You are on page 1of 9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Document Scanning Lead Sheet ‘Sep-24-2013 03:33 pm Case Number: CGC-13-534453 Filing Date: Sep-24-2013 03:27 pm Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN Juke Box: 001 Image: 04213538 COMPLAINT ANTONIO AMADO VAZ VS. TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC INC 001004213538 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. SUMMONS paenanee ool SGA OSE Como (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE To DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO) TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC 126 HYDE STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): ANTONIO AMADO VAZ, an individual P.O. BOX # 410504, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94141 'NOTICET ou have been sued The cour may decide against you withoulyaur being heard unless you respond with 30 days, Read the Wformaton below ‘You have 20 CALENDAR DAYS afer this summons and legal papers are serve on you to flea writen responce atthe court and have a copy ‘served on the plaintil. ltter or phone cal wil ot protect you. Your wit response must be In proper legal frm you want the cout to hear your ‘ase. There may be a cout form that you can use for your response. You can find these cout forms and more information at the Cafamia Cours (Online SeitHelp Center (worn courinf.ca.gowsethvep, your county law brary, o he couthouse nearest you. H you cannet pay the fling fee, ack the court ce fora fe waiver form. If you do not fle your response on time, you may lee the case by dela, and your wages, money, and property ‘may bo taken wihout fuer waming ftom the court. ‘There ae oer legal requirements. You may want to call an atoney right away. you do natknaw an atomey, you may want fo cll an attomey referral service. you cannot aor an atlorey, you may be eligible ore legal serdens fom a nonproft legal services program. You can locate ‘hese nonprofi groups at the California Legal Services Web sto (wins whafpclfomia. og), the Caltornia Courts Onan Selt Help Center (va courinfe.ca.gowsatMetp), or by contacting you local court or county bar association. NOTE: The cout has a etattory ben or walved fees and ‘oss. on any settement or arbiation award of $10,000 or mor ina civil case. The cours len must be paid before the cout wil dismiss the ease JAVISO! Lohan demandedo. Sino responde dene de 30 dies, la corte puede deci en su contra sin escuchar sy versitn aa lanfomnacn 8 eontnuaaien Tne 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despuds de que le ontropuen esta ctacén y papel legals para presentar une raspusst por escrito en esta ‘carte hacer qun sa antago une copia al demendants. Una carta o una liad ttetenca noo protege”. Gu reapuest por esto tone que estar ‘n fomato legal correcto si desea que procesen su o3s0 en la core. Es posible que haya un formulas que Usted pueda Usa’ para su respuesta, ‘Puede encontrar estos formers de a corte y mas ifermaccn gn al Coto de Ayuda Go las Cortes de Calfoma www sucorte ca gov) ele iboteca de eyes do su condadoo en la cote que fe quede mas cerca Sno puede pagar la cota de presentacén ida a secret do [a corie «Ue fe. un formulano de exencin de payo Uo cuts. Sino presenta su resueste@ ampe, puede pardere caso por ncupimintoyla corte ‘odd guia su svelte, cnaroybianes xn ma acvertancs, ay os equists iegsles. Es recomendable que lame sun abogado nedtatament. Sine conece @ un abogade, puede lamar @un servicio de romisén a abogados. Sino puede pagar a un abogaco, es posble que cumpa con los requis pare obtener sarigos legals gratuites de ‘Programa de servers legates sin nes de lure. Puede encontrar estos grupos sn fines de luo en el sito wob de Calfemia Legal Services. {ma awheipcatoma. org), en al Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de Calfomia, (wu sucoleca.gov) 0 poniéndose en contacto con la corto ‘colegio de abogados locals. AVISO: Por le, la corte ene derecho a reciamar la cites y los costs exentos por mponer un gravamon sobre ‘uoiqua recuperacion de $10,000 6 mas de velorrecbics medarto un acuerdo o una cancesion de abrae en un caso de derecho Gl lene que _bogar el gravamen de a corte artes de que la cota puedts desecha caso. ‘The name and address of he eau fe Tagen Clooney dreccin dela cor 05}: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA |@t ee" 13-534453 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY ae 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 ‘The name, address, and telephone number of plainti'sattomey, or plaintif without an attomey, is (Elnombre, la dreccién y el nimero de toléfono del abogado del demandanta, 0 del demandante que no tisne abogado, es) + Deputy (Adjunto) oare: