Dale Duncan and Marta Munoz Mendoza v. Anne Kihagi (aka Anne Kihage-Swain, Anne Swain, Anna Kihage, Anna Kihage- Swain, Anna Swain), Zoriall LLC, Christina Mwangi, and Does 1-10, Inclusive
Published: Dec. 29, 2017 | Result Date: Oct. 5, 2017 | Filing Date: May 4, 2015 |Case number: CGC-15-545655 Verdict – $3,528,000
Judge
Court
San Francisco County Superior Court
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Steven J. McDonald
(Greenstein & McDonald)
Ariel M. Gershon
(Greenstein & McDonald)
Defendant
Richard S. Diestel
(Bledsoe, Diestel, Treppa & Crane LLP)
Karen Y. Uchiyama
(Law Office Karen Y. Uchiyama)
Facts
Plaintiffs Dale Duncan, and his wife, plaintiff Marta Mendoza, filed suit against defendants Anne Kihagi, her sister, Christina Mwangi, and their company, Zoriall LLC, in relation to their eviction from defendants' property.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs claimed that after defendants bought the property the electric service, garbage service, storage, laundry, and other common areas were decreased and/or interrupted. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs received an "owner move-in" eviction notice. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for harassment and wrongful eviction, in violation of San Francisco's rent-control law. Plaintiffs claimed that Mwangi's owner move-in eviction was fraudulent.
Plaintiffs argued that the San Francisco City Attorney's Office found Kihagi to be one of the most notorious landlords in the area and had allegedly conducted harassment campaigns against various tenants, including displacing rent-controlled tenants from many properties that Kihagi has taken a major financial stake. Plaintiffs claimed that Kihagi had Mwangi took a partial-ownership interest in the property shortly before going forward with plaintiffs' eviction. Once plaintiffs moved out, Mwangi then dispossessed herself of ownership.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants argued that the San Francisco Rent Ordinance allowed for the owner move-in. Defendants also contended that plaintiffs continued to reside on the property for over two months well beyond the 60-day notice period.
Result
The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them $1,176,000 in total damages. The court later found that per law, based on the jury's factual findings, plaintiffs were entitled to $3,528,000 in damages.
Other Information
Two other tenants who also asserted claims of harassment and wrongful eviction had their cases consolidated with the plaintiffs' case. Plaintiffs' case was severed from the two other tenants by the court, prior to trial.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390