1
`
`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
`
`
`
`Ian R. Feldman (State Bar No. 200308)
`ifeldman@clausen.com
`Tyler M. Costanzo (State Bar No. 322457)
`tcostanzo@clausen.com
`CLAUSEN MILLER P.C.
`27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 200
`Mission Viejo, CA 92691
`Telephone: (949) 260-3100 | Facsimile: (949) 260-3190
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`CTM APARTMENT SERVICES CORPORATION,
`TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, and
`TONY DICORTI
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`03/29/2024
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: ANNIE PASCUAL
`Deputy Clerk
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`YSABELLI CUSI and ANASTASIIA
`SAPON,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`1163 ASSOCIATES, TRILAR
`MANAGEMENT GROUP, CTM
`APARTMENT SERVICES CORPORATION,
`TONY DICORTI, LISA RICKS, and DOES 1
`through 10,
`
`Case No. CGC-23-609986
`
`[Assigned to Hon. Anne-Christine
`Massullo, Dept. 610]
`
`DEFENDANTS TRILAR
`MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA
`RICKS, AND TONY DICORTI’S
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
`UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`Complaint Filed: October 25, 2023
`Trial:
`
`None Set
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Defendants TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, and TONY
`
`DICCORTI’s (collectively “Defendants”) hereby answer
`
`the unverified Complaint
`
`(“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiffs YSABELLI CUSI and ANASTASIIA SAPON (collectively
`
`“Plaintiffs”), as follows:
`
`-1-
`DEFENDANTS TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, AND TONY DICORTI’S
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`1.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specially each, every and all of the allegations of
`
`each and every cause of action pleaded in the Complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil
`
`Procedure §431.30(d).
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
`
`against this answering Defendant.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs’ action is barred by the applicable Statutes of Limitations, including
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 and/or Business and Professions Code
`
`11
`
`§17208.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`4.
`
`Defendants have appropriately, completely and fully performed and discharged
`
`any and all obligations and legal duties arising out of the matters alleged in Plaintiffs’
`
`15
`
`Complaint.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`5.
`
`Defendants allege that at all times the property as alleged in Plaintiffs’
`
`Complaint was fit and suitable for occupancy in whole or in substantial part for the purposes
`
`for which they were leased and, therefore, Defendants did not disturb Plaintiffs’ possession
`
`and/or interfere with Plaintiffs’ beneficial enjoyment of the premises.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`6.
`
`Defendants allege that the alleged conditions and/or purported defects in the
`
`property as alleged in the Complaint were not materially defective conditions that affected
`
`24
`
`habitability.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs did not conduct themselves and did not manage and/or use ordinary
`
`care in maintenance of the property at issue in the Complaint in a reasonable manner and,
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-2-
`DEFENDANTS TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, AND TONY DICORTI’S
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`therefore, failed to discover the alleged condition of habitability within a reasonable period of
`
`time and/or upon reasonable inspection.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`8. Without admitting any allegations of the Complaint, Defendants are informed
`
`and believe and thereupon allege that the Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred
`
`by Plaintiffs’ failure to give timely notice to these answering Defendants of the alleged defects,
`
`breaches and/or damages, if any, which any party may have sustained or within a reasonable
`
`time within which Plaintiffs should have discovered the purported defects, breaches and/or
`
`damages.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`9.
`
`These answering Defendants are informed and believe and on such information
`
`and belief allege that Plaintiffs failed to perform express contractual conditions precedent to
`
`Defendants’ performance, and such failure excuses any non-performance by these answering
`
`14
`
`Defendants.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs failed to give Defendants a reasonable amount of time to correct the
`
`purported defects and/or conditions at the property as alleged in the Complaint.
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`11.
`
`Should it be found that Defendants are liable in any manner for any damages
`
`claimed by Plaintiffs which was caused and/or contributed to by parties other than Defendants,
`
`whether served or not served in this case, and/or other persons or entities not presently parties
`
`to this action, the proportionate degree of negligence, fault, and or legal responsibility of each
`
`and every person or entity must be determined and prorated and any judgment which may be
`
`rendered against Defendants must be reduced not only by the degree of negligence, fault or
`
`legal responsibility attributable to Plaintiffs, but also by the total of that degree of negligence,
`
`fault and/or other legal responsibility found to exist as to other parties, persons and/or entities
`
`27
`
`as well.