o92aShe 4 2015 sen.ey )Y) (ta CLERK OFTHE couRT ‘Sot ‘Fr proo! of saree Tis Saar, vse root ol Seve of emma (orm POS-DTO}] (Para pater alroga do esta tation use oformularo Proof Sere of Summons, (46-010) Ze cOURT Oe NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served MA. MORAN mk 1. LJ es an ndvidal defendant 2, [5] as th person sued under ie fotos name of opecy 3, (J onbehalt of specity) under: 1] cP 416.10 (corporation) [J cee 416.60 minor |] CCP 416 20 (defunct corporation) =} GCP-416,70 (conservatee) 1 CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [—] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) TO other speci 4. [1 bypersonal delivery on (date): : 2 - rset ae SUMMONS ae Aoi == P.O. BOX # 410504 | SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94141 everson wo: 415-814-0334 ano: NIA smecrsooness. 400 McAllister Street cmvsoarcoce San Francisco, CA 94102 seancnnaue En $A ‘CASE NAME: AMADO VAZ, ANTONIO v. TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC [suPemioR COURT OF CALIFORNA, COUNTY OF count Lens By. IVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) Uniimited Limited a ee 1 counter [1] Joinder demanded emandedis | Fiad win frst appearance by defendant (Cal Rules of Cour, rule 3.402) c“13- 534453 | {7 Check one box below forthe case type t best describes this case: ‘Auto Tort . J auto 22) reach of cntractwarranty (06) ‘Uninewed motor (46) Rule 3.740 collections 08) ‘ther PUPDAWD (Personal Injury/Proporty — _] Other collections (08) DamageMrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) ‘Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) [7 Product abt (24) Real Proparty Mesical malpractice (48) Eminent domaininverse otter Pupp 23) ‘condemnation (+4) Non-PUPDAWD (Other) Tort 2] wrongful eviction (3) Business toruntse business practew (07) [] Other ea property (26) CC ight (08) Unlawtul Detainer Defamation (13), LJ} commercial (31) Fraud (16) Resldentl (32) Drugs (38) Judicial Review ‘Asst forfeture (05) [} Petton re: arbtxaton award (11) 2) wit of mandate (02) Inteectua propery (19) Professional negligence (25) (ter nor-PUPDAWD tort (35) ployment ‘irons ermination (36) ? OOOO factors requiting exceptional judicial management: Large number of separately represented parties Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel {issues that willbe time-consuming o resolve ¢ LZ] Substantial amount of documentary evidence ‘3. Remedies sought (check ail that apply): a7] monetary _b.[77] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief 4. Number of causes of action specify’ Constructive Eviction;Premises Liability;Breach Implied Warranty Habit 6. Thiscase [lis isnot aclass action sult 6. there are any known related cases, fle and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015, Date: September 24, 2013 ANTONIO AMADO VAZ [x NOTICE in sanctions, * File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet cequired by local court ule. other parties to the action of proceeding GoStoGRen at OT CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET tems 1=6 below must be Completed (see instructions on page 2). ) omer ampoyment 15) tne judi ceview (29) — Sapa Ea Tana semper save te ar Rise WEA We Ge non at «+ Plainttf must fie this cover sheet withthe fist paper fled inthe action or proceeding ( Under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code) (Cal. Ru rovisionaly Complex Civil Litigation (Gal Rules of Cour los 3.400-2.403) estat oaon 2) Conn on vat Secrnsn 2) enraennon 2 SoEsnarace” sea Estee ot Sonn LA enforcement of judgment (20) [_) rico a7) eco cts so) Messrs ct Peto Perms coprte poane@0) [#9] other petition (not specitieg above) (43) ooo000 4.Z1 Large numberof winesses «©. (1 Coorsinaton with elated actions pending in one or more cours inter counts, states, oF counties, or ina federal court +. (Z] substantia postudgment uel supervision ¢ (Z]punitive rong C pt smal claims cases or cases fled 6f Cour, rule 3.220.) Failure to fle may result * IF this case is complex under rule 3.400 et sea. of the California Rules of Cour, you must serve a copy ofthis cover sheet on all + Uniess this is collections case under rue 2.740 or @ complex case, this cover sheet willbe used for statistical purposes ony amr FEED OURT RANCIsed 2019 SEP 24. PH 3: yy “Jour a INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET as To Plaintis and Others Fling First Papers. Ifyou ae fing a frst paper (or example, a complaint in cil case, you must compete an fe, along wth yout fe paper the Cl Case Cover She! contained on page 4. This infomation wil be vedo compl Statstes about the types and numbers of cases fed. You mua complete ferme 1 though 6 onthe sheet In Hom 1, you Mist check ‘ne box forthe