si mil arl y situated, pray fr rel i ef and judgment agai nst Defendants. joi ntl y and
2 1 several l y, as fol l ows:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
2.
3.
4.
For an order certifi ng the proposed class under Code of Civil Procedure
secti on 382;
That Pl ai nti ffs be appoi nted as t he representative of the Cl ass:
That counsel fr Pl ainti ffs be appoi nted as Cl ass Counsel ;
The Defendants provi de to Class Counsel, i mmedi at el y upon i ts
appoi ntment the names and most current contact infrmati on (addresses
and tel ephone numbers) of all the putati ve Class Members;
20
THIRD AMENDED COll PLAINT A ND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EXHIBIT 1
Page 32
3
4
5
6
7
5. For prejudgment interest on the unl awfl charges;
6.
7.
8.
For actual damages caused by Defendants violation of Civil Code secti on
1 950.5;
F or statutory damages of twice the amount of the security deposits
pursuant to Civil Code secti on 1950. 5;
For restitutionary disgorgement of the unlawfl charges and prejudgment
interest;
8 9. F or att orneys' fees and costs of suit h erein;
9 10. For t he imposition of a constructive t rust of all sums rightflly belongi ng
10 to Pl aintifs and the Cl ass Members
11 11 . For such other and frther relief as the court may deem j ust and proper.
1 2
Dated: November 19, 201 3
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
By
:
Al e ' ar. Wheeler
Attorneys fr Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
21
EXHIBIT 1
Page 33
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Pl aintiffs, indi vidual l y and on behal f of the members of the publ ic simil arl y
3 situated, hereby demand a trial by a jury.
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: November 1 9, 20 1 3 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
By:
A e, d r R. Wheeler
Attorneys fr Pl aintifs and the Putative
Cl ass
22
EXHIBIT 1
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of Califria, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: R. Rex Parris Law Firm 43364 1 0
th
Street West,
Lancaster, CA 93534. On the below-mentioned date, I served the within document/s:
PLAITIFF' S FOURTH AMENDED COMLAIT
by transmitting via fcsimile the document(s) listed above to the fx number(s) set frth
below on this date.
_ by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address( es)
set frth below.
_ by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon flly
prepaid, in United States mail in the State of Califria at Lancaster, to the person(s) at the
address( es) set frth below.
_ by transmitting via e-mail the document(s) listed above to the e-mail address set frth
below on this date.
_ BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE
_ By electronically serving the document(s) described above via LexisNexis File &
Serve on all parties appearing on LexisNexis File & Serve service list:
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRDGE LLP
Christopher J. Healey, Esq.
chealeckennalong. com
Jaikaran Singh, Esq.
jsi ngh@mckennalong.com
600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
San Diego, Califria 921 01
Telephone: (61 9) 233-2960
Facsimile: (61 9) 744-3682
I Attoreys fr Defndants Archstone
Communities, LLC, ASN Warer Center, LLC
and Archstone Long Beach LP
Executed on November 26, 201 3 at Lancaster, Califria.
X I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califria that the above
is true and correct.

Vagle V Archstone Communities Exhibit 1 Carpet Cleaning Painting Tenant Lawsuit PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vagle V Archstone Communities Exhibit 1 Carpet Cleaning Painting Tenant Lawsuit PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exhibit 1

Case 2:14-cv-03476-RGK-AJW Document 1-1 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:11

You might also like