Evelin Landaverde, Pablo Colin Trejo, Antonio Sandoval Campo, Rosa Vicuna and Fair Housing Council of San Fernando v. Safa Investments LLC and K&K Management, and Does 1 through 50
Published: Nov. 2, 2013 | Result Date: Mar. 11, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC463651 Settlement – $195,000
Facts
Evelin Landaverde, Rosa Vicuna, Antonio Sandoval Campo, and Pablo Colin were tenants of apartments at 15045 Saticoy Street, Van Nuys. Safa Investments LLC owned the building, while K&K Management supervised and managed it. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, claiming that they discriminated against families with children.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that defendants instituted rules that discriminated against families with children, and the onsite manager would forbid children from playing in common areas. When plaintiffs requested repairs to their apartments for serious issues, management refused. Plaintiffs later sought assistance from the LA Housing Dept. and the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, at which point the building's security guards and management began to harass them.
Plaintiffs further contended that the building was unsafe, unsanitary, unhealthy, uninhabitable, unattenable and in a serious state of disrepair while they lived there. They claimed the condition of the building violated various habitability laws. Defendants also failed to make repairs for inoperable heating systems, faulty plumbing, damaged flooring, water damage, cockroaches, and other problems caused by the state of the property.
Altogether, they asserted causes of action for breach of the warranty of habitability, violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, violation of the California Fair Housing Act, violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, unfair business practices, breach of the implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment, negligence, and private nuisance.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants filed a demurrer, moving to dismiss one of the causes of action for stating insufficient facts to support their claims. Specifically, they argued that the facts did not rise to a level that supported a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Result
The parties settled for $195,000.
Other Information
FILING DATE: July 8, 2011.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390