case ype thal best descrbes fhe casei te case ts bath a gene'al and a more space type of ease led i tm heck the more spette one. the case Ras utiple causes of ection, check te bor that best nclates the primary cause of ation. To-assat youn completing the sheet, examples ofthe cases tat belong unde each cage type ner 1 are provided below. A cover thet must be fled ony wh your ial paper. Falue to fe a cover sheet wih the fe paper fled in a Cl cae may sujet a party, is counsel, ofboth to sancions under rules 230 and 3220 of te Calforia Rules of Court To Parties In Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an acon for recovery of money ced in sum sated io be certain tha isnot more than $25.00, excuive of nlrest an atomey’ fees, ating fom a vansacton i wien propery, sence, or money was acquired on cred. A calecion case doesnot nue an action seeking the folowing (1) tort damages, 2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (6) a prejudgment wit of Sttachment_The Klentfcaton of case ae a rule 3740 calecons case on this form means that t wil be exempt rom the general timeorservioe requirements ad case management rules, unless 8 defendant lesa response pleading. A rule 3740 colecions aae willbe subject the requirement or sevice and obtaining ajdgrent ine 3740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases ony, partes rst aio Use the Ci Case Cover Shooto designate whether the cave comple. paint beieves the case's complox under rule 3.400 ofthe Calf Rules of Cou hs must be inceated by completing the appropriate boxes In fems | and 2 Ia plaittGeignaes a case as comple, the cover sheet must be served wh he complainton all pares fo the ton. A delendant may fle and serve ro later than te time of ft appearance a jander in the plantifs designation, a counterdesignation hal the case snot complex. o,f the plaintif as made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. ‘Auto Tort “Aula (22)-PersonalnjuryProperty ‘Damage”rongfl Death Uninsured Maton (46) (the ‘ase involves an uninsured ‘motorist iam subject fo ‘ttraon, check ti tem instead of Avo) ‘Other PUPOMWD (Personal Injury! Property DamageMWrongful Death) Tor Asbestos (04) ‘Asbestos Property Damage ‘Asbestos Personal injury? "Wrongful Death Product Liability (nt asbestos or ‘oxkeonvronmenta (24) Medical Malpractice (45), Medial Malpractice Physics & Surgeons ‘ther Professional Heath Care Malpractice other PUPDMND (23) Premises Laity (¢9., ip ‘nd fal) Imentional Boddy ijunyPOND (ea, assault vandalism) Intention ition of| ‘EmobonaDistoss Negligent Initon of ‘Emobonal Oistess ‘ter IPOD ‘Non PUPDAWD (Other) Tort Business TorvUniak Business Practoe (7) Chi Rights (e9.,discxinination, false arrest) ot cu harassment) (8) Defamation (slander, ibe) (3). Fraud (16) intelectual Property 19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice ‘Other Professional Malpraction (er mecteal or fgal, ‘Omer Non: PUPOAND Tort (25) Employment ‘Wrongful Termination (96) ‘Omer Employment (18) ‘CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES. Contract Breach of ConacyWarranty (06) ‘reach of RentaiLease (Contract (rot unawdetainer (x wrongtul eviction) CContracWarranty Breach-Seller Plain (rot rug or negligence) Nogigent Breach of Contac ‘Warranty Conor Breach of Contractatranty Collectors (eg. money owed, pen oak aout) (09) Colesion Case-Selr Plant (ther Promissory NoterColectons Cane Insurance Coverage (ro provisionally ‘compen (18) ‘uta Subrogation Other Coverage ter Contract (27) ‘Contractual Freus ner Contract rspute Real Property Eminent Gomaintinverse ‘Conderinaton (14) rong Eviction (33) One Real Property (eg, quiet tit) (26) ‘Wt of Possession of Real Property Mongage Foredosure ue Te Other Rea! Property (not arinent ‘oman, lanalorstonsnt or forecosure) Unlawful Oetainer ‘Commercial (31) Resident (22) Drugs (38) (io case involves legal ‘hugs, check this tem, otherwise, ‘ropor as Commercial or Reser) Judicial Review ‘Asc Feet (5) Pelton Re Arbitration Awara (+1) Wht of Mandate (02) ‘Woneadminstvaive Mandamus ‘WtcMandamus on Lined Court (Case Matter ‘wot-Other Liited Court Case Review Other Jil Review (30) ‘Rowe of Health Oficar Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals "GIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Provisionaly Complex Civil Ligation (Cal Raton of Cort Rules 3400-2400) ‘rnd eguiton (2) Conscton Bete (3) lane voting Mos Tor (40) Scores ngaton 8) EnwronmertaTone Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Cans ‘ansng team provaonty complex ‘Se ype ttod abet) Enforcement of Jusgment Eorcement of Sedge (20) “Rovact of Juspment (ut of County), ae Confession of Judgment ron- ‘cones raion) ‘ister Sate udgment ‘mintatie Agency Award iret unpad tate) PeltoniCeniaton of Ey of “Agent on Unpald Takes overcome amet Miscellaneous Civil Complaint icon) Other Compiaint rot spciod ‘bove) (42). Declaratory Reet Ory Inuncve Reet On oon Tharassment)| Mechanics Len Other Commerc Complaint ‘Care inanotnan comple) ‘ther Chi Complain ‘non tororeomaien) Mizcottanoous Civil Potton Partners and Corporate ‘Governance (21) ter Peton (rt specie above) (43) Ei arsament ‘Workplace Violence EserDependert Adu "abine Election Contest Peston or Name Change Peston for Rete! Srom ate aim Cotter Gt Potton 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 2013 SEP 24 PM 3:44 PO Box 410504 cur San Francisco, CA 94103 ae Messages: 418-814-0334 Attorneys for Plaintift, er In Propria Persona ‘Amado Vaz, Antonio = COURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. -UNLIMITED JURISDICTION- ANTONIO AMADO VAZ, an individual ) Case No. fase ) Cec 15-534453 x ) ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES TENDERLOM HOUSING CLIC.” ) ) Defendant. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff ANTONIO AMADO VAZ complains and alleges as follows: FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. Defendant TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC (hereinafter "Defendant"), is and was at all times relevant to this complaint, a Business, from unknown, operating inthe County of San Francisco, State of California 3. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of defendant. Plaintiff therefore sues defendant by such fictitious names and will seek leave to amend the complain to add ther true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 4, Atal times relevant to this complaint, defendant and its agents, participated io, authorized, ratified, aided, and abetted the doing ofthe acts alleged herein. 5. Atall times relevant to this complaint, defendant's agents and/or employees were acing within the course and scope as that landlord or agency responsible to house Plant through the San Francisco Human Services ‘Agency (HSA), HSA paid all monthly rent of Amado Vaz on timely manner. Amado Vaz had no violation on fie, Tenderloin Housing Clini is supposed to provide him with Support Services, Case Management, and other services listed on the contract Defendant signed withthe City and County of San Francisco as well as laws and regulations under fair housing laws, 6. Plaintiff ANTONIO AMADO VAZ,(“AMADO VAZ" or "Plaintff™) is an adult Male resident ofthe State of California, County of San Francisco. Plaintiffs not yet an American Citizen, but he has legal presence inthe United States. Plaintiff is victim and a survivor of Domestic Violence perpetrated against him by his ex-wife who is a US Citizen. Plaintiff's race is Black or African. Complaint for damages Page 1 38 39 a 42 43 4s 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 7. Plaintiff and defendant's representative signed a valid lease agreement. Plaintiff moved into the Hotel on or about April 1, 2009. Mission Hotel is located at 520 South Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94110. Mission Hotel is fully controlled and operated by defendant Tenderloin Housing Clinic. According to Defendant's representative Kenneth Daniels, Randy Shaw, Colleen Carrigan, Krista Gaeta, Matt McFarland gave Daniels order to call plain clothes with guns to remove Plaintiff from the building and falsely accused Plaintiff of trespassing. There was no arrest and no criminal charge of any sort by the San Francisco District Attorney's office, or ‘any judge ruling, Trespassing was false allegation. Plaintiff was a tenant of defendant Tenderloin Housing Clinic, nc Defendant maintained control over the manner, times, and locations in which Plaintiff lived, Defendant by written agreement on or about 8, Plaintiff entered into landlord/tenant relationship April 1* of 2009 with Defendant's agent at the Mission Hotel, Sam Mekki. The terms of the agreement are evidenced ‘and laid out on the contract. Plaintiff did not violate lease agreement. There are many letters and grievances complaints, (oF correspondences on the record during relevant 04/01/2009 through 08/08/2013, Defendant disregarded Plaintiff's concems. Instead, Defendant punished Amado Vaz. for seeking such remedies, 9. Plaintiff was a tenant and employee of Defendant. At all times relevant to this complaint, he lived at 520 South Van Ness Ave in a building owned by Defendant’ landlord, a building that is operated, managed and ‘maintained by Defendant Randy Shaw, Executive Director of Tenderloin Housing Clinic, inc, who had a duty 0 operate, manage, and/or maintain said building through its agents, servants, and/or employees. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDI 10, Plaintiff has timely exhausted administrative remedies with Defendant. EIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION) 11, Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference, each and every allegation, 12, Defendant's representatives locked Plaintiff out of other housing options run by Defendant, housing funded by the County of San Francisco taxpayers’ fund. There is no record of any court eviction process. There is no notification from County Sheriff's Department, or any legal proceeding or due process. 13. Amado Vaz belongs to a racial minority. Amado Vaz lived and worked for Defendant. During tenancy, Plaintiff received extremely positive comments from Defendant's employee or staff at the Mission Hotel. In 2011, Plaintiff received recommendation by defendant's representative in request to transfer to less violent environment, or a place that offered reasonable accommodation, Nonetheless, Amado Vaz was soon denied by top executives of Complaint for damages Page 2 65 66 67 68 69 a 2 3 74 75 76 78 79 80 81 82 83. 84 85, 86 387 88 89 90 91 Tenderloin Housing Clinie without just cause. When viewed in ight of Amado Vaz's complaint, claims, and grievances ‘against Defendant for betterment of conditions for himself and others, in consequence, Amado Vaz received punitive actions done to him by the defendant’ representatives, Defendant locked Plaintiff out. 14, Defendants have also created a pattem or practice of systemic violations of City, State, and Federal Laws. A tenant is legally obligated to pay the agreed-upon rent for the duration of his lease. When the living conditions of the rented residence become uninhabitable for any number of legitimate reasons, however, and the landlord fails to resolve the problem, the tenant has the legal option of moving out of the residence by way of a “constructive eviction.” Plaintiff did not show free will for losing his house. 15. Asa direct, proximate & foreseeable result of corporate defendant's acts and failure to act as alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses, damages, and injury as without a home. Injury to hhis name and reputation and extreme and enduring emotional distress including but not limited to humiliation, shock, embarrassment, fear, anxiety and discomfort, all to his damage in an amount to be determined according to proof, 16. Defendant commited the acts herein alleged despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressivey, with the wrongful intention of injuring plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights. Because the acts taken toward plaintiff were carried out by managerial ‘employees acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, despicable, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage plaintiff, he is entitled to punitive damages from defendants in an amount according to proof. IND CAUSE OF ACTION (FOR PREMISES LIABILITY) 17. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though set forth herein. 18. On 11/3/2012 at 520 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco, California, a building owned by Patel, and operated, managed, and maintained by Defendant, including all the entrances and exists, Plaintiff was assaulted and battered while inthe laundry room on the main floor of the building by a man named Rodney Edwards, Plaintiff was Jawully on said premises, it being his primary place of residence, and having a valid lease agreement at the time of the incident. Rodney grabbed Plaintiff by the chest pushed Plaintiff against the wall and punched Plaintiff on the face. Plaintiff at no time even attempted to physically harm Rodney. Rodney did not act in self defense, and when Plaintit ‘was in court to witness Rodney prosecution, at one point, Rodney told Public Defender that he made admission that he Violently attacked Amado Vaz, notin self defense but because he was angry that Plaintiff challenged to call Police 911, and when Police arrived, Rodney was arrested and released. Police investigation states that after their investigation it Complaint for damages Page 3 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 17 118 was determined beyond the reasonable double that crime of battery occurred. Defendant's agents on the scene, who were hired to be receptionists, saw Rodney assault Plaintiff and did nothing to stop it or call the police. Plaintiff himself called the police after the incident. Rodney Edwards was later charged by the people for criminal assault, sentenced for ‘simple diversion on a very aggressive violent crime because Defendant Randy Shaw interfered in the Judicial Process to avoid liability. Randy Shaw received Care-Not-Cash program for Master Lease through former Mayor Gavin Newsom" influence, and Mr. Newsom and Defendants have a lot of influential friends, including Mr. Newsom. Mr. Newsom appointed San Francisco District Attomney who refused to collect video evidence of the crime scene in the laundry room. Property Management of Tenderloin Housing Clinic and Mission Hotel management also reaffirmed with me that they saw the video incident and they could only release the video through a subpoena. 