Andrew V. Gabriel, Esq. (SBN 325375)
`LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW V. GABRIEL
`3260 Blumc Drive, Suite 225
`Richmond, California, 94806
`Tclcphonc:(510) 890-1479
`Facsimile:(510) 323-7771
`Email: auabrieIQavalawoffice.corn
`
`Attomcys for Plaintiff,
`SHAUN ENFERADI
`
`4/4/2024
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
`
`UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
`24-CIV-02010
`
`Case No.:
`
`SHAUN ENFERADI,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`JUAN VICENTE RUFINO, and DOES I to 50
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`1. Breach of the Covenant of Quiet
`Enjoyment — Contract and Civil Code g
`1927, 1940.2
`2. Breach of the Warranty of Habitability—
`Civil Code Ij 1941.1
`3. Retaliation — Civil Code tj 1942.5
`4. Negligence
`5. Premises Liability
`6. Breach of Contract
`7. Violation of B&P IjIj 17200 et seq 17500
`Unfair Business Practices
`Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff SHAUN ENFERADI
`
`("Plaintiff') hereby sues
`
`JUAN VICENTE RUFINO
`
`("Defendant") as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff SHAUN ENFERADI is an individual who at all relevant times is and was a
`rcsidcnt of the County of San Mateo, State of California.
`
`2.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, Defendant JUAN VICENTE RUFINO, on information
`
`and belief, is an individual who at all relevant times is and was a resident of and regularly conducting
`
`business in the County of San Mateo, State of California.
`
`3.
`
`The true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does I
`I
`COMPLAtiVT FOR DAMAGES
`
`through 50 are
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend
`
`this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and
`
`believes, and thereon alleges, that each of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some
`
`manner, jointly and/or severally, for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's injuries as herein
`
`alleged were proximately and legally caused by the conduct of these Doe Defendants.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein
`
`the defendants, and each of them, were the principals, agents, servants, employees, joint ventures, and
`
`partners of their co-defendants, and that as aforesaid, when acting as co-defendants, were jointly,
`
`severally and/or together with their co-defendants, liable for the injury to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.
`
`10
`
`Plaintiff is also informed and believes and upon such information allcgcs that thc defendants and each
`
`of them authorized and/or ratified the conduct of each and every one of the co-defendants, as complained
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`of herein.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Proc. 8 395(a) and 395.5, the venue is proper
`in that some of the wrongful acts and violations of law, asserted herein, occurred in the County of San
`
`5.
`
`16 Mateo, California.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`6.
`
`Civ. Proc.
`
`Jurisdiction exists over Defendants under the California "long arm" statutes, Cal. Code.
`II 410.10, which states "A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not
`inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or the United States." Defendants purposefully availed
`themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within California, "thus invoking the benefits and
`protections of its laws." (Buckeye Boiler v. Sup. Ct. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898, citing Hanson v. Denckla
`
`(1958) 357 U.S. 235, 251 and 253).
`
`7.
`
`By furtherance of thc defendants'ental property, the defendants purposefully availed
`themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within California such that it is subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in California.
`
`8.
`
`The subject events transpired within the State of California. Defendants have "sufficient
`
`27 minimum contacts" within the State of California such that this Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction
`
`28
`
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`over the Defendants herein "[does] not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
`
`(1nternational Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316).
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Terms of Tenancy
`
`9.
`
`On or about April 12, 2014, Plaintiff entered into a written rental agreement (hereinafler
`
`"Agreement") with the defendants whereby Plaintiff, in exchange for monetary consideration, would
`
`rent the residential real property commonly known as 590 Marlin Court, Redwood City, California
`
`94065 (hereinafter "Property/Premises"). Per the terms of the Agreement, the tenancy was to begin on
`
`or about May 1, 2014. The Property is "residential property" as defined in California Civil Code II 1675.
`
`10.
