DOCUMENT 2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
3/20/2024 10:23 AM
47-CV-2024-900403.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA

JOHN RINN OWENS individually and on

)
behalf of all others similarly situated,
)
)
PLAINTIFFS, )
) CASE NO.: __________________
v. )
)
CITY CENTRE RESIDENTIAL, LLC, and )
WILLOW BRIDGE, INC. )
)
DEFENDANTS.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, John Rinn Owens, individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated, files his putative Class Action Complaint against City Centre Residential, and

Willow Bridge, Inc., Defendants in the above styled matter, and, in support thereof, shows as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

City Centre Residential, LLC (“City Centre”) owns and operates a residential apartment

complex in downtown Huntsville known as Eclipse Residences (the “Apartment.”) The apartments

are managed by Willow Bridge, Inc. (“Willow Bridge”). The Apartments continue to experience

multiple maintenance failures, including random fire alarms, intermittent flooding, and extensive

water shut-offs which severely impact the living conditions of the tenants. None of the manages

or owners live at the Apartments.

Despite repeatedly being informed of the numerous problems, City Centre has failed or

refused to properly address them. Instead, they have provided a litany of excuses for why they are

not responsible. These failures have not only disrupted the peace and quiet enjoyment of tenants
 DOCUMENT 2

and their family members but also endangered the well-being and safety of all people in the

building. Rinn Owens and his fellow tenants suffered due to these negligent actions and seek to

hold City Centre and its management company accountable for their failure to uphold the terms of

the lease agreements and maintain a habitable living environment. They are seeking return of rents

for the months they have spent living in this long nightmare and a reformation of their lease

agreements which would allow them to leave without paying penalties which have kept them

trapped in the Apartments.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff John Rinn Owens is above the age of nineteen (19) years and is a resident

of Madison County, Alabama.

2. Defendant City Centre Residential, LLC, (hereinafter “City Centre”) is responsible

for the management and maintenance of the property with its principal address at 401 Williams

Avenue Southwest Huntsville, AL 35801and at all relevant times, was doing business in Madison

County, Alabama.

3. Defendant Willow Bridge, Inc. is the leasing agent of Eclipse apartments with its

principal address at 2436 Venetia Road Mobile, AL 36605 and at all relevant times, was doing

business in Madison County, Alabama.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the state claim in this action.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as Defendants conduct

business in and throughout the State of Alabama, and the committed tortious acts were in the State

of Alabama and have contacts with the State of Alabama sufficient to support jurisdiction.
 DOCUMENT 2

Defendants works with, monitors, oversees, and maintains relationships with the citizens of this

state and, thus, has substantial, continuous, and systematic contact with the State of Alabama.

6. This Court has in rem jurisdiction over the property in question and its equitable

jurisdiction, including injunctive relief, is hereby invoked.

7. Venue is proper in this County in that a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurring in this County, and because the transactions give rise to

the claims occurred in Madison County, Alabama.

FACTS

8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 are incorporated herein as if set out in full.

9. Defendant City Centre, through New Jersey-based Spring Bay Property Company

built the residential apartment complexes known as Eclipse Apartments.

10. Defendant City Centre began renting to tenants at the Apartments through its

manager Willow Bridge on or around December 3, 2019.

11. Defendant City Centre is the current owner of the the Apartments and Defendant

City Centre, LLC is the property manager for the Apartments. There are 150 units in the

Apartments.

Fire Alarm Issues

12. The fire alarm at the Apartments has continually triggered without clear cause,

often during late-night hours, forcing residents to evacuate under distress. These false alarms,

which persist for over thirty minutes, involving both sirens and strobe lights.

13. The sirens create a nuisance and substantially interfere with Plaintiff and the

putative Class’ quiet enjoyment of their tenancy in violation of Alabama statutory law and the
 DOCUMENT 2

duties as laid out in the lease agreement with Defendants.

14. Moreover, the sirens cause a serious safety concern as tenants have gotten to the

point where the fire alarm goes off so often that if a true emergency ever were to happen it would

be ignored to the detriment of those tenants who might remain in their apartments mistakenly

believing that the sirens were the result of yet another malfunction.

