XXX

Plaintiff in Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXXX

FOR THE COUNTY OF XXXX

 

 

XXXX, vs. ARAGON (GLENDALE) PROPERTIES CORPORATION, a California Corporation and KRISTEN GUTIERREZ. Defendants

CASE NO.:                                     COMPLAINT     Judge: Department:     JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

1. Plaintiff SARAH SCHIMMEL, (“Plaintiff”), files this Complaint, against Defendants ARAGON (GLENDALE) PROPERTIES CORPORATION (“defendants”), and alleges the following:

THE PARTIES

2. The Plaintiff SARAH SCHIMMEL is an individual, a resident of the State of California and resides at 1522, Agoura Hills, Los Angeles CA 9137.
3. Defendant ARAGON (GLENDALE) PROPERTIES CORPORATION (hereinafter “Aragon”) is a California Company incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business being in California.
4. Defendant KRISTEN GUTIERREZ (hereinafter “Kristen”) is an individual, who resides in California. Defendant is the leasing agent to Defendant Aragon, representing the Landlord of the property.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants pursuant to California Constitution, Article VI, section 10, and California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, in that each Defendant resides in or does substantial business in California; all of the Defendants have purposely availed themselves of the benefits of doing business in this state; and the Defendants’ violations of law alleged herein occurred, in whole or in part, in this state.
6. The claims herein alleged in this Complaint occurred in Los Angeles County. Venue for this matter properly lies within Los Angeles County because the claims herein alleged in this Complaint occurred, in whole or in part, in Los Angeles County.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. Defendant Aragon placed an advert of the Zag apartment building located at located at 1750 Glendale Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90026.
8. On 9/24/22, Plaintiff and Jackie, her roommate visited the property and were interested in Unit 217. The unit had a balcony that was exposed to Aaron Street, an access road, which was not secured.
9. When Plaintiff expressed her concerns over the absence of a security gate, and that security was important. The balcony was low and accessible from the street. She was told that the gate would be installed.
10. On 9/25/22, Plaintiff followed up with an email to Kristen Gutierrez, to confirm that the security gate would be installed.
11. Kristen responded on the same day and affirmed that the project supervisor had mentioned that there would be a security gate on the side of the property. She further told Plaintiff that she would confirm where the gate would be installed, and get back to Plaintiff on the same.
12. It follows; Plaintiff and her roommate were severally assured that there would be security presence in the property at all times either through a security guard or a person monitoring the security cameras.
13. On 9/24/22, Plaintiff and Jackie paid $500 as down payment for the unit. They then finalized their rental applications on 9/25/22.
14. On 12/1/22, Plaintiff sent a cashier’s check in the sum of $6,755.43. The amount was for the security deposit, first month’s prorated rent, SCEP fee, and parking fee.
15. Consequently, the parties entered the lease agreement on 12/2/22.
16. Plaintiff’s monthly rent was as follows: $3,950 rent, $2.83 SCEP fee, and $200 parking spot fee ($4,152.83 total). Plaintiff paid half of said amount each month.
17. In February 2023, Plaintiff again emailed Kristen for a status update on the security gate. She was informed that the project manager was working on the logistics, and that the security gate would be complete in between 1 to 2 months.
18. To ensure her security and because Aragon did not provide the security measures they promised, Plaintiff bought a security system. The system included a camera, flood lights, motion sensors, and an alarm with 24-hour monitoring.
19. On 6/4/23, Plaintiff’s rental unit became flooded by water. The water came through the ceiling and air vents in the unit. Jackie then called Kristen. However, Kristen neither answer the call nor called back. Jackie also went to the Kristen’s unit but still could not get a response from Kristen.
20. Ultimately, Jackie contacted the LA fire department, which dispatched their personnel to the building. The fire department personnel determined that the water was coming from a vacant unit on the 4^th floor of the building.
21. Upon preliminary investigations, it was determined that a homeless person had gained access to the roof, and had been living in the unit.
