Hui Jie Chen and De Hua Li, individually and on behalf of their minor children, Zhen Wen Li and Robert Zijian Li v. Musen Xie, Ergu Cheng, Hui Hong Xiem, Shaun Xie, Gui Mei Huang, and Does 1 to 50
Published: Nov. 26, 2016 | Result Date: Sep. 29, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CGC-15-545989 Verdict – $11,372
Court
San Francisco Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Kavita Sharma
(Steve Adair MacDonald & Associates PC)
Christopher L. Aguilar
(Aguilar Legal and Business Consulting)
Defendant
P. Richard Colombatto
(Stratman Patterson & Hunter)
Facts
Plaintiffs Hui Jie Chen, De Hua Li, and their minor children, Zhen Wen Li and Robert Zijian Li, filed suit against defendants Musen Xie, Ergu Cheng, Hui Hong Xiem, Shaun Xie, and Gui Mei Huang, in connection to their rental unit.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that defendants rented them an illegal residential unit and failed to disclose that it was illegal. Furthermore, the unit had numerous habitability violations. Defendants also increased the rent from $600 to $700 per month, in violation of local city ordinances. They also interfered with plaintiffs' quiet enjoyment of the property by harassing them, causing plaintiffs to suffer loss of sleep, anxiety and other injuries.
Plaintiffs asserted causes of action against their landlords for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 (unfair business practices), breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment (contract), breach of the implied warranty of habitability (tort), fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of the San Francisco Residential Rent and Stabilization Code section 37.11A, breach of the San Francisco Residential Rent and Stabilization Code section 37.10B, negligence, breach of Civil Code section 1942.4, and constructive eviction (San Francisco Residential Rent and Stabilization Ordinance sections 37.9(e), (f)).
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that plaintiffs knew the unit was illegal but rented it anyway because it was below market. Furthermore, plaintiffs only complained about habitability issues when defendants sought to increase the rent. Defendants argued the lawsuit was orchestrated by plaintiffs' attorneys.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiffs made a demand for $230,000 and the defense made a CCP Section 998 offer for $150,000.
Result
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs, awarding them $11,372.40 in damages.
Other Information
FILING DATE: May 26, 2015.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390