Facts

Thirteen tenants at the Monte Cresta Apartments in the City of Oakland claimed that the owner of the property, defendant Dennis Cox, wrongfully endeavored to recover possession of their rent controlled apartments in violation of Measure EE, Oakland's Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs at trial were 13 tenants who lived in a 30 unit apartment building located in the Piedmont Avenue area in North Oakland. Due to Oakland rent control law, most of the plaintiffs' rents were substantially below market value. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant landlord bought the subject property in May 2007 with a wrongful business plan already in place to quickly cause turnover of the existing rent-controlled tenancies, to extensively remodel the units as they became vacant, and to rent out the units at luxury market rates. Plaintiffs contend that his scheme violated Measure EE, which provides that "no landlord shall endeavor to recover possession... or recover possession of a rental unit in the city of Oakland unless the landlord is able to prove (one of the enumerated 'just cause' grounds." Plaintiffs contend that defendant's acts in carrying out his scheme violated several duties owed to plaintiffs under their tenancy agreements and per law governing the residential landlord-tenant relationship.

Plaintiffs contend that defendant made false allegations that tenants violated their tenancies, and improperly attempted to exorbitantly increase tenants' rents, to strain their resources and pressure them to move out.

Plaintiffs further allege that defendant, at the same time, instigated a massive construction overhaul, so the plaintiffs would have even more incentive to terminate the tenancies rather than live in a chaotic, hazardous, un-managed construction zone (while continuously seeking relief from excessive rent increases at the local Rent Adjustment Program). The work was performed in a manner which created an unwelcome environment and caused the tenants distress - in breach of the landlord's standard of care and unreasonably interfering with tenants' rights to quiet enjoyment of their homes.

Plaintiffs further contend that defendant obtained highly suspicious, unusual and unnecessary financing to purchase the property, with an exorbitant monthly interest-only debt-service payment and a two year loan term, requiring the defendant to turnover the building, raise its value, and refinance during that time. He used this short-term debt-service charge as a pretext for an excessive rent increase to the tenants, allegedly to pressure them to move out. Due to tenants' administrative challenges, defendant's attempted rent increase was not allowed.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant claimed that his conduct was in compliance with the City's rent laws and housing codes. Further, defendant argued that he had made substantial improvements to the property, which had gained approval from the City.

Result

The jury found that the landlord's acts to recover possession of plaintiffs' rent controlled homes were in knowing violation of Measure EE. The jury further found that the landlord's acts caused damage to the plaintiffs, including but not limited to damages for emotional distress, annoyance, inconvenience, and pain and suffering. On August 12, 2010, the jury awarded plaintiffs $179,655, which consisted of non-economic damages between $10,500 and $15,000 to each plaintiff. In addition, two tenants received $10,000 in economic damages. Thereafter on December 23, 2010, the Court trebled those damages to $538,963 pursuant to Measure EE's trebling provisions. Also, on February 17, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' attorney fee motion ordering that the defendant pay $1,052,402 in attorney fees to plaintiffs as well as approximately $50,000 in costs.

Other Information

Defendant contends that the following figures were Plaintiffs' Demands to the Jury: Plaintiff Dyer $600,000 in special damages; and $200,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Krueger $600,000 in special damages; and $200,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Pierre $400,000 in special damages; and $200,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Fearman $300,000 in special damages; and $100,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff O'Rourke $100,000 in special damages; and $50,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Drolet $75,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Quarrenta $75,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Watson $50,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Puthanveentil $50,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Roberson $75,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Singh $50,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Antoni $75,000 in emotional distress damages. Plaintiff Jain $100,000 in emotional distress damages. The case is on appeal.