15. That is, the alarm has gone off so many times over the last several months that

residents no longer know if an actual fire is occurring which has now resulted in a situation where

residents may not evacuate in the event of an actual fire.1

16. On multiple occasions, the alarms were attributed to various non-emergency

situations, including maintenance activities and human error. For instance, messages from the

Eclipse Manager email on November 14, 2023 January 1, 2024 January 22, 2024 and March 4,

2024 have cited reasons ranging from sprinkler system work to weather-related triggers and

accidental activations.

17. Notably, a work order (#8183512) placed by Plaintiff on February 4, 2024

highlighted the severity of the disruption caused by these alarms as follows:

“Fire alarms throughout building went off from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. I have video of the absolute
torture I underwent. I could not sleep in my own place of residence.”

18. Defendants have been well aware of the fire alarm issues. Notwithstanding such

awareness, Defendants have done nothing to eliminate the problem and stop the fire alarm system

from malfunctioning all hours of the night.

19. Defendants owe a duty to all tenants to deinstall the existing fire alarm system and

1 See https://www.waff.com/2024/03/15/48-your-side-eclipse-apartments-resident-speaks-out-concerning-
numerous-random-false-fire-alarms/.
 DOCUMENT 2

replace it with one which properly functions. As it stands, residents are in grave danger should

there be an actual fire insofar as existing tenants have been conditioned to believe all fire alarm

events are “false alarms.”

20. Through numerous complaints by tenants, the City of Huntsville Fire Department,

and media reports, Defendants knew that the fire alarms were and are continually malfunctioning.

21. Defendants have breached its duty of quiet enjoyment in all regards and continues

to do so.

22. The lease agreement between Defendants and Plaintiff, and the putative Class,

stipulates that tenants have the right to request repairs and that the landlord must respond promptly

to such requests to maintain the safety and habitability of the premises (Lease Agreement, Requests

Repairs and Malfunctions).

23. Alabama law is clear that the Apartments owe the following duties to its tenants, as

it relates to each ongoing maintenance issue and the like.

24. The fire alarm at Eclipse Apartments has continually triggered without clear cause,

often during late-night hours, forcing residents to evacuate under distress. These false alarms,

persisting for over thirty minutes with sirens and strobe lights creates a serious safety concern, in

direct violation of ALA. CODE § 35-9A-204(A)(1), which requires a landlord to comply with

applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety.

25. Furthermore, the frequent and unpredictable nature of these alarms has eroded

residents’ trust in the fire alarm system, creating a hazardous condition where they may not

evacuate in the event of an actual fire, thus endangering their lives in contravention of ALA. CODE

§ 35-9A-204(a)(3) and (4), mandating that all common areas and facilities be kept in safe working
 DOCUMENT 2

order.

26. The Defendants repeated attributions of these alarms to non-emergency situations,

as communicated on multiple occasions, demonstrate a failure to maintain the premises in a

condition safe for habitation, violating ALA. CODE § 35-9A-204(a)(2) and (4).

Water Shut-offs

27. In addition to the fire alarm issues previously detailed, the Apartments have faced

significant water supply problems, leading to five (5) instances of water being shut off since

September 7, 2023.

28. These shutoffs, including two 12-hour interruptions, have severely inconvenienced

residents, depriving them of essential services such as bathing and laundry for extended periods.

Such disruptions starkly contrast with the expectations for living in a modern residential

community and highlight the Defendants failure to ensure continuous access to basic utilities.

29. Defendants owe a duty to its tenants to deliver an apartment which has an adequate

and functioning water supply system which does not have to be shut off for prolonged periods of

time (all of which constitute a breach of quiet enjoyment and habitability on the part of City

Centre).

30. The chronic water shut-offs at the Apartments, including two notable 12-hour

interruptions, deprived residents of essential services such as running water. Such is a failure to

comply with ALA CODE § 35-9A-204(A)(6), which obligates landlords to always supply running

water and reasonable amounts of hot water.

31. The repeated shut offs create a nuisance and substantially interfere with Plaintiff

and the putative Class’ quiet enjoyment of their tenancy in violation of Alabama statutory law and
 DOCUMENT 2

the duties as laid out in the lease agreement with Defendants.

Flooding

32. During the recent winter weather in early January, the entire first floor of the

apartments flooded because Defendants failed to properly maintain the defective water supply

system referenced above. In failing to do so, most of the first-floor units flooded which resulted

in significant damage.

33. The situation worsened during early January of 2024’s winter weather when the

entire first floor of the apartments experienced severe flooding. This incident occurred because

faucets in a vacant unit on the first floor were not left dripping, leading to frozen and burst pipes.