`
`28
`
`-3-
`DEFENDANTS TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, AND TONY DICORTI’S
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`12. Defendants allege that at all times relevant, no act or omission of Defendants
`
`were a legal or proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages, if any, as alleged
`
`in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs assumed the risk of matters referred to in the Complaint, knew and
`
`appreciated the nature of the risk, and voluntarily accepted the risk.
`
`THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs are barred from recovery because Defendants lacked actual or
`
`10
`
`constructive notice of any defect, condition and/or hazard at the property as alleged by
`
`11
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`15. Defendants exercised due diligence in the ownership and/or management of the
`
`property at issue in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, relied in good faith on the representations of others,
`
`and was not aware of, nor had any way of becoming aware of, any alleged wrongdoing or
`
`16
`
`omissions.
`
`FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`16. Defendants allege that there was no duty to repair any alleged defects, conditions
`
`and/or hazards at the property as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint because Plaintiffs failed to
`
`keep the property in a clean and sanitary condition.
`
`SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`17. Defendants are informed and believe and thereon alleges that no public officer
`
`or employee responsible for enforcement of any housing law notified Defendants of any
`
`obligation to abate any nuisance and/or condition at the property as alleged in Plaintiffs’
`
`Complaint prior to collection of Plaintiffs’ rent; therefore, Plaintiffs cannot maintain a cause
`
`of action for violation of Civil Code §1942.4.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-4-
`DEFENDANTS TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, AND TONY DICORTI’S
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`18. Defendants are informed and believe and thereon alleges that if Plaintiffs
`
`vacated the property as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint at any time, Plaintiffs did so through
`
`their own consent and, therefore, waived any cause of action for constructive eviction.
`
`EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`19. Defendants allege that at all times Defendants did not engage in any unlawful
`
`acts or practices and did not cause or contribute to any alleged unfair methods of competition
`
`and/or illegal, unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices.
`
`NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`10
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiffs have waived any right to recover for the claims asserted in the
`
`11
`
`Complaint.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`21. Any and all damages sustained by Plaintiffs, if any, are and were the direct and
`
`proximate result of Plaintiffs’ failure to mitigate the alleged damages.
`
`TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`22.
`
`Should it be found that Defendants are in any manner legally responsible for any
`
`damages sustained by Plaintiffs, which Defendants specifically deny, Defendants’ liability for
`
`non-economic damages shall be several only and not joint, such that Defendants shall be liable
`
`only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to Defendants in direct proportion to
`
`its percentage of fault.
`
`TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`23. Defendants are entitled to an offset in an amount equal to the amount of monies
`
`which Plaintiffs’ health care, disability or other insurers provided, or would have received had
`
`a claim been made, from any insurer(s) affording coverage for Plaintiffs, and for any monies
`
`Plaintiffs received from any Defendants, or on behalf of any Defendants.
`
`TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiffs acknowledged, ratified, consented to and acquiesced in the alleged acts
`
`or omissions, if any, of Defendants, thus barring Plaintiffs from any relief as prayed for herein.
`
`-5-
`DEFENDANTS TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, AND TONY DICORTI’S
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`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
`
`
`
`TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`25. Defendants allege that a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery
`
`will reveal and, on that basis, assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are unreasonable, were filed in bad
`
`faith, and/or are frivolous and, for such reasons, justify an award of attorneys’ fees and costs
`
`against Plaintiffs and/or her attorneys pursuant to California law.
`
`TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys’ fees under any cause of action or theory
`
`either by statute or lack of contractual agreement which provides for attorneys’ fees.
`
`TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiffs are barred from recovering punitive or exemplary damages pursuant to
`
`Civil Code §3294; Defendants did not conduct themselves in any manner constituting malice,
`
`oppression, or fraud; and no officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants ratified or
`
`participated in any conduct constituting malice, oppression or fraud in this action. Therefore,
`
`Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is barred, in whole or in part, on the grounds that an
`
`award of punitive damages in this matter would be in violation of the California Constitution
`
`and/or the United States Constitution.
`
`TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`28. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs may not recover damages in this action because,
`
`under the circumstances presented, it would constitute unjust enrichment.
