Facts

From 1997 to 1999, defendants Phuong Thanh Pham and Dung N. Pham bought 18 multi-unit properties located in Oakland. After certification of class action was denied, 86 putative class members filed their claims as a direct action, with plaintiff May Saechao named first.

The plaintiffs claimed that each unit, as well as a large portion of the common areas, had fallen into very poor condition because there was inadequate maintenance despite frequent requests by the residents.

The city of Oakland housing, health, and safety enforcement records showed that many tenants had complained at almost all of the properties. These complaints consisted of leaky plumbing, which made floors and ceilings tumble, high amounts of mold that affected residents' health, an absence of weatherproofed doors, windows that were loosened or broken, ineffective and broken appliances and heating systems, as well as an infestation of rodents, mice, and roaches.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs claimed defendants' tenants were Vietnamese, Latin, Cambodian, and Laotian who spoke little English and did not know or were too fearful to establish their rights as tenants. Defendants allegedly used this in their favor by not maintaining the properties, raising the price of rent unlawfully, and evicting or making such threats in retaliation against those tenants who tried to establish their rights.

In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that the city of Oakland performed inspections on the properties in 2004 and discovered many local and state housing code violations.

The city asserted that ten properties were below standard levels, and constituted nuisances that was detrimental to public health and safety. About six of the properties underwent inspection in 2003 and were found to be in violation of standards and nuisance controls, which defendants stated they would fix, but never did. Another inspection occurred in 2004, which revealed the same violations.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs asserted that because the defendants did not maintain habitable properties, they suffered constructive eviction. Furthermore, the defendants and their agents recklessly told plaintiffs that they had no duty to provide compensation for injuries suffered or provide accommodations while the current residence was unfit for habitability. Plaintiffs also claimed they were untruthfully told that their leases were automatically terminated.

Damages

The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to relocation expenses, out-of-pocket costs for self-repair, property damages, higher cleaning costs, and for finding alternative living accommodations.

Injuries

The plaintiffs claimed that they suffered emotional distress, mold inflicted illnesses, colds, coughs, headaches, sore throats and inability to sleep.

Result

A settlement agreement was entered into per C.C.P. section 998 with 24 out of 86 plaintiffs. Four of the first representative had previously settled. Mediator Vivien Williamson, Esq. faciliated previous settlements, which involved 61 of the remaining plaintiffs. Settlement included $116,727 per C.C.P. section 998 acceptances, $88,000 in distribution to the remainder 61 plaintiffs, which included a group of 28 adults and 33 minors, each of which received $500.