34. This oversight by Defendants caused significant damage to many first-floor units.

35. Defendants owe a duty to its tenants to deliver an apartment which does not

otherwise cause flooding and other such incidents (all of which constitute a breach of quiet

enjoyment and habitability on the part of City Centre).

36. The flooding of the first-floor units during early January’s winter weather, due to

failure to properly maintain the water supply system, represents a breach of ALA. CODE § 35-9A-

204(a)(2), requiring landlords to make all necessary repairs to keep premises in habitable

condition.

37. The flooding created a nuisance and substantially interfered with the putative sub

Class of first floor tenant’s quiet enjoyment of their tenancy in violation of Alabama statutory law

and the duties as laid out in the lease agreement with Defendants.
 DOCUMENT 2

Inadequate Responses

38. Although Defendants are aware of the problems identified herein, they have done

nothing to permanently remedy the same. Defendants have failed to install and maintain a working

fire alarm system in the apartments notwithstanding numerous false alarms and other incidents

which resulted in the building being evacuated. Efforts to solve these issues have failed to address

the root causes of these problems. Furthermore, Defendants have not offered any form of

compensation, in the form of rent abatement or lease cancellation options, to affected tenants.

39. Tenants can only leave by paying seven (7) months rent; typically around $1,263.00

per month.

40. This failure to act not only undermines the residents' right to quiet enjoyment but

also raises serious concerns about City Centre's commitment to tenant welfare and property

maintenance.

41. Defendants have breached its obligations to maintain the premises in a habitable

and safe condition, to make necessary repairs, and to ensure the proper functioning of essential

utilities and safety systems.

42. These obligations are explicitly outlined in the "Responsibilities of Owner" and

"Requests Repairs and Malfunctions" sections of the lease agreement, which state:

The landlord is required "to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and
keep the premises in a habitable condition" and "maintain in good and safe working order
and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and
other facilities and appliances, including elevators, supplied or required to be supplied
by the landlord" (Lease Agreement, Responsibilities of Owner).
 DOCUMENT 2

43. Defendants persistent inaction in the face of these issues, including the failure to

permanently resolve the fire alarm malfunctions and address the water supply problems,

undermines residents' right to quiet enjoyment and habitability of their premises, as guaranteed by

ALA. CODE § 35-9A-204.

44. By failing to act, Defendants have neglected its duties under ALA. CODE § 35-9A-

204(A)(1)-(6), jeopardizing the well-being of its tenants by failing to deliver premises that tenants

can quietly enjoy and are safe and habitable.

Named Plaintiff Allegations

45. On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendants for

an apartment at Eclipse Residences.

46. On November 14, the Eclipse Manager informed residents that the fire alarm

activation was false, stating, “The fire alarm is false. The retail spots are working on the system

and are filling the sprinklers back up and caused the alarm to go off,” indicating a non-emergency

trigger of the fire alarm system due to maintenance activities.

47. On January 1, again the fire alarms went off on the premises and the Eclipse

Manager reported that the fire alarm was activated due to severe weather conditions and an

individual pulling the alarm. It was clarified that this was not a scheduled fire drill, and efforts

were underway to address issues with the fire alarm system.

48. On January 22, fire alarms went off again and the Eclipse Manager communicated

that the fire alarm's activation was caused by a burst pipe in the parking garage, not a maintenance

test, and repairs were being undertaken.

49. On February 4, Plaintiff work order 8183512, referenced above documenting that
 DOCUMENT 2

fire alarms in the building were activated from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m., describing the event as torturous

and disruptive. Eclipse maintenance responded on February 8, 2024, stating that comprehensive

audit of the fire alarm system was needed.

50. On March 4, after fire alarms went off on the premises again, the Eclipse Manager

issued two messages: the first acknowledging a fire alarm triggered earlier in the morning due to

accidental activation by someone in the building, and the second informing residents of vendor

activities on-site to work on the fire alarm system, with a potential for the alarm to activate while

work was being conducted.

51. In tandem to the fire alarm issues, Plaintiff’s also suffered periodic water shut offs

occurring on the following dates: September 7 and 14, October 5, 2023 and January 29 and

February 1, 2024.

