COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

XXX

Phone Number (with area code)

Fax Number (If applicable)

Email Address (If applicable)

 

Plaintiff in pro per

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX

COUNTY OF XXX

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

 

XXX

 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT; and VILLAGE OF XXX HOME ASSOCIATION,

Defendant(s)

 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No.:

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 

Plaintiff, XXX, residing at XXX, brings this complaint against Defendants Walters Property Management and the Village of XXX Homeowner’s Association, based on a series of negligent actions that have directly affected the plaintiff’s property and rights.

 

  1. PARTIES
    1. XXX  is an individual residing at XXXX. As the plaintiff in this case, XXX is the aggrieved party seeking justice and resolution for the damages and losses incurred due to the defendants’ alleged negligence.
    2. XXX Property Management is a professional property management company responsible for overseeing and maintaining the community standards and regulations of XXX Ranch Village of XXX Situated at XXX, the defendant has contractual obligations to enforce architectural landscaping regulations, ensure fire zone safety parking compliance, and uphold the overall well-being of the community. Walters Property Management plays a pivotal role in preserving the harmony and value of the properties within the community.
    3. The Village of XXX Homeowner’s Association, c/o Walters Management at XXX, is a collective body comprised of property owners within the XXX Ranch Village of XXX community. The defendant holds a responsibility to uphold community guidelines, ensure adherence to regulations, and maintain the standards that contribute to the quality of life and property values within the community. The Village of XXX Homeowner’s Association acts as a guardian of the community’s interests and collective well-being.

 

  1. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
  1. The jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division of the XXX Superior Court is invoked in the present case due to the nature of the claims brought forth by the plaintiff, XXX, against the defendants, XXX Property Management and the Village of XXX Homeowner’s Association. Pursuant to XXX Code of Civil Procedure Section XXX, the Small Claims Division has the authority to hear cases seeking monetary relief up to a maximum amount of $10,000.
  2. In the case at hand, the plaintiff is seeking monetary reimbursement for damages incurred as a result of the defendants’ alleged professional negligence, breach of duty, and failure to enforce community regulations. The plaintiff’s claim falls within the financial limitations set forth by the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division, making this court an appropriate venue to address the issues raised by the plaintiff.
  3. Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 116.110 establishes that the Small Claims Division provides a streamlined and efficient process for resolving disputes of a limited monetary nature. The division aims to provide accessible and expeditious justice to individuals seeking relief for damages caused by the actions or negligence of others.
  4. Given that the plaintiff’s claims for damages fall within the monetary limits prescribed by the Small Claims Division’s jurisdiction and the division’s mandate to handle cases of this nature, the present case is appropriately brought before the San Diego Superior Court’s Small Claims Division for adjudication.

 

  1. STATEMENT OF FACTS
  2. In the quiet neighborhood of XXX Ranch Village of XXX, architectural landscaping regulations exist to ensure the beauty and safety of the community. However, these regulations proved to be nothing more than words on paper.
  3. The neighboring property at XXX  became a battleground of negligence. For nearly three years, the defendants turned a blind eye as their own guidelines were violated.
  4. As unchecked weeds thrived, they unwittingly opened the door for a horde of rodents to invade the plaintiff’s property. Patio furniture was ravaged, and pest control fees added up to a staggering $5000, all due to the defendants’ failure to enforce their own rules.
  5. The defendants disregarded their responsibility to enforce fire zone safety parking restrictions within the community. Despite numerous complaints filed by the plaintiff over a span of three years regarding a neighbor’s repeated violations of shared driveway fire zone parking at 1382 Camino Carmelo, the defendants failed to address the issue adequately. This failure to uphold fire code regulations and community guidelines put the safety of the entire XXX  community at risk.
  6. The plaintiff’s property, known for its premium location adjacent to XXX, was devalued due to the defendants’ negligent actions. The defendants planted trees along the plaintiff’s backyard fence-line, which not only obstructed the plaintiff’s view of Wolf Canyon and the eastern mountains but also served as entry points for rodents into the plaintiff’s property. These trees have no practical value beyond aesthetics and have compromised the plaintiff’s right to enjoy an unobstructed view and property boundary.
  7. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants’ actions, or lack thereof, constitute professional negligence, breach of duty, and a failure to provide adequate service as stipulated in their responsibilities. The plaintiff seeks to hold the defendants accountable for their actions and to recover the financial losses and damages incurred due to their negligence.

