|
 |
| VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS |
| Settlement of Slum Housing for $2,140,000.00 |
Settlement of Slum Housing for $1,675,000.00 |
| Settlement of Personal Injury -Police Misconduct for $175,000.00 |
Settlement of Slum Housing for $1,047,500.00 |
| Settlement of Slum Housing for $1,875,000.00 |
Settlement of Slum Housing for $425,000.00 |
| Settlement of Personal Injury-Slip & Fall for $225,000.00 |
Settlement of Slum Housing for $300,000.00 |
| Settlement of Slum Housing for $675,000.00 |
Settlement of Slum Housing for $855,000.00 |
| Settlement of Personal Injury -Dog Attack for $225,000.00 |
Settlement of Slum Housing for $775,000.00 |
|
CASE : Coapio v. Owners X and Y
RESULT : $ 1,047,500.00 settlement
COURT : Los Angeles Superior
DATE : 12/01/2005
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS : Eric E. Castelblanco, Beverly Hills, CA, Reilly Atkinson, Santa Monica, CA
FACTS The plaintiffs, 50 adults and 40 minor children, were tenants in a low-income
apartment complex on Western Avenue in Los Angeles. During the relevant time, the
property was owned by Owners X and Y. In 2000 and 2001, the Los Angeles Housing
Department citied the property for multiple habitability violations including cockroaches
and vermin infestation throughout the property. The conditions were allegedly abated by
Owner X. Title was transferred in July 2003 to Owner Y. In September 2003, the
Housing Department cited the property for multiple violations. Virtually every unit
inspected contained the same habitability problems found in 2000 and 2001. Owner Y
failed to abate and a Substandard Order was issued.
CONTENTIONS The tenants alleged they suffered rodent and insect bites, allergies,
rashes and other physical symptoms as well as emotional distress arising from the
conditions. The tenants sought damages for physical injury, emotional distress, and
restitution of rent, property damage and statutory penalties pursuant to C.C.P.Section
1941.1.
Owner X claimed that the conditions during its ownership were adequate and that the
citations, which were timely abated did not affect the health and safety of the tenants.
Owner Y claimed that the violations identified on its watch were the result of poor longterm
maintenance by Owner X. Both owners also made the standard arguments that the
tenants exaggerated the conditions, did not complain about the conditions and their
physical injuries lacked healthcare provider corroboration.
Back to titles
|
CASE : Ignacia Osorio and Does 1 through 70 v. Unnamed Landlords
SETTLEMENT : $800,000.00
COURT : Superior Court of Los Angeles County
DATE : 04/19/2006
PLANTTFF ATTORNEYS : Eric E. Castelblanco, Beverly Hills, CA, Reilly Atkinson, Santa Monica, CA
DEFENSE ATTORNEY : Not named
FACTS & ALLEGATIONS From 2000 through 2005, a group of seventy plaintiffs
including named plaintiff, Ignacia Osorio, 46, homemaker, resided at a low-income
apartment building in the Pico Union district of Los Angeles. The tenants claimed that,
throughout their time as residents at the Pico Union apartment building, the facility was
infested with cockroaches and mice and was maintained in violation of a number of
building codes. In August 2004, the building was cited for over 100 building code
violations.
Claiming injuries, the tenants sued the two landlords (name withheld) during that period
for negligent maintenance and uninhabitability.
Plaintiffs' counsel contended that the building was in a state of negligent maintenance
throughout their residence, which caused an infestation of mince and cockroaches.
Plaintiffs' attorneys referenced a number of violations that included broken elevators, a
leaking roof and holes in the walls and sheet rock that led to infestation. They further
alleged that the tenants' complaints to the landlords brought on harassment from gang
members, as the property manager was involved in gang activity.
The two defendants both blamed each other for the state of disrepair at the location.
They each referenced the November 2004 sale of the esidence as the reason that they
weren't liable for negligence or uninhabitability.
The first landlord claimed that the residence had not been cited for building code
violations until 2004 and that the citations were due to physical deterioration as opposed
to uninhabitability issues. He further asserted that the tenants had not complained of
uninhabitability issues up until 2004.
Escrow on the property closed in November of 2004, and the second landlord alleged that
the first landlord was responsible for abatement at the property prior to the closing of the
sale. He asserted that he was defrauded by the first landlord because the necessary
repairs had not been made, and he even initiated a lawsuit against the first landlord to that
effect.