`
`TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`29. Defendants allege that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to form a basis
`
`for the granting of prejudgment interest.
`
`TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`30. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive or other equitable relief is
`
`barred because Plaintiffs have an adequate and complete remedy at law.
`
`
`
`-6-
`DEFENDANTS TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, AND TONY DICORTI’S
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`31. Defendants allege that a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery
`
`will reveal and, on that basis, assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are unreasonable, were filed in bad
`
`faith, and/or are frivolous and, for such reasons, justify an award of attorneys’ fees and costs
`
`against Plaintiffs and/or their attorneys pursuant to California law including, but not limited to
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure §128.5 and/or Government Code §12965(b).
`
`THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`32. Defendants have insufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a
`
`belief as to whether or not it may have additional affirmative defenses. Defendant, thus,
`
`10
`
`reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses upon acquiring such information or
`
`11
`
`knowledge.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`PRAYER
`
`WHEREFORE, these answering Defendants pray for judgment against Plaintiffs, as
`
`15
`
`follows:
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`18
`
`Defendant;
`
`That Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Complaint;
`
`That Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed with prejudice against this answering
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`3.
`
`That any amount to which Defendants are found partially responsible be reduced
`
`by Plaintiffs’ negligence and/or fault;
`
`4.
`
`That any amount to which Defendants are found partially responsible be reduced
`
`by the respective percentages of fault assigned to other persons, whether individual, corporate,
`
`associate, or otherwise, and whether named or unnamed in the Complaint, any pending Cross-
`
`Complaints, or in any subsequently filed pleadings;
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`That this Court award judgment in this matter to these answering Defendants;
`
`That Defendants recover their attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred here-in;
`
`27
`
`and
`
`28
`
`
`
`-7-
`DEFENDANTS TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, AND TONY DICORTI’S
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`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
`
`
`
`7.
`
`For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: March 29, 2024
`
`CLAUSEN MILLER P.C.
`
`BY: _____________________________
`Ian R. Feldman
`Tyler M. Costanzo
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`CTM APARTMENT SERVICES
`CORPORATION, TRILAR
`MANAGEMENT, GROUP, LISA RICKS,
`and TONY DICORTI
`
`10660798.1
`
`-8-
`DEFENDANTS TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, AND TONY DICORTI’S
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
`not a party to the within action; my business address is 27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 200, Mission
`Viejo, CA 92691.
`
`On March 29, 2024, I caused the following document(s) described below to be served on
`the interested parties in this action as follows:
`
`DEFENDANTS TRILAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LISA RICKS, AND
`TONY DICORTI’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNVERIFIED
`COMPLAINT
`
`See Attached Service List
`
`[X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused such documents to be transmitted and
`electronically served in compliance with the Local Rules of Court, California Rules of Court Rule
`2.251 and Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6, on this date via internet/electronic mail, on all parties
`in this case as a PDF attachment to the email addresses listed on the attached service list.
`
`[X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY. Only by emailing the document(s) to the
`parties in this case, as a PDF attachment to the email addresses list on the attached service list.
`Following the declared National Emergency due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this
`office is working remotely and not able to send physical mail as usual, and is, therefore, using
`only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
`unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. We will provide a
`physical copy, only upon request.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
`foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 29, 2024, at Mission Viejo, California.
`
`10413444.1
`
`
`Amanda Ramos
`
`
`
`1
`
`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
`
`-1-
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`

`

`
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`Ysabelli Cusi et al. v. 1163 Associates et al.
`San Francisco County Superior Court Case No: CGC-23-609986
`
`Our Clients: CTM Apartment Services Corporation, Lisa Ricks and Tony Dicorti
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`YSABELLI CUSI, and ANASTASIIA
`SAPON
`
`Rahman Popal, Esq.
`THE LAW FIRM
` FOR TENANT RIGHTS, INC.
`1390 Market Street, Suite 200
`San Francisco, California 94102
`
`Telephone: (628) 200-3018
`Facsimile: (628) 226-1482
`popal@firmfortenants.com
`luciae@firmfortenants.com
`squinn@firmfortenants.com
`
`
`10413446.1
`
`1
`
`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
`
`1
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`