22. Kristen was thereafter woken up by the fire department personnel. Interestingly, Kristen stated that she was aware that a homeless person had been living on the unit, and that they were working on having 24-hour security for the building.
23. However, after the flooding incident, Plaintiff visited the building both during the day and the night, but could not see any security guard.
24. The flooding caused significant damage on the ceiling, walls, door frames, and flooring of Plaintiff’s unit. The ceiling and walls were saturated with water to the extent that they puckered. Plaintiff’s bathroom door was also affected such that it could not close. Plaintiff’s personal items were also damaged. The flooding was so intense that Plaintiff noticed the leaks extending to the parking garage below.
25. On 6/4/23, Kristen informed Plaintiff that they realized that homeless persons were using an emergency ladder next to Plaintiff’s bedroom, to access the building’s roof, from the ungated access road. Kristen further started that they had since cut the ladder on 6/2/23.
26. Further, on 6/4/23, the residents of the Zag apartment received an email notification from Kristen that someone had entered the building without authorization, and accessed the rooftop. The email contained a photo of the intruder on the roof. Interestingly, Kristie blamed the residents for not being vigilant in fully closing the lobby door.
27. It is notable that the main door of the Zag apartment is on Glendale Boulevard, which is a busy street. Further, the door did not fully close, which fact allowed unauthorized persons to enter the building. Kristen acknowledged to Plaintiff that she was aware that the door was defective.
28. The Defendants concealed the intrusions into the building until after the flooding incident. This conduct exposed Plaintiff and the other residents of the building to security threats.
29. On the evening of 5/30/23, Plaintiff had seen a security guard on the lobby of the building. She also saw a police car in front of the garage on 5/31/23. On the same day, she crossed paths with Kristen, but Kristen made no mention of the intrusions.
30. On 6/6/23, Miguel, who worked for Aragon as maintenance personnel inspected Plaintiff’s unit and determined that the ceiling, walls, and baseboards needed removal.
31. On 6/7/23, Plaintiff notified Aragon in writing of her concerns regarding the failure to put up the security gate and to control access to the building. Plaintiff also stated how the building was inhabitable because of the flooding and the security issues.
32. On 6/8/23, which was four days after the flood, Aragon cut two small holes, one in the ceiling, and one in the wall of Plaintiff’s main room where most of the flooding occurred. They also plugged in a small fan pointed at the holes, but the fan was several feet away from the holes. No mold inspection, prevention, or remediation was performed.
33. Despite several months of communications between Plaintiff and Aragon about their failure to erect a security gate as promised, one was finally built following Plaintiff’s letter of complaint to Aragon. The installation began on 6/17/23 and finished on 6/18/23, which clearly demonstrates Aragon’s ability to have constructed the security gate at any time during Plaintiff’s tenancy.
34. On 6/23, Plaintiff visited the unit and discovered the holes in the ceiling and wall had been closed. Aragon patched and painted over the holes in the wall and ceiling on either 6/21 or 6/22. Aragon merely painted over the water damage to Plaintiff’s door frame.
35. Signs were put up in the lobby that read “Please keep door closed” around 6/23/23.
36. On 6/25, Plaintiff packed her belongings to move. She had access to her bedroom, closet, and bathroom.
37. On 6/30, Plaintiff went to her unit to meet movers. The door leading to her room, bathroom, and closet were locked from the outside. Plaintiff did not have a key to lock that door from the outside. Jackie also told Plaintiff that she did not lock the door.
38. All of Plaintiff’s belongings were removed from the unit on 6/30.
39. On four separate days in June, Plaintiff took multiple air and surface mold tests and received reports from an independent lab that confirmed a heavy presence of at least three types of molds.
40. Plaintiff has been under a doctor’s care for three years to treat Graves’ disease, an autoimmune disease. She is immunocompromised and takes prescription medication daily. Mold is especially harmful to those with autoimmune diseases. She was advised not to occupy the unit.
41. As recently as 7/14, there is visible mold growth throughout the unit. Aragon has not made any attempt to remediate the mold.
42. Plaintiff rightfully withheld July rent because the flood and subsequent mold growth rendered the unit uninhabitable.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD

(Against all Defendants)

43. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
44. Defendant knowingly made a false representation or concealment of a material fact. Defendants assured Plaintiff severally that there would be security presence in the property at all times either through a security guard or a person monitoring the security cameras. Notably, they promoted the apartment building as possessing “controlled access” and “gated entry.”
45. Defendants made the statement to induce Plaintiff to rent Unit 217 on the property. They intended to induce Plaintiff’s reliance on the promised security measures to encourage her to rent the unit and pay the deposit and rent.
46. There was justifiable reliance by Plaintiff on Defendants’ assurance. On 9/24/22, Plaintiff and Jackie paid $500 as down payment for the unit. Also, on 12/1/22, Plaintiff sent a cashier’s check in the sum of $6,755.43. Finally, the parties entered the lease agreement on 12/2/22.
47. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ fraudulent conduct. First, Plaintiff was exposed to a security threat when unauthorized persons accessed the property from the unsecured access road. Next, failure of the Defendants to honor their promise to secure the property resulted in flooding of Plaintiff’s unit. The flooding in turn led to mold growth, damage to personal belongings, health issues, emotional distress, and significant economic damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Against All Defendants)

48. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 47 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
49. A valid contract existed between Plaintiff and Defendant Aragon. The parties entered the lease agreement on 12/2/22.
50. Under the lease agreement, Aragon was obligated to provide controlled access and security to the property.
51. Aragon breached the agreement when it failed to construct the security gate on time. Even after the flooding incident, Defendants still did not have a security guard on the property. The Defendants were also aware that the main door of the Zag apartment was defective. The defective door allowed unauthorized persons to enter the building. Defendants did nothing to rectify the defective door.
52. The Defendants chose to conceal pertinent information concerning the presence of homeless individuals on the premises, only divulging this critical security risk after the flooding incident on the 4th day of June 2023. This lack of transparency and failure to ensure the provision of agreed-upon security measures substantiates a clear breach of the contract.
53. Plaintiff duly performed all her obligations under the Agreement. She evidenced her intent to lease Unit 217 by tendering a reservation fee of $500 and completing her rental applications on or before the 26th day of September 2022. Further, on the 1st day of December 2022, she remitted a cashier’s check amounting to $6,755.43 to the Defendants, covering the security deposit, prorated rent for the first month, SCEP fee, and parking charges. Consistently thereafter, she diligently remitted her portion of the total monthly rent. This shows that the Plaintiff has performed her contractual duties as required.
54. Defendants’ negligence and failure to implement adequate security measures allowed homeless individuals to gain unauthorized access to the premises, precipitating the flooding incident and consequential mold infestation, thereby endangering the health and safety of the Plaintiff.
55. Consequent to the Defendants’ breach of contract, the Plaintiff, Sarah, endured significant and demonstrable damages. The flooding incident inflicted substantial harm to the unit, entailing damage to ceilings, walls, door frames, and flooring, and resulting in the loss of valuable personal belongings. Moreover, the leak’s propagation extended to the parking garage situated beneath the unit, further exacerbating the property damage.
56. Since Aragon did not provide the security measures they promised, Plaintiff had to buy a security system. The system included a camera, flood lights, motion sensors, and an alarm with 24-hour monitoring.
57. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s health was adversely affected due to mold exposure, with physicians confirming the relationship between her spleen damage and such exposure. Plaintiff subsequently experienced heightened anxiety, panic attacks, and nightmares, significantly contributing to her emotional distress. Furthermore, she incurred considerable economic losses, encompassing unreimbursed expenses for independent moisture and mold testing, mold treatment, and medical treatments.
58. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in amount to be proven at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

(Against All Defendants)

59. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 58 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
60. In every business relationship, there is an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. This implied promise means that each party will not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right of any other party to receive the benefits of the business relationship.
61. In the instant case, Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants for Unit 217, located at 1750 Glendale Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90026, thereby establishing a landlord-tenant relationship.
62. Pursuant to the lease agreement executed on the 2nd day of December 2022, the Defendants are bound by the obligation to honor and uphold the Implied Covenant of good faith and fair dealing, ensuring that Plaintiff can fully benefit from the rental Unit without encountering substantial interference or disturbance.
63. Furthermore, the Defendants’ concealment of material information concerning the presence of homeless individuals on the premises until after the flooding incident further compounds the breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, jeopardizing the safety and well-being of residents and guests. The Defendants’ inaction in promptly installing the promised security gate, despite possessing the capability to do so, and their failure to undertake remedial measures to address the mold issue significantly impede Plaintiff’s peaceful and undisturbed enjoyment of her leased premises.
64. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff was denied enjoyment of the property as already stated above.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY (CCP Section 1941)

(Against All Defendants)

65. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 64 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
66. Defendants so negligently and carelessly owned, operated and managed the Zag Apartment, by failing to timely install a security gate at the side that was exposed to Aaron Street.
67. Defendants also failed to employ a security guard and to maintain functioning security cameras on the property.
68. Defendants’ failure to maintain security at the property allowed homeless individuals into the premises leading to the flooding incident. As a result of the flooding incident, the Plaintiff’s health was adversely affected due to mold exposure, with physicians confirming the relationship between her spleen damage and such exposure. Plaintiff subsequently experienced heightened anxiety, panic attacks, and nightmares, significantly contributing to her emotional distress. Furthermore, she incurred considerable economic losses, encompassing unreimbursed expenses for independent moisture and mold testing, mold treatment, and medical treatments.
69. Defendants also failed to repair the defect on the main door at the lobby. This failure made the door incapable to be fully closed. As a result thereof, unauthorized individuals accessed the property.
70. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ breach of the implied warrant of habitability, Plaintiff was denied enjoyment of the property as already stated above.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

71. Plaintiff demands jury trial of all issues.

PRAYER AND RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SARAH SCHIMMEL, respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants as follows:

1. For general and special damages for property damage, security deposit, moving expenses, and cost for comparable replacement/displacement due to flood, according to proof;
2. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;
3. For attorney’s fees and cost of suit incurred in this action
4. For such and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper

DATED:                                                     

Respectfully submitted,

SARAH SCHIMMEL

VERIFICATION

I, SARAH SCHIMMEL, have read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and I also believe those matters to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this the ___ day of August, 2023.

SARAH SCHIMMEL

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this                   day of                       , 2023, a copy of the                                   foregoing was to:

[ENTER DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESS]

Date              /        2022

SARAH SCHIMMEL

 

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )