Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:13
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:13
`
`JOHN T. RICHARDS, ESQ. (SBN 159875)
`John@jtrlawl .com
`EVAN WILLIS, ESQ. (SBN 314797)
`Evan@jtrlaw1.com
`RICHARDS WILLIS PC
`
`750 B Street, Suite 1760
`San Diego, California 92101
`T: (619) 237-9800
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintiff?
`
`3
`
`_
`FELHEHPf
`upggfllltyogf Rivergildgrma
`1I29/2021
`A. Flu ker
`Electronically Filed
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
`
`TEMECULA GOLD AND JEWELRY;
`ALFY SHENOUDA,
`
`Case No.: CVR|2100440
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`ADT, INC., A California Corporation;
`PROTECTION 1, A California
`Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
`inclusive, W
`
`1. BREACH OF CONTRACT
`2. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`3' NEGLIGENCE
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`NM
`
`NM
`
`////
`
`////
`
`////
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:14
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:14
`
`I.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`Venue and Jurisdiction is proper in this court as the tortious acts alleged herein all
`
`occurred in the City of Temecula, in the County of Riverside, in the State of California. In
`
`addition, all DEFENDANTS and/or DEFENDANT corporations are conducting business in the
`
`City of Temecula, in the County of Riverside, in the State of California. Furthermore,
`
`DEFENDANTS reside in the City of Temecula, in County of Riverside, in the State of
`
`California. Lastly, the real property at issue is located in the City of Temecula, in County of
`
`Riverside, in the State of California.
`
`2.
`
`PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, complain against ADT, INC., A California
`
`Corporation; PROTECTION 1, A California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive
`
`(hereinafter collectively “DEFENDANTS”), inclusive, as follows:
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`At all times relevant herein, TEMECULA GOLD AND JEWELRY; ALFY
`
`SHENOUDA, (collectively “PLAINTIFFS”) owned and were operating a jewelry store and
`
`business located at 27487 Jefferson Ave, Temecula, California 92590 (hereinafter “SUBJECT
`
`PROPERTY”).
`
`4.
`
`DEFENDANT ADT, INC. is a California Corporation and security company
`
`operating and doing business in the County of Riverside, in the state of California.
`
`5.
`
`DEFENDANT PROTECTION 1 is a California Corporation and security
`
`company operating and doing business in the County of Riverside, in the state of California.
`
`6.
`
`At all times herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were acting as agents,
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:15
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00Q35 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 3 of 13 ! Page ID #:15
`,
`l
`I
`l
`1
`l
`
`7.
`
`DEFENDANTS DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are sued in this Complaint under
`
`fictitious names. Their true names, capacities and involvement, if any, are unknown to
`
`PLAINTIFFS. When their true names, capacities and involvement are ascertained, PLAINTIFFS
`
`will amend this Complaint by inserting their true names and capacities herein. PLAINTIFFS are
`
`informed and believe, and on that basis allege, each of the fictitiously named DEFENDANTS is
`
`responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this Complaint, that PLAINTIFFS’
`
`damages as alleged in this Complaint were proximately caused by such DOE DEFENDANTS
`
`and/or that such DOE DEFENDANTS have or claim some interest in or claim against the real
`
`property described in this Complaint.
`
`III.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`8.
`
`At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS owned and operated a jewelry stor
`
`and business located at 27487 Jefferson Ave, Temecula, California 92590.
`
`9.
`
`At all
`
`relevant
`
`times herein, DEFENDANTS were under contract wit
`
`PLAINTIFFS to provide PLAINTIFFS with security services for the jewelry store.
`
`10.
`
`DEFENDANTS are in the business of owning, operating, installing, maintaining
`
`and/or providing security services and security systems for homes, commercial structures, an
`
`businesses. In this case, DEFENDANTS sold and provided security services and a securi
`
`system to PLAINTIFFS prior
`
`to June 2019. The purpose of said security system 0
`
`PLAINTIFFS SUBJECT PROPERTY was to deter, prevent, and/or mitigate damages in th
`
`event of a break-in, robbery, theft, vandalism, or the like. This includes, but is not limited to
`
`alerting the proper authorities for immediate dispatch to the SUBJECT PROPERTY in the even
`
`of a break in.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:16
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 chument 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:16
`
`)
`
`11.