 

CAUSES OF ACTION

First Cause of Action: Professional Negligence – Architectural Landscaping Regulations

  1. The defendants were tasked with the responsibility of enforcing the community’s architectural landscaping regulations, as outlined in Article 7.31.
  2. The adjacent property at XXX violated these regulations for an extended period of nearly three years.
  3. Despite the plaintiff’s repeated concerns and reports regarding the violations, the defendants neglected to take corrective action.
  4. The violation led to a proliferation of dense weed growth in the neighboring property’s backyard, which attracted rodents that migrated to the plaintiff’s property.
  5. The ensuing rodent infestation caused extensive damage to the plaintiff’s property, including the destruction of patio furniture and necessitating costly pest control services.
  6. Duty of Care: The defendants had a duty to diligently enforce the community’s architectural landscaping regulations to maintain the aesthetics, safety, and well-being of the community and its residents.
  7. Breach of Duty: The defendants breached their duty by failing to promptly address and correct the violations occurring on the neighboring property, leading to an unchecked proliferation of dense weed growth and rodent infestation.
  8. Causation: The defendants’ negligence in enforcing the regulations directly led to the hazardous conditions on the neighboring property, which, in turn, resulted in the rodent infestation and subsequent damage to the plaintiff’s property.
  9. Damages: The plaintiff suffered financial losses due to the destruction of patio furniture, expenses incurred for pest control services, and emotional distress resulting from the negligence.
  10. The plaintiff contends that the defendants’ failure to enforce the architectural landscaping regulations, despite being aware of the ongoing violations, constitutes professional negligence.
  11. The defendants’ actions, or lack thereof, have directly caused harm to the plaintiff’s property and have breached their duty to uphold community guidelines and ensure the well-being of the residents.
  12. By allowing an environment conducive to rodent infestation to persist, the defendants violated their contractual obligation and caused avoidable financial and emotional distress to the plaintiff.

 

Second Cause of Action: Professional Negligence – Fire Zone Safety Parking Regulations

  1. The defendants have a duty to enforce fire zone safety parking regulations within the community to ensure the safety and well-being of residents.
  2. Over a span of three years, the plaintiff repeatedly lodged complaints with the defendants regarding a neighbor’s persistent violations of shared driveway fire zone parking regulations at XXX.
  3. The defendants were aware of the grave fire code violations committed by the neighbor at 1382 Camino Carmelo, jeopardizing not only the plaintiff’s safety but also that of the entire XXX community.
  4. The defendants’ failure to take appropriate and timely action in response to the plaintiff’s complaints about fire zone parking violations at XXX demonstrates their negligence in carrying out their contractual and professional duties.
  5. Despite being fully cognizant of the fire code infractions and the potential risks posed by such violations, the defendants neglected to implement any corrective measures to address the ongoing violations and dangers.
  6. The defendants’ duty to enforce fire zone safety parking regulations is a core component of their professional responsibilities as property managers and representatives of the Village of XXX Homeowner’s Association.
  7. By failing to enforce these regulations, the defendants have breached their duty to the plaintiff, as well as to other community residents, in ensuring their safety and compliance with fire code regulations.
  8. The plaintiff has suffered both tangible and intangible harm due to the defendants’ negligence in enforcing fire zone safety parking regulations.
  9. The plaintiff’s repeated complaints, with evidence of violations, were disregarded by the defendants, causing the plaintiff emotional distress and frustration.
  10. The entire XXX community has been exposed to the risk of fire hazards due to the defendants’ failure to uphold fire code regulations and ensure proper parking practices within fire zones.
  11. The plaintiff seeks just and fair compensation for the damages incurred as a direct result of the defendants’ professional negligence in enforcing fire zone safety parking regulations. The plaintiff prays for appropriate monetary restitution to address the emotional distress, potential safety hazards, and the erosion of the plaintiff’s confidence in the defendants’ ability to fulfill their duties effectively. The plaintiff also seeks measures to rectify the defendants’ negligent behavior, ensuring the safety and well-being of the XXX community.