`
`thc Plaintiff is informed and believes that the contract did not waive nor disclose any of
`
`the violations and allegations contained in the present complaint.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff took possession with the expectation that the Property would be fit for him and
`
`his family. Over time,
`
`the Property quickly developed several dilapidations requiring repair and
`
`3
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`15
`
`14 maintenance. Despite the Agreement and California Law requiring such, Defendant refused to conduct
`necessary repairs, reflecting Defendant's ongoing pattern and practice of willful/negligent neglect.
`ln terms of consideration, when Plaintiff first took possession of the Premises, hc paid
`$4,050.00 per month. The rent was increased on September 30, 2016, to $4,350.00 per month.
`
`12.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, the
`
`Property was owned and/or managed by the defendants.
`
`14.
`
`At all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs tenancy at
`
`the Property, and the
`
`Property itself, was subject to California Civil Code IIII 1941, 1942 et seq. and California Health and
`
`Safety Code Section 17920.3.
`
`Defective Conditions on the Property
`
`15.
`
`Throughout Plaintiffs tenancy on the Property, Plaintiffreported several defects with the
`Property that Defendants failed to cure in violation of their obligations under California law. The defects
`
`on the Property include but are not limited to (1) substantially defective/inadequate hot water systems;
`
`(2) substantial issues with wiring in the Premises, compromising safety, (3) inadequate window screens,
`
`3
`COMPLA1VrT
`
`

`

`(4) substantially worn-out
`
`fatigued fixtures/flooring, and (5)
`
`inadequate ventilation to prevent
`
`mold/moisture development.
`
`16.
`
`Throughout the years of Plaintiff's tenancy, Plaintiff has made numerousreports of
`
`defective conditions on the Premises. Those complaintsall but fell on deaf ears.
`
`17.
`
`The Premises itself is a townhouse built in 1977. The Premises sits on a 3,080-square-
`
`foot lot in Redwood City. Much of the Premises appear to be original including the appliances and
`
`fixtures. Over time the Premises became substandard and no longer met the requirementsofa habitable
`
`Premises.
`
`COVID-19 Impact
`
`18.
`
`The COVID-19 Pandemic beginning in March 2020 grappled the nation with sweeping
`
`shutdowns and generated great uncertainty in all aspects of day-to-day life. This state of affairs
`
`accentuated Defendant’s lackluster track record asthe landlord, as illustrated by his continued failure to
`
`maintain the Premises, and worseyet, his failure to engagein basic property managementtasksincluding
`
`the collection of rent.
`
`Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic, Defendant refused to accept rental payments from
`
`Plaintiff. After numerous monthsofradio silence, on or about July 19, 2023, Defendant’s agent Martin
`
`Argosino emailed Plaintiff demanding backrent in the amount of $130,000. This would coverbackrents
`
`for the dates owed (July 2021 — June 2023) as well as future rents (July 2023 — December 2023), per the
`
`demandof the Defendant. Plaintiff complied, as he had been responsibly holding the moneyintrust.
`
`On or about August 3, 2023, Defendant’s agent then serveda(albeit defective) 3-day notice to
`
`pay or quit. On or about August 17, 2023, Defendant’s agent accepted the payment in the amount of
`
`$30,450. Shortly after making this payment, Defendant’s agent provided, and Plaintiff relied on such,
`
`that they would dismiss the action. This later provedto befalse.
`
`19,
`
`Despite receiving $160,950.00 in back rent, Defendantstill proceeded with an unlawful
`
`detainer action. Rather than dismissthe action, as promised, Defendant’s counsel madeattempts to extort
`
`Plaintiff for funds, including the outrageous sum of $10,000 in attorney’s fees, daily damages from
`
`January 1, 2023, to August 18, 2023, in the amount of $135.00 per day, and alleged statutory damages
`
`in the amount of $600.00. Eventually, Plaintiff had no choice but to vacate the home and did so on
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`September21, 2023.
`
`Harm to Plaintiff
`
`20.
`
`As a result of the acts outlined above, Plaintiff and members of his family have suffered
`
`immense harm. The defective conditions on the premises have caused mental anguish and physical harm.