52. Since his move in date Plaintiff has encountered all of the above referenced

maintenance issues affecting his quality of life and the habitability of his rented premises which

are common to all residents.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

53. Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of himself and as representative of all others who are

similarly situated. Pursuant to ALA.R.CIV.P. 23(A), (B)(2), (B)(3), and (C)(4), Plaintiff seeks

certification of classes defined as follows:

All individuals who, during the lease term starting August 18, 2023, were tenants
at Eclipse Residences and experienced disturbances due to false fire alarms,
unscheduled water shut-offs, and flooding incidents resulting from Defendants acts
and omission.
 DOCUMENT 2

And a sub-class defined as follows:

All individuals who, during the lease term starting August 18, 2023, were tenants
at Eclipse Residences and experienced disturbances due to flooding incidents
resulting from Defendants’ acts and omission.

54. Plaintiff hereby reserves the right to amend or modify the class definition with

greater specificity or division after having had an opportunity to conduct discovery.

55. Each of the proposed Classes meets the criteria for certification under ALA.R.CIV.P.

23(A), (B)(2), (B)(3), and (C)(4).

56. NUMEROSITY. ALA.R.CIV.P. 23(A)(1). Consistent with RULE 23(A)(1), the

members of the Class are so numerous that the joinder of all members is impractical. While the

exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, the proposed Class includes

Rinn Owens and at least 150 individuals and residents at the Apartments. Class members may be

identified through objective means. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action

by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. mail,

electronic mail, internet postings, and/or published notice.

57. COMMONALITY. ALA R. CIV. P. 23(A)(2) AND (B)(3). Consistent with

ALA.R.CIV.P. 23(2) and with 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement, this action involves common

questions of law and fact that predominate over any questions affecting individual Class members.

The common questions include:

a. Did Defendants owe a duty of care to Plaintiff and the members of the putative

class to maintain the premises in a habitable condition?

b. Did Defendants breach this duty to Plaintiff and the members of the putative
 DOCUMENT 2

class imposed on them by Alabama law and the lease agreements with their

tenants?

b. Were Plaintiff and the members of the putative class provided with a habitable

living environment in accordance with the lease agreement and Alabama law?

c. Did the actions or inactions of Defendants constitute negligence resulting in

disturbances and property damage to Plaintiff and the members of the putative

class?

d. Is there liability on the part of Defendants for the damages suffered by Plaintiff

and the members of the putative class due to these disturbances?

58. TYPICALITY. ALA. R. CIV. P. 23(A)(3). Consistent with ALA.R.CIV.P.

23(A)(3), Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of other class members. Plaintiff’s experiences with

fire alarms, water shut-offs, and flooding are akin to other Class members, and Plaintiff seeks relief

consistent with the relief of the Class.

59. ADEQUACY. ALA. R. CIV. P. 23(A)(4). Consistent with ALA.R.CIV.P.

23(A)(4), Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because he is a member of the Class

and is committed to pursuing this matter against Defendants to obtain relief for the Class. Plaintiff

has no conflicts of interest with the Class. Plaintiff’s Counsel are competent and experienced in

litigating class actions, including those involving tenant rights and property damage. Plaintiffs

intend to vigorously prosecute this case and will fairly and adequately protect the Class’ interests.

60. SUPERIORITY. ALA. R. CIV. P. 23(B)(3). Consistent with ALA.R.CIV.P.

23(B)(3), a class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the
 DOCUMENT 2

management of this class action. The class action mechanism permits litigation against Defendants

even when damages to individual Plaintiffs may not justify individual litigation. Here, the damages

suffered by Plaintiff and the Class, while significant, are such that individual litigation would be

impractical and burdensome.

61. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Class certification is also appropriate under

ALA.R.CIV.P. 23(B)(2) and (c). Defendants, through their conduct, have acted or refused to act on

grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole, making injunctive and declaratory relief

appropriate to the Class as a whole.

62. Particular issues under ALA.R.CIV.P. 23(C)(4) are appropriate for certification

because such claims present only particular, common issues, the resolution of which would

advance the disposition of this matter and the parties’ interests therein. Such particular issues

include, but are not limited to:

a. The responsibility of Defendants to maintain the premises in accordance with the lease

agreement and applicable laws.

b. The adequacy of Defendants efforts to prevent and address maintenance issues within

Eclipse Residences.

c. Determination of the liability of Defendants for the disturbances and property damage

incurred by Plaintiffs due to negligence.

d. Assessment of the damages owed to the class members for the loss of enjoyment,

discomfort, and any property damage as a result of Defendants actions.