`
`At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS were to provide security and
`
`functioning security system to PLAINTIFFS for the SUBJECT PROPERTY for protection in th
`
`event of a break-in, robbery, theft, or the like. Said security services include, but are not limite
`
`to, alerting the authorities for immediate dispatch in the event of a break in, robbery, or theft. I
`
`the event
`
`that there is a break-in or robbery,
`
`there is a silent alarm that
`
`is supposed t
`
`immediately alert authorities in the event of a break in and robbery.
`
`12.
`
`PLAINTIFFS business is a jewelry store which carries expensive, high-end item
`
`such as gold, jewelry, diamonds, emeralds, and other previous metals. As such, it is more likel
`
`to be a target for a break in, theft, robbery, and/or vandalism. As such, PLAINTIFFS contracte
`
`with DEFENDANTS to provide security and security services to prevent and/or mitigate suc
`
`events from occurring. DEFENDANTS knew that the purpose of their contract and providin
`
`security and security services to PLAINTIFFS’ SUBJECT PROPERTY was to protect and/o
`
`mitigate damages from an attempted break in, robbery, vandalism, theft, or the like. As such
`
`DEFENDANTS knew, or should have known, that a proper, functioning security system wa
`
`required for the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
`
`13.
`
`On or about July 14, 2019 there was a break in, robbery, and vandalism at th
`
`SUBJECT PROPERTY. PLAINTIFFS suffered extensive property damage and destruction t
`
`their business when DEFENDANTS’ faulty security system failed, allowing PLAINTIFFS t
`
`suffer from a break in, robbery of valuables, and vandalism. Specifically, DEFENDANT
`
`security and security system failed because the silent alarm failed, and DEFENDANTS failed t
`
`alert the authorities for immediate dispatch as they are required to under their contract wit
`
`PLAINTIFF S.
`
`NH
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:17
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 , Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:17
`
`14.
`
`Immediately prior to and during the July 2019 INCIDENT, DEFENDANT
`
`security system broke down and/or failed. DEFENDANTS’ security system failed to alert th
`
`authorities in the event of a break in which would have prevented, or mitigated, the vandalism
`
`theft, and destruction of PLAINTIFFS’ business. Said failure was also a breach of contract f0
`
`which PLAINTIFFS have been paying DEFENDANTS for. Authorities were not contacted b
`
`DEFENDANTS, as contracted, under the July 2019 incident to prevent said INCIDENT.
`
`15.
`
`Immediately after the July 2019 break in, PLAINTIFFS alerted DEFENDANT
`
`of the break in, robbery, and vandalism to the SUBJECT PROPERTY and their failure to ale
`
`the authorities.
`
`16.
`
`After the July 2019 break in, DEFENDANTS came to the SUBJECT PROPERT
`
`and maintained, operated, installed, and/or updated their security and security system on th
`
`SUBJECT PROPERTY to prevent another such break in from occurring. DEFENDANT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`guaranteed that, in the event of another attempted break in, that DEFENDANTS abide by th
`
`terms of their contract with PLAINTIFFS, including, but not limited to, having a silent al
`
`become triggered, and by alerting the authorities immediately for dispatch.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`After the July 2019 break in, and on or about February 24, 2020, PLAINTIFFS’
`
`jewelry business was broken into and robbed again. Most, if not all, valuables in PLAINTIFFS’
`
`
`
`
`business were subsequently stolen.
`
`18.
`
`Immediately prior to and during the February 2020 break in, DEFENDANTS
`
`
`
`
`security system broke down and/or failed, again. DEFENDANTS security system failed to ale
`
`the authorities, again, in the event of a break in which would have prevented, or mitigated, th
`
`vandalism, theft, and destruction of PLAINTIFF8’ business. Said failure was also a breach 0
`
`contract for which PLAINTIFFS have been paying DEFENDANTS for. Authorities were no
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:18
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21} Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:18
`
`contacted by DEFENDANTS, as contracted, under the July 2019 incident
`
`to prevent sai
`
`
`
`INCIDENT.
`
`19.
`
`During the February 2020 break in, DEFENDANTS’ security services an
`
`security system were not triggered, in part, because the vandals turned off the power to th
`
`building. DEFENDANTS security system, for a gold and jewelry store containing expensive
`
`high-end valuable jewelry, gold, and diamonds, and by which easily failed, in part, by having th
`
`power turned off, is a grossly deficient and faulty security system that was installed, maintained
`
`and/or operated below the standard of care by DEFENDANTS.
`
`20.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ entire business was robbed and destroyed when DEFENDANT
`
`security and security system failed to trigger the silent alarm and alert authorities multiple times.
`
`PLAINTIFF8’ jewelry and monies were stolen, casings were broken, and the entire interior an
`
`framework was destroyed.
`
`21.
`
`Because PLAINTIFFS’
`
`entire business was burglarized and destroyed
`
`PLAINTIFFS were unable to operate their business. PLAINTIFFS experienced a busines
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interruption because of DEFENDANTS faulty security services and security system.
`
`22.
`
`As a result of the acts and omissions of DEFENDANTS, and each of their, lack o
`
`maintenance, faulty operation, and/or inspection (or lack thereof) of their security syste
`
`PLAINTIFFS business was robbed multiple times, and the contents contained inside wer
`
`destroyed. In addition, the robberies and destruction which DEFENDANTS allowed to occu
`
`caused extreme annoyance and discomfort, effecting PLAINTIFFS’ right to quiet enjoyment 0
`
`property.
`
`23.
`
`Further, DEFENDANTS failed to properly maintain their security system, an
`
`failed to mitigate damages by properly maintaining and/or operating their security system afte
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:19
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:19
`l
`
`the July 2019 break in. Instead, DEFENDANTS left the security system in an utter state of
`
`disrepair prior to the February 2020 break in and robbery. DEFENDANTS knew of their securi
`
`system was
`
`in a state of disrepair and purposefully failed to notify PLAINTIFFS.
`
`DEFENDANTS operation of their security services and security system caused damages t
`
`PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS are entitled to damages as a result.
`
`24.
`
`As a result of DEFENDANTS allowing PLAINTIFF S to operate their business
`
`with a defective and/or faulty security system in place, DEFENDANTS two break ins and
`
`robberies occurred because DEFENDANTS security system, at a minimum, failed to trigger the
`
`silent alarm and alert authorities of said break ins. Because of this, PLAINTIFF S business and
`
`property were destroyed.
`
`25.
`
`DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are responsible and liable to PLAINTIFFS,
`
`and each of them, for at least the following reasons:
`
`(a)
`
`Failing to properly manage and inspect their security system they
`
`installed at PLAINTIFFS’ SUBJECT PROPERTY;
`
`(b)
`
`Failing to maintain, operate, and/or inspect their security system in a
`
`manner that would allow PLAINTIFFS to avoid multiple break ins and robberies within a year
`
`and/or mitigate damages by properly alerting the authorities;
`
`(c)
`
`Failing to maintain, operate, and inspect their security system according
`
`to applicable and required Best Management Practices (“BMP’s”) to withstand vandals from
`
`entering PLAINTIFFS’ business foreseeable break ins that could negatively jewelry store
`
`owners;
`
`(d)
`
`Failing to have a proper maintenance plan and inspection regimen for their
`
`security system at PLAINTIFFS business so as to prevent and/or mitigate break ins, robberies,
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:20
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:20
`
`and vandalism.
`
`26.
`
`PLAINTIFFS suffered property damage, loss of use, and loss of business
`
`income/profits substantially and proximately caused by DEFENDANTS, and each of them. The
`
`inadequate and negligent ownership, management, maintenance, operation, and/or inspection of
`
`their security and security system were deliberate choices made by DEFENDANTS. The cost to
`
`properly maintain, operate, and inspect the security system is miniscule relative to the amount of
`
`damage suffered by PLAINTIFF S.
`
`IV.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`(ALL PLAINTIFFS vs. ALL DEFENDANTS)
`
`27.
`
`PLAINTIFFS repeat and reallege each and every allegation made above, fully
`
`incorporating those allegations as though full set forth herein.
`
`28.
`
`There is a valid and existing insurance agreement between PLAINTIFFS and
`
`DEFENDANTS whereby PLAINTIFFS would pay DEFENDANTS monthly and/or quarterly
`
`installment payments for security and security services to their jewelry business.
`
`29.
`
`PLAINTIFFS performed under the agreement, yet DEFENDANTS did not
`
`perform, and failed to provide PLAINTIFFS with the security and security system PLAINTIFFS
`
`compensated DEFENDANTS for.
`
`30.
`
`DEFENDANTS breached the agreement by, inter alia, refusing to provide
`
`PLAINTIFFS with properly functioning security and security system, whereby, at a minimum,
`
`the authorities would be alerted and dispatched in the event of a break in and/or robbery.
`
`31.
`
`Under the terms of the contract, DEFENDANTS owed PLAINTIFFS a duty and
`
`guarantee to provide PLAINTIFFS with security and security services in the event of a break in,
`
`including, but not limited to, alerting and dispatching authorities in the event of a break in and/or
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:21
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:21
`1
`l
`l
`
`robbery to prevent and/or mitigate a robbery and damage to PLAINTIFF8’ jewelry store
`
`business. DEFENDANTS did not provide any form of security services during the July 2019
`
`break in or the February 2020 break in, nor were the authorities timely alerted that break ins and
`
`robberies were alerted, as DEFENDANTS were obligated to under the contract.
`
`32.
`
`DEFENDANTS breached their contract with PLAINTIFFS by failing to
`
`adequately provide security services, a functioning security system, and failing to alert the
`
`authorities for dispatch in the event of an attempted break in and/or robbery as contracted.
`
`33.
`
`As a legal result of DEFENDANTS breach of contract, PLAINTIFFS have
`
`suffered damages in excess of the jurisdiction of this court.
`
`V.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`(ALL PLAINTIFFS v. ALL DEFENDANTS)
`
`34.
`
`PLAINTIFFS repeat and reallege each and every allegation made above, fully
`
`incorporating those allegations as though full set forth herein.
`
`35.
`
`DEFENDANTS were enriched by PLAINTIFFS paying a monthly and/or
`
`quarterly fee to DEFENDANTS for security services and a security system for PLAINTIFFS
`
`jewelry business which PLAINTIFFS never received.
`
`36.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ enrichment was at PLAINTIFFS’ expense, as PLAINTIFFS
`
`provided monies to DEFENDANTS for the performance of DEFENDANTS security services
`
`and security system and obligations under the terms of their contract, but DEFENDANTS neithe
`
`performed their obligations nor returned the monies paid to PLAINTIFFS.
`
`37.
`
`It is unjust for DEFENDANTS to retain PLAINTIFFS monies for security
`
`services and a security system which was never provided to PLAINTIFFS.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:22
`
`Case5:21-cv-OO635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:22
`
`38.
`
`For such unjust enrichment, PLAINTIFF S claim damages for reimbursement of
`
`all funds paid to DEFENDANTS arising out of their contract and or payment for security
`
`services and security system which was not provided to PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS seek
`
`reimbursement for all fees paid to DEFENDANTS whereby they were unjustly enriched as
`
`alleged herein.
`
`VI.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — NEGLIGENCE
`
`(ALL PLAINTIFFS v. ALL DEFENDANTS)
`
`39.
`
`PLAINTIFFS repeat and reallege each and every allegation made above, fully
`
`incorporating those allegations as though fully set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS were operating their jewelry and gold
`
`business at 27487 Jefferson Ave, Temecula, California on or about July 1, 2019.
`
`41.
`
`All all relevant times herein, DEFENDANTS were responsible for the
`
`maintenance and operation of security services and security system at the SUBJECT
`
`PROPERTY, including, but not limited to, alerting and dispatching the authorities in the event 0
`
`a break in and/or robbery.
`
`42.
`
`At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had a duty to apply a
`
`level of care commensurate with and proportionate to the danger of maintaining, operating,
`
`and/or inspecting their security services and security system at the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
`
`43.