`
`ols
`
`As a result of these conditions, Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish, unanticipated
`
`moving expenses, and increased relocation rent amongotherissues.
`
`22,
`
`Should the Court deem it warranted, Defendants are more than capableofsatisfying any
`
`punitive damages award. Defendants own the Property in the San Mateo County area in addition to the
`
`Premises. These real estate holdings are also indicative of Defendants’ awareness in ensuringthat the
`
`Premises meet the standard of habitability in the State of California.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment — Contract and Civil Code § 1927, 1940.2
`
`Dos
`
`Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and incorporates by reference, as thoughfully set forth in this
`
`14
`
`13
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`paragraph,all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`24.
`
`At all times relevant herein, California Civil Code § 1927 has made it unlawful for
`
`landlords to interfere with their tenants’ quiet enjoyment ofa leased property.
`
`25.
`
`At all times relevant herein, California Civil Code § 1940.2(a)(3) has made it unlawful
`
`for a landlord to “use,or threaten to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a course
`
`of conductthat interferes with the tenant's quiet enjoymentof the premises.”
`
`26.
`
`Defendants entered into and were bound by the terms of the Rental Agreement with
`
`21
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`22
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`27.
`
`The Agreement between Plaintiff and defendants contained an implied covenant under|
`
`which the Defendants promisedto Plaintiff possession and quiet enjoymentof the Property during the
`
`period of Plaintiff's tenancy, and not to, through act or omission, disturb Plaintiffs possession and
`
`beneficial enjoyment of the Property for the purposes contemplated by the agreement.
`
`28.
`
`Defendants breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment as alleged herein by failing to
`
`repair the habitability violationsand failing to maintain the Property in a habitable condition after being
`
`given notice by the Plaintiff.
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`29.
`
`By committing the acts heretofore alleged, including failing to cure defects with the
`
`Premises, and demandingrents beyond what was duly owed, defendants have breached said covenant 0
`
`quiet enjoymentandare liable to the Plaintiff.
`
`30.
`
`Asa direct and proximate cause of defendants’ actions and inactions, Plaintiff suffered
`
`and continues to suffer emotional distress including, but not limited to, feelings of anxiety, frustration,
`
`worry, discomfort, and shame,all to Plaintiff's general damages in an amount accordingto proof.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages, special damages, and punitive damages for
`
`Defendants’ violations of Civil Code §§ 1927 and 1940.2.
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff has been damagedas set forth herein and prays judgmentagainstall
`
`defendants as hereinafteralleged.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Breach of the Warranty of Habitability, Civil Code §§ 1941.1
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth in this
`
`paragraph,all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`33.
`
`Every landlord-tenant relationship requires that the landlord provide the tenant with
`
`habitable premises. In particular, the landlord must ensure that the premises do not substantially lack any
`
`of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in § 1941.1 or contain conditions deemed substandard
`
`as set forth in § 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Codeto an extent they endangerthelife, limb, health,
`
`property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling.
`
`34.
`
`During the time periods elaborated above,
`
`the Property substantially lacked, as
`
`delineated in Civil Code § 1941.1, several of the enumerated requirements for a habitable dwelling.
`
`35.
`
`Duringthe time periods elaborated above, the Property lacked the standard characteristics
`
`necessary for habitation in a dwelling as delineated in Health and Safety Code § 17920.3.
`
`36.
`
`Defendants have actual and/or constructive notice of the defective conditions alleged
`
`herein, but despite such notice, failed to adequately abate the conditionsat the Property.
`
`37.
`
`The defective conditions were not caused by wrongful or abnormaluse ofthe Property
`
`by Plaintiff or anyone acting underPlaintiff’s authority.
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`38.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions committed by
`
`Defendants, the Property was rendered uninhabitable.
`
`39.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of the defendant's actions and inactions, Plaintiff
`
`suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress including, but not limited to, feelings of anxiety,
`
`frustration, worry, discomfort, and shame, all to Plaintiffs general damages in an amount according to
`
`proof.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages, special damages, and punitive damages for
`the defendants'iolations of Civil Code ) 1941.1.
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth herein and prays judgment against all
`
`10
`
`dcfcndants as hcrcinaftcr alleged.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Retaliation — Civil Code g 1942.5
`Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth in this
`
`41.
`
`paragraph, all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`42.
`
`"[1]t is unlawful fora lessor to ... cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to
`
`recover possession, or thrcatcn to do any of those acts, for thc purpose of retaliating against thc lesscc
`
`because the lessee ... has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law." (Cal. Civ. Code tj
`
`1942.5(d).)
`
`43.
`
`"Any lessor agent of a lessor who violates this section shall be liable to the lessee in a
`
`civil action for all of the following: (1) the actual damages sustained by the lessee; (2) punitive damages
`
`in an amount of not less than one hundred dollars ($ 100) nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000)
`
`for each retaliatory act where the lessor or agent has been guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice with
`respect to that act.*'Cal. Civ. Code tj 1942.5(h).)
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff complained about habitability violations existing at the Property to defendants.
`
`Plaintiff has consistently exercised the right to inform and give notice to Defendant of habitability
`
`violations.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`45.
`
`Defendants violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.5 because after Plaintiff lawfully notified the
`
`defendants of necessary repairs for the Property, the defendantsretaliated against Plaintiff by demanding
`
`Plaintiff vacate the Premises.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants’ actions wereretaliatory because although the defendants stated the reason
`
`for terminating the lease was for repairs, the defendants are doing little to nothing to remedy the issues
`
`as they sit now, allowing the Premises to remain in this condition.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages for the defendants’ violations of Civil Code
`
`§ 1942.5, in an amountaccording to proof.
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth herein and prays judgmentagainstall
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ONBPWwWNO
`aonNBD
`
`\Oo
`
`
`
`defendants as hereinafter alleged.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Negligence
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth in this
`
`paragraph,all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`comply with ordinances, regulations, and other laws to ensure a sound living environmentforPlaintiff,
`
`the breach of which constitutes negligenceperse.
`
`
`
`
`49.__Byvirtue of their landlord-tenant relationship, the defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to
`
`
`
`50.
`
`Defendants breached this duty by, among other things, committing each of the acts
`
`alleged in the preceding causesofaction: failing to properly maintain the Property, negligently failing
`
`
`to make necessary repairs for the Property’s defects, and violating Plaintiff's quiet enjoymentrights by
`
`interfering with Plaintiff's use of the Property.
`
`51.
`
`of these breaches of duty.
`
`Defendants knew,or should have known,that Plaintiff would suffer damages asa result
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants’ actions and inactions, Plaintifi
`
`suffered and continues to suffer actual and consequential damages.
`
`53.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants’ actions and inactions, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered emotional distress including, but not
`
`discomfort, and shame.
`
`limited to, feelings of anxiety, frustration, worry,
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth herein and prays judgment against all
`
`Defendants as hereinafter alleged.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Premises Liability
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth in this
`
`paragraph, all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`55.
`
`"The owner of a premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of
`
`such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this
`
`duty is negligence." (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619).
`
`56.
`
`Defendants, who owned and/or werc otherwisc rcsponsiblc for the maintenance of thc
`
`Property, had an obligation to maintain the habitability of the Property and perform repairs in a
`
`reasonable and safe manner.
`
`57.
`
`Defendants breached their duties by negligently failing to maintain the Property, by
`
`improperly performing necessary repairs in a safe manner, and by exposing Plaintiff to hazardous and
`
`unsafe conditions on the Property. The hazardous conditions and the defendants'egligence in
`
`inspecting, maintaining, and repairing the property directly resulted in Plaintiff s harm.
`
`58.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants'ctions and inactions, Plaintiff
`
`suffered and continues to suffer actual and consequential damages.
`
`59.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants'ctions and inactions, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered emotional distress including, but not
`
`limited to, feelings of anxiety, frustration, worry,
`
`discomfort, and shame.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth herein and prays judgment against all
`
`defendants as hcreinallcr allcgcd.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Breach of Contract
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth in this
`
`paragraph, all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`3
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`61.
`
`To recover damages from Defendant for breach of contract, Plaintiff must show: (I) the
`parties entered into a contract; (2) Plaintiff did all, or substantially all of the significant things that the
`
`contract required him to do; (3) all conditions required by the contract for Defendant performance had
`
`occurred; (4) Defendant failed to do something that the contract required it to do, and (5) Plaintiff was
`
`harmed by that failure.
`
`62.
`
`Here, Plaintiff complied with the terms of the Agreement. Plaintiffprovided all payments
`
`due and owed in exchange for possession of the Premises.
`
`63.
`
`Defendant repeatedly engaged in acts that violated the contract. In addition to failing to
`
`maintain the Premises to meet habitability standards, Defendant's repeated threats of eviction and
`
`10
`
`actions thereafter violate thc terms of the Agreement to provide peaceable possession of thc Premises.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth herein and prays judgment
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`against all defendants as hereinafter alleged.
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Violation of B&P $ g 17200 et scq 17500 Unfair Business Practices
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth in this
`
`paragraph, all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this cause of action under Business and Professions Code tjtj 17200 et
`
`seq. and 17500 as private persons who suffered injuries in fact and monetary losses by the acts described
`
`in this Complaint.
`
`66.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Defendants and each ofthem were conducting business under
`
`the laws of the State of California and Redwood City. In conducting said business, Defendants were
`
`obligated to comply with the laws of the State of California.
`
`67.
`
`By not complying with the laws of the State of California and thc laws of the Redwood
`
`24 City as described above,
`
`thus engaging in deceptive, unfair, and/or unlawful acts and conduct,
`
`25 Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code titi17200
`
`26
`
`27
`
`et seq. and 17500.
`
`68.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of said practices, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries in fact,
`
`and have lost money and/or incurred out-of-pocket expenses, paid excessive rent for the Property in that
`
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`the Property was, at least for some periods, not habitable for human occupation, Plaintiffs'uiet
`
`enjoyment rights were violated, in an amount according to proof. Additionally, Plaintiff has suffered in
`
`paying exorbitant amounts of rent without the benefit of the Property.
`
`69.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered,
`
`and continue to suffer, severe physical and emotional pain and distress, including but not limited to
`
`stress, anxiety, shock, insomnia, nervousness, depression, fatigue, discomfort, and annoyance, have
`
`suffered personal injuries, and have suffered lost income, all to their general damage in an amount to be
`
`proven.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth herein and prays judgment against all
`
`10 Dcfcndants as hereinafter alleged.
`
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`INTENTIOiVAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth in this
`
`paragraph, all the allegations of this Complaint.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants were aware of Plaintiffprevious experiences. Defendants'ctions of allowing
`
`thc Property to bc rcntcd, then demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars in alleged unpaid rent and
`
`future rents as a condition to stay at the Property.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Defendants intended to cause emotional distress to Plaintiff.
`
`In the alternative, Defendants acted with reckless disregard for the probability that
`
`Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress.
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress. Plaintiff faced many sleepless nights and an
`
`overwhelming fear of becoming homeless as well as being exposed to unfounded litigation.
`
`75.
`
`Defendant's intentional ancUor reckless conduct was a substantial factor in causing
`
`Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth herein and prays judgment against all
`
`defendants as hereinafter alleged.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`PRAYER FOR JUDGMENT
`
`General damages according to proof at trial;
`
`Special damages according to proof at trial;
`
`Restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains;
`
`Punitive damages;
`
`Attorney's fees pursuant to the relevant California Civil Code Statutes;
`
`Costs of suit;
`
`Prejudgment interest; and
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper.
`
`Dated: April 4, 2024
`
`LAW
`
`ANDREW V. GABRIEL, ESQ.
`Attorney for Plaintiff,
`SHAUN FNFFRADI
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`12
`COMPLAINT
`
`