 

Third Cause of Action: Management Negligence – Tree Obstruction and Rodent Gateway

  1. The defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as per their roles in managing the community’s aesthetics and enforcing regulations, including the preservation of property values and ensuring residents’ well-being.
  2. The defendants breached their duty of care by planting trees against the plaintiff’s backyard fence-line, thereby obstructing the plaintiff’s premium view of Wolf Canyon and the eastern mountains.
  3. The defendants’ negligent actions created a gateway for rodents to infiltrate the plaintiff’s property, resulting in damage to property, potential health hazards, and distress to the plaintiff.
  4. The defendants’ planting of obstructive trees directly resulted in the loss of the plaintiff’s unobstructed view and allowed rodents to infiltrate the property, leading to the damages and losses suffered by the plaintiff.
  5. The plaintiff suffered financial losses due to the devaluation of their property’s premium view, resulting from the obstructive trees planted by the defendants.
  6. The plaintiff incurred expenses related to property damage caused by rodent infiltration and the subsequent cleanup, as well as potential pest control services.
  7. The defendants, in their role as property managers and guardians of community aesthetics, breached their duty to the plaintiff by disregarding the negative consequences of planting obstructive trees.
  8. The plaintiff suffered emotional distress and mental anguish as a result of the defendants’ negligence, leading to property devaluation, property damage, and an intrusion of rodents.
  9. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for financial losses incurred, including property devaluation, property damage, and potential pest control services. Additionally, the plaintiff seeks emotional distress damages resulting from the defendants’ negligence. The plaintiff also requests injunctive relief to have the obstructive trees promptly removed to restore the plaintiff’s property view and safeguard against future rodent infestations.
  10. In accordance with the principles of equity and justice, the plaintiff respectfully requests that the court holds the defendants accountable for their negligent actions, seeks appropriate remedies, and ensures that such negligence does not go unanswered in the interest of the plaintiff and the broader community.

 

 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff XXX respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grants the following relief:

  1. Compensatory Damages: Award compensatory damages to the plaintiff for the financial losses incurred due to the defendants’ negligence, including property devaluation, property damage, and costs related to potential pest control services, in the amount of $10,000;
  2. Injunctive Relief: Order the defendants to promptly remove the obstructive trees that have compromised the plaintiff’s property view and created a gateway for rodents, to restore the plaintiff’s property value and prevent future rodent infestations.
  • Attorney’s Fees and Costs: Award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in pursuing this legal action, as permitted by law.
  1. Prejudgment and Post judgment Interest: Award the plaintiff prejudgment and post judgment interest on the awarded damages at the applicable legal rates.
  2. Any Further Relief: Grant any further relief that the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.

 

List of Plaintiff’s Exhibits

Exhibit 1 – Invoice from Homeguard Pest Control

Exhibit 2 – Plaintiff’s complaint to the HOA

Exhibit 3 – Plaintiff’s property taxes

Exhibit 4 – Plaintiff’s neighbor’s taxes

Exhibit 5 – Plaintiff’s neighbor’s car, backyard, and fence line

Exhibit 6 – Overgrown weeds

Exhibit 7 – Shared driveway policy

Exhibit 8 – View while in Plaintiff’s property

Exhibit 9 – Pest control receipts

Exhibit 10 – Proof of rodent infestation

 

 

Dated this ____ day of XXX.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

XXX,

Plaintiff in pro per

 

 

 

 

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 )