`
`DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to take reasonable precautions to
`
`protect PLAINTIFFS against the foreseeable risk of harm, including, but not limited to, a break
`
`in and/or robbery, specifically created by their activities, including PLAINTIFFS and their
`
`business.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:23
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:23
`
`requirements for their security services and security systems for businesses containing high-end
`
`valuables such as jewelry, which require a heightened level of security, including heightened risk
`
`factors that ajewelry store is more likely to suffer from a break in and/or robbery than the
`
`average business which does not carry expensive precious stones. DEFENDANTS violated their
`
`own standard of care by allowing their security services and security system to fail, and by
`
`allowing two successful robberies to PLAINTIFFS business within a year, and by failing to
`
`respond and/or dispatch authorities to prevent or mitigate damages of the break ins and robberies
`
`to PLAINTIFFS business.
`
`45.
`
`DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were aware, or should have been aware, that
`
`the standard of care for their security services and security system was, at a minimum, to have a
`
`silent alarm and to immediately dispatch authorities to the business where said break in and/or
`
`robbery was occurring. DEFENDANTS, while also having a contract to provide these services to
`
`PLAINTIFFS, had a duty to provide said services to PLAINTIFFS as well. DEFENDANTS
`
`failed to provide said services and acted below the standard of care.
`
`46.
`
`It was foreseeable that DEFENDANTS, by acting below the standard of care, and
`
`by failing to property install, monitor, maintain, and/or operate their security services and
`
`security system at PLAINTIFFS jewelry business would lead to a break in, robbery, and/or
`
`vandalism. DEFENDANTS breached their standard of care to PLAINTIFF S.
`
`47.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of standard of care,
`
`DEFENDANTS caused reasonably foreseeable harm to PLAINTIFFS.
`
`48.
`
`The negligence of DEFENDANTS mentioned herein were each substantial
`
`factors in causing PLAINTIFFS’ damages. DEFENDANTS failure to comply with their duty of
`
`care proximately caused damage to PLAINTIFFS’ property and business, and caused
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:24
`
`Case 5:21-cv-006i35 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:24
`
`PLAINTIFFS to incur additional out of pocket expenses, including, but not limited to, labor
`
`costs, remediation fees, and special damages to be proven at trial.
`
`49.
`
`The negligence of DEFENDANTS mentioned herein were substantial factors in
`
`causing PLAINTIFFS’ damages. DEFENDANTS failure to comply with their duty of care
`
`proximately caused damage to PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, including but not limited to
`
`mental anguish, discomfort, worry, anxiety, annoyance, and emotional and physical distress, all
`
`to their general damage.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, pray for judgment against
`
`DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in amount according to proof at the time of trial as follows:
`
`The cost of repairing damaged and/0r destroyed property and/or replacement of damaged,
`
`destroyed, and/or lost personal property according to proof;
`
`Loss of the use, benefit, and enjoyment of PLAINTIFFS’ personal property;
`
`Loss of wages and/or any related displacement and/or out of pocket living expenses;
`
`All Special damages according to proof;
`
`All General damages including but not limited to worry, grief, distress, annoyance,
`
`anxiety, discomfort, and emotional damages according to proof;
`
`Prejudgment interest from July 2019, according to proof;
`
`Post judgment interest;
`
`Loss of business income/business profits;
`
`All reasonable costs of litigation;
`
`10.
`
`All monies paid to DEFENDANTS for which they were unjustly enriched;
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:25
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00635 Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/21 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:25
`I
`
`10.
`
`All costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees, appraisal fees, engineering fees, expert fees,
`
`and all related fees incurred in proving PLAINTIFFS’ case and related reasonable litigation
`
`costs;
`
`11.
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just, all according to proof.
`
`PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: January 15, 2021
`
`RICHARDS WILLIS PC
`
`By: fégggfiIQLkg
`
`T. RIC ARDS, ESQ.
`JO
`EVAN WILLIS, ESQ.
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs TEMECULA GOLD AND
`JEWELR Y,‘ ALFY SHENOUDA
`
`RICHARDS WILLIS PC
`
`750 B Street, Suite 1760
`San Diego, California 92101
`T: (619) 237-9800
`
`