 DOCUMENT 2

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I
Negligence

63. Paragraphs 1 through 62 are incorporated herein as if set out in full.

64. Pursuant to Alabama law and the lease agreements in place with Plaintiff and

members of the putative Class, Defendants have had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the

management, maintenance, and operation of the Apartments to prevent harm to Plaintiffs and other

tenants, including but not limited to ensuring the proper functioning of fire alarms, maintaining

the plumbing system and water supply systems to provide continuous access to water, and

implementing preventive measures against flooding, especially during freezing conditions.

65. Defendants negligently breached this duty by failing to:

a. Maintain a functional and reliable fire alarm system, leading to frequent and

unwarranted activations that caused distress and excessive sleep disruption to

Plaintiffs.

b. Provide a continuous and reliable water supply, as evidenced by multiple, unscheduled

water shut-offs that severely inconvenienced Plaintiffs and disrupted their daily life

activities.

c. Implement basic preventive measures to protect the premises from flooding during

freeze conditions, directly resulting in water damage to Plaintiffs and other tenants'

properties.

66. Defendants knew or should have known that their failure to properly maintain the

premises and prevent these issues would result in discomfort, inconvenience, and potential harm

to Plaintiffs and other tenants.

 DOCUMENT 2

67. The negligent actions and omissions of Defendants have materially degraded the

habitability and safety of the premises leased by Plaintiffs.

68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiffs suffered

damages, including emotional distress, discomfort, inconvenience, and physical damage to

personal property.

Count II
Recklessness/Wantonness

69. Paragraphs 1 through 62 are incorporated herein as if set out in full.

70. Pursuant to Alabama law and the lease agreements in place with Plaintiff and

members of the putative Class, Defendants have had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the

management, maintenance, and operation of the Apartments to prevent harm to Plaintiffs and other

tenants, including but not limited to ensuring the proper functioning of fire alarms, maintaining

the plumbing system and water supply systems to provide continuous access to water, and

implementing preventive measures against flooding, especially during freezing conditions.

71. Defendants recklessly and/or wantonly breached this duty by failing to:

a. Maintain a functional and reliable fire alarm system, leading to frequent and

unwarranted activations that caused distress and excessive sleep disruption to

Plaintiffs.

b. Provide a continuous and reliable water supply, as evidenced by multiple, unscheduled

water shut-offs that severely inconvenienced Plaintiffs and disrupted their daily life

activities.

c. Implement basic preventive measures to protect the premises from flooding during

freeze conditions, directly resulting in water damage to Plaintiffs' and other tenants'
 DOCUMENT 2

properties.

72. Through numerous complaints by tenants, the City of Huntsville Fire Department,

and media reports, Defendants knew that their failure to properly maintain the premises and

prevent these issues had resulted in discomfort, inconvenience, and potential harm to Plaintiffs and

other tenants.

73. In response, Defendants did nothing.

74. The reckless and/or wanton actions and omissions of Defendants have materially

degraded the habitability and safety of the premises leased by Plaintiffs.

75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants recklessness and/or wantonness,

Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional distress, discomfort, inconvenience, and physical

damage to personal property.

Count III
Breach of Contract

76. Paragraphs 1 through 62 are incorporated herein as if set out in full.

77. On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendants for a

residential apartment located at the Apartments.

78. This lease agreement constituted a valid and binding contract between Plaintiffs

and Defendants, wherein Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiffs with a habitable living

environment which was fit for quiet enjoyment in exchange for monthly rent payments from

Plaintiffs.

79. The lease agreement implicitly and explicitly required Defendants to maintain the

premises in a condition fit for habitation, which includes, but is not limited to, ensuring that fire

alarms operate correctly and only in cases of actual emergencies, maintaining the plumbing system
 DOCUMENT 2

to provide consistent access to water, and protecting the property from preventable damage such

as flooding from frozen pipes.

80. Defendants further owed an obligation to deliver an apartment which featured a fire

alarm system that would not condition residents to believe all alarm events are “false alarms” and

thereby cause them to unlikely evacuate in the event of an actual fire.

81. As it stands now, the only thing that would be safe would be for Defendants to

install an all new system with entirely different sounding alarms and other distinct features which

would not cause current tenants to think another false alarm is occurring.

82. Defendants have breached this contract by failing to uphold its obligations under

the lease agreement and applicable law.