Both landlords further maintained that there were no written tenant complaints until the
violations were cited by the Los Angeles Housing Department in August 2004. They both
asserted that the tenants were exaggerating the nature of the violations and the effect that
they had on their lives.
Lastly, the landlords argued that some of the claimants in the suit were members of the
Rockwood gang and any harassment issues were the result of gang activity from that
group of tenants.
INJURIES/DAMAGES The tenants claimed that they suffered from rodent and insect
bites, allergies, and rashes due to the vermin infestation of the premises.
They further claimed that they suffered emotional distress associated with living at an
uninhabitable residence in disrepair. They asserted that their emotional distress was
exacerbated by the property manager's harassment in response to their complaints. They
sought an unspecified amount of damages for pain and suffering.
The plaintiffs also sought damages for physical injuries that they sustained, emotional
distress, restitution of rent, property damage and statutory penalties pursuant to Calif.
Civil Code 1941.1.
Counsel for the defense asserted that the tenants' medical records did not support the
physical symptoms that they had reported and the violations did not reflect a level of
disrepair that would have caused the health issues the tenants alleged.
Back to titles |
CASE : Augustina Ramirez and Does 1 through 60 v. Unnamed Landlords
RESULT : $1,775,000.00 settlement, $500,000 of which was paid to relocate the tenants and the rest of which covered their general damages.
COURT : Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Central, CA
DATE : 01/27/2006
PLANTIFF ATTORNEYS : Eric E. Castelblanco, Beverly Hills, CA, Reilly Atkinson, Santa Monica, CA
DEFENSE ATTORNEY : Not Given
FACTS & ALLEGATIONS From 2000 to 2005, plaintiffs Augustina Ramirez, 46,
homemaker, and 60 additional tenants lived in a residential hotel on Hope Street in Los
Angeles. The tenants alleged that, during the time they resided at the hotel, the premises
were infested with mice and cockroaches and displayed several building code violations.
They further alleged that the owners of the landmark building, which was immortalized
on The Door's 1970 album cover Morrison Hotel, were purposefully, constructively and
illegally evicting residents in order to renovate the hotel and create housing options for
higher income tenants.
Eventually, the hotel was issued a substandard order by the Los Angeles Housing
Department (LAHD) due to the landlord's failure to address the violations at the property
and respond to the inspection reports from the LAHD. A criminal case ensued. The
tenants claimed that the landlords not only disregarded the LAHD complaints but also
ignored their own. Multiple misdemeanor convictions of the defendant landlords by the
Los Angeles City Attorney were entered during the civil suit.
Claiming injuries, the tenants sued the unnamed landlords for negligent maintenance of
the property and uninhabitability, alleging constructive eviction.
Plaintiffs counsel claimed that the landlords did not respond adequately to the tenants'
complaints about the state of the hotel and that they were negligent in their approach to
the hotel's maintenance, which all amounted to a clear and willful neglect and subsequent
uninhabitability of the property. Furthermore, they alleged that the landlords replied to
tenant complaints by harassing the complaining party through eviction threats and
additional neglectful acts.
Counsel for the defense countered the plaintiffs' claims by maintaining that the
allegations were exaggerations. The claimed that the code violations were incurred for
physical defects brought on by an old and decaying building that did not affect the health
of safety of the tenants. The landlords argued that the tenants were responsible for the
vermin and cockroach problems because they did not keep the individual units clean;
they further argued that they kept up with the resulting uncleanliness as reasonably as
could have been expected.
INJURIES/DAMAGES The tenants suffered injuries from insect and rodent bites,
rashes and allergies. The violations at the resident hotel were numerous, including:
overflowing public toilets, water leaks, clogged sewage, vagrancy due to poor security at
the locations, broken elevators and lack of hot water.
Furthermore, they claimed that the landlords' harassing reactions to their complaints
brought on emotional distress that exacerbated their plight as residents in the hotel. The
tenuous nature of their home life led to frustration, depression, and poor self-esteem.
The tenants sought an unspecified amount of general damages associated with their
claimed injuries as well as damages for rent restitution, relocation costs, property
damage, and statutory penalties pursuant to Calif. Civil Code 1941.1
Defense counsel argued that the tenants' medical records did not support their allegations
that they had been bitten by vermin and cockroaches.
Back to titles
|
|
| |
|
|
Home