19. Over 800 incidents of crime have been reported to the police in the past 3 years for $20 Van Ness Ave, which equals 1.3 incidents about every day. The frequency of these incidents has put Defendant on notice that there was ‘thigh probability of dangerous crime happening on their premises, Defendant responded negligently to this notice by lunreasonably failing to hire security personnel, by unreasonably failing to provide training to its front-desk staff on ‘dealing with crime, and by unreasonably refusing to call the police when violent crime occurs. 20. As direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Defendant’ acts and failures to act as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered physical harm, extreme pain, and extreme emotional distress including but not limited to ‘humiliation, shock, embarrassment, fear, anxiety and discomfort, all to his damage in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability) 21. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though set forth herein 22. While Plaintiff resided at 520 Van Ness Ave as a tenant of Defendant from April of 2009 to January of 2013, the following breaches of the implied warranty of habitability occurred: 4. A sewage back-up occurred on and between July 20" 2012 and July 23" 2012, where, due to no fault of Plaintiff, raw sewage began to flow into Plaintiffs unit and continued to flow until fixed by Defendant on July 23". Defendant was notified of the sewage back up immediately on July 20%, but did not respond until July 23° ». For three and half months of entire duration of Plaintiff's tenancy with Defendant, Plaintiff's unit suffered almost daily electrical power outages, most of which lasted for hours each day. Plaintiff notified Defendant on Complaint for damages Page 4 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135, 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 ‘multiple occasions about the constant electical power outages, but was tld that it was due to the way the building was wired, the age of the building, as not fixable by Defendant, and also said that THC does not own the building. ©. During the majority of Plintif’ residence on Defendant's property, Plaintiff's unit was infested with all manner of insects, including cockroaches and bed bugs. Plaintiff notified Defendant about the insect infestation, and sometimes Defendant would use an aerosol “bomb” spray, in the process destroying much of Plaintiffs ‘Property, but would never do a permanent solution and instead tried to blame myself and other tenants for the presence ofthe insect infestation, 4. The landlord also warrants thatthe property will conform to all legal habitabilty rules and that he will perform all necessary maintenance and repairs in a reasonable amount of time. In California, the implied warranty ‘of habitability became law as a direct result ofthe 1974 California Supreme Court decision Green v. Superior Court. That law ensures that landlords maintain their units in habitable conditions regardless of any contrary ease stipulations, California Civil Code Sections 1941 and 1942 further define landlords’ maintenance responsibilities. ‘They include ‘waterproofing roofs and outside walls; providing unbroken doors and windows; maintaining all plumbing, electricity and gas facilities; providing hot and cold water and adequate sewage-disposal systems; and ‘many other requirements deemed necessary for safe habitbilty. 23, As direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Defendant's failures to maintain a habitable unt as alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered physical harm, property damage, and extreme emotional distress including but not limited to humiliation, shock, embarrassment, fear, anxiety and discomfort, all to his damage in an amount to be determined according to proof. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the Court for judgment against Defendant, for an amount in excess of $100,000 for compensatory and punitive damages, together with the costs of this suit, interest from the date this suit was instituted, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and prope. SURY TRIAL DEMANDED. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Cali Dated: In the City and County of San Francisco on September 24, 2013 Complint for damages Page