83. Plaintiff and the members of the putative Class have not received the benefit of

their bargain.

84. Plaintiff and the members of the putative Class have paid for quiet enjoyment but

not received it.

85. Defendants breaches of the lease agreement have directly resulted in significant

harm to Plaintiffs, including but not limited to, distress, discomfort, inconvenience, and damage

to personal property. These breaches have materially affected the habitability of the premises and

substantially interfered with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their apartment.

86. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches of the lease agreement,

Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs are entitled to

recover these damages from Defendants, along with any other relief the Court deems just and

proper.
 DOCUMENT 2

87. The only way Plaintiff and the members of the putative Class can move to another

safer, quieter, and habitable location is to pay seven months rent to break their leases.

88. The penalty forms a sort of economic trap for Plaintiff and the members of the

putative Class.

89. Plaintiffs and the putative class are seeking compensating and consequential

economic damages.

90. Plaintiffs and the putative class are seeking reformation of their contracts with

Defendants.

Count IV
Unjust Enrichment

91. Paragraphs 1 through 62 are incorporated herein as if set out in full.

92. As a result of the above actions, Defendants retain funds for rent which were

unearned.

93. Further, by failing to properly address the concerns of the tenants as laid out above

Defendants retain funds which should have been expended on behalf of Plaintiff and members of

the putative Class in the form of repairs and systems which would not fail routinely.

94. Hence, Defendants have been unjustly enriched to the detriment of Plaintiff and

members of the putative Class.

95. Plaintiff and members of the putative Class request an injunctive Order directing

Defendants to perform an equitable accounting to determine the amount of monies unjustly

retained, create a constructive trust, and disgorge the res of said trust to Plaintiff and members of

the putative Class via resulting restitution.

 DOCUMENT 2

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff John Rinn Owens, on behalf of himself and a putative Class

similarly-situated tenants, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order for the following

relief against Defendants:

a. Certifying John Rinn Owens as the representative of the Class and Sub-Class, defined

above as, generally, all tenants of the Apartments who have suffered due to the

Defendants failure to maintain the premises in a condition suitable for habitation,

specifically addressing the issues of fire alarm malfunctions, water shut-offs, and

flooding.

b. Enter an award of damages compensating for the diminished value of tenancy,

including but not limited to the cost of cleaning, repair of any personal property

damaged due to the maintenance issues, and other consequential damages. Further,

compensation for the emotional distress caused by the continual disruptions to quiet

enjoyment and safety concerns associated with a personal residence.

c. Enter Order mandating rent abatement reflecting the periods during which the premises

were uninhabitable or failed to provide the basic services essential for tenant living.

d. Enter an Order of contract reformation allowing for the termination of lease agreements

without penalty for tenants wishing to vacate the premises due to the aforementioned

issues, acknowledging the Defendants breach of the lease contract and the duty of quiet

enjoyment and habitability.

e. Enter an award attorney fees, interest at the highest rate allowed by law, and costs to

Plaintiff and the putative Class.

 DOCUMENT 2

f. Enter an injunctive Order directing Defendants to perform an equitable accounting to

determine the amount of monies unjustly retained, create a constructive trust, and

disgorge the res of said trust to Plaintiff and members of the putative Class via resulting

restitution.

g. Enter an Order for such other and further relief, including equitable relief, as the Court

deems necessary, just, and proper to address the full extent of the harm caused by

Defendants and to prevent future occurrences.

Respectfully submitted this the 20th day of March, 2024.

s/ Eric J. Artrip
Eric J. Artrip (ART001)
Attorney for Plaintiff
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Holmes Ave, NE Suite 100
Huntsville, Alabama 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
artrip@mastandoartrip.com

Nicholas Cole Hughes (HUG057)

Matthew Bruce Alfreds (ALF011)
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Argo | Hughes Alfreds, LLC
475 Providence Main Street, Suite 303D
Huntsville, AL 35806
Tel: 334-279-0088
Fax: 334-279-8830
nick@argohughes.com
matt@argohughes.com
 DOCUMENT 2

DEFENDANTS TO BE SERVED BY CERTIFIED MAIL:

City Centre Residential, LLC

c/o National Registered Agents Inc.
401 Williams Avenue Southwest
Huntsville, AL 35801

Willow Bridge, Inc.

c/o William Bridges
2436 Venetia Road
Mobile, AL 36605

s/ Eric J. Artrip
Eric J. Artrip