You are on page 1of 63
OUND SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jun-30-2017 4:12 pm Case Number: CGC-17-559896 Filing Date: Jun-30-2017 4:00 Filed by: BOWMAN LIU Image: 05930006 COMPLAINT PAULA. VANDER WAERDT VS. JOHN STEWART COMPANY ET AL 001C05930006 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. © Daniel Berko (SBN 94912) LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BERKO 819 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Tel: 415.771.6174 Fax: 415.474.3748 E-mail: daniel@berkolaw.com Attomeys for Plaintiff PAUL A. VANDER WAERDT No Summens ssueo riot Couto Galton Seine of an Francisco JUN 3.02017 CLERKGOF THE COURT Be WM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION PAUL A. VANDER WAERDT, Plaintiff, vs JOHN STEWART COMPANY, A DOMESTIC STOCK CORPORATION; EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION; DEWEY PEST CONTROL, A DOMESTIC STOCK CORPORATION; ALLIED TECHNOLOGIES, A DOMESTIC STOCK CORPORATION; IKE OKWUOSA, AN INDIVIDUAL; LARISSA TROCHE, AN INDIVIDUAL; JACK GARDNER, AN INDIVIDUAL; KENNETH REGGIO, AN INDIVIDUAL; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Defendants. CGC-17-559896 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case No. CGC-17- VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION UNLIMITED JURISDICTION (COMPLAINT DEMANDS AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $25,000.00) LANDLORD-TENANT Plaintiff PAUL A. VANDER WAERDT alleges: THE PARTIES Vander Waerdt vs. John Stewart Company, etal. Complaint for Damages, Declaratory & Injunctive Relief © 3 defined by California Code of Civil Procedure §1940 (hereinafter “CCP”) and avails himself of all the rights, remedies and benefits provided therein. . Plaintiff has resided as a “tenant” within the meaning of §37.2(t) of the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance, §37 (hereinafter the “Rent Ordinance” or, abbreviated, “SFRO”) at The Mentone, 387 Ellis Street, #314 (hereinafter the “subject premises”) since June 15, 2015 pursuant to a written lease agreement executed by and between Plaintiff and Defendant JOHN STEWART COMPANY (hereinafter “JSC”) in its capacity as property management agent for its principal, Defendant EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES (hereinafter “ECS”), collectively hereinafter, “operators” since 2004 of a “permanent supportive housing” (hereinafter “PSH"”) program funded by a sole-sourced $28 million “Housing First” contract (see infra, §§00, 00) through the City’s “Care Not Cash” (hereinafter “CNC”) initiative, San Francisco Administrative Code (hereinafter “SFAC") §20.57 et seq. (see infra, §§00, 00). Plaintiff's lease agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as though set forth in its entirety.' Plaintiff had never contemplated living in a City-funded, PSH building, but accepted referral by the City for the apartment following the medical approval of the SSI disability application submitted on his behalf by the City’s SSI Disability Benefits unit.? Plaintiff was informed that he had been selected for the referral as a kind of bonus for his successful disability application. " in addition tothe remedies pled upon SFHC §204(e),Plantf will move to strike the lease agreements is numerous conflicting, improper, outdated, void and unenforceable terms 2 Although branded Housing First since 2005, this referral process was limited oa single SRO vacancy, with no scatteredste ‘option, and refusal of the vacancy offered would exclude any ture referal. The process expressly accorded Plaintiff no choice of housing options, his preferences no consideration, and assigned vacant units without regard to service needs, In all these respecs, the referral process violates the consumer preference framework critical to successful outcomes in an HF model. ? The allocation to Plaintiff of the subject apartment is an example of “creaming,” whereby providers select beneficiaries based "upon their own preferences, e.., for high-functioning individuals, rather than on the basis of vulnerability or severity of presenting Vander Waerdt vs. John Stewart Company, et al. Complaint for Damages, Declaratory & Injunctive Relief