WUE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-26-2015 3:10 pm Case Number: CGC-15-544958 Filing Date: Mar-26-2015 3:03. Filed by: ROSSALY DELAVEGA Juke Box: 001 Image: 04847152 COMPLAINT EDWIN NEIL ACOSTA ET AL VS. SHERMAN LEUNG ET AL 001004847152 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned._SUM-100 SUMMONS | (soo hina Uso ot ca Cone (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SUMM200(a) YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): EDWIN NEIL ACOSTA and DAN SCHELLENBERG NOTICET You have boon sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond witin 30 day. Read We formation below, ‘You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to fea witen response at his cout and have a copy served on the plant letter or phone call wil not protect you. Your writen respanse must be ls proper leg form # you want te cout fo hear your ‘ese, There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find those court forme and more information atthe Caforria Cours nine Sel: Help Center (wan courtnfo.ca.gow/selop), your county law lary, ofthe courthouse nearest you you cannot pay the fg fee, ask the cout clerk for a fee waiver form, If you do nt fle your response ‘on time, you may loge the case by defaut. and your wages, money. ahd property may be taken without further warming fom te court ‘There ae oer legal requirements. You may want to call an atmey ght away. you do not know an attorney you may want to call an attorney ‘efera service. you cannot aford an attomey. you may be elgle for fee legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate ‘hese nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web sit (wa lawnelpeaifomia org), the Calforia Courts Onine Seltelp Center (‘ww courte. gow/slinelp), oF by contacting your local cour or county ba assovalion, NOTE: The cout has a statutory lien for waved fes and {costs on any setement or arbitration aware of $10,000 oF moce ina cv case, The cuts len must be paid before the cour wit dismiss the ease, JIAVISO! Lo han demandado. Sine responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede deca an su contra sin escuchar su version. Lv la nfermacion Eontnuacion Tene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entroguen esta ctacion y pepees lage para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta ore y hacer que se entregue una copi al demardarto. Ura carta o una lamada ‘eofenca nol protegen, Su respuesta por eserto tiene que estar {en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso onla corte. Es posbio quo haya un formusario que usted puode User para su respuesta Puede encontrar estos formulanos de la corte y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda dal Corts de Calorna (ww suceri.ca gov) onl biboteca de lees de su condado o on la corte que lo quod mas cerca. SI No puode pagar la cuota de presentacon, pda al secretara a orto {ue fe dé un formulaic de exencion de pago de cuotas. Sino presenta su respucsta a fempe, puede perder el caso por cumple y le core fe ‘Pott ular su suole, dinero y Bienes sin mas advetencia, ‘Hay otros restos legates. Es recomendabie que lame 2 un abogado mediatamente, Sino conoce a un abogado, puede lamer un sonic de remisién a abogades. Sine puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cunpla con los requisites para obtener Sonics fogalesgratutos en ‘programa de servicios legals sin fines de luro. Puede ancontar estos grupos sn fines de aero ena sito web do Calorie Legal Services (nr iewnelpcaifornia.o), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cores de Cafom’, (a. cucora.ca,0) 0 poriendese en contacto on a corte 0! ‘olegede abogados locals. AVISO: Por ley, la corte Yana darecho a reclaa as cuotasy los coslos exentos por inpanor un pravamon sobre cualquier recyperacon de $10,000 6 més de valor rcibida mediate un acverdo 0 Una concasien de ariaje un caso de derecho cl Tene Ue ‘agar o! gravarmen dela crte antes de que la cote pueda desechar a caso, ‘The name and address of the courts exe names (El nombre y direccién de la corte es): San Francisco Superior Court emer ct cat 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 C60-15-544958) ‘The name, address, and telephone number of plaintit's attomey, or plait with (El nombre, la direccién y el nimero de teléfono del abogado del demands tiene abogado, ‘Mark Hooshmand, Esq. 22 Battery Strect, Suite 610, Say CLERK OF THE COURT pate ecm) yan 2.6 2015 (For proof ot ses offs sums oee root at Sanice ot mito form POST (Para prueba de onirega de esta ation use ol formula Prong Sone of Sur NOTICE TO THE PERSON Se 1, (2) as an individual defendant. 2. [J as the person sued under the fictious name of (speffy): 3, enpenatt (speci) under: (] cP 416.10 (corporation) (5) cP 416.60 (minor COP 416.20 (defunct corporation) [=] CCP 416.70 (conservateo) J CoP 416.40 (association or partnership) [=] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) 1) other (speci 4. [J by personal delivery on (date: rage tets neem ‘SUMMONS no GP 288 SiNON ew sy 209) ea‘SUM-200(A) ‘SHORT TITLE: ] case wowoe Edwin Acosta, et al. v. Sherman Leung, et al INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE » 4 This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does net permit the listing of all parties on the summons. * IT this attachment is used, inser the following statement inthe plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: “Additional Parties __ Attachment form is attached." List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each typo of party.) (51 Print [2] Defendant [—] Cross-Complainant [] Cross-Detendant SHERMAN LEUNG individually and dba CASELLI-LEUNG BENSHING, LLC, ALEXANDRA VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, CASEY GREEN individually and dba CHEZ JJ, LLC, and DOES | to 10 Page of revscotanca cme” ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT suit ae dn 1307, ‘Attachment to Summons10 " 1 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 2 28 e e Mark Hooshmand (SBN 194878) FI D Jenny Jin, Esq. (SBN 296184) Suomtn co Lack, Hooshmand Law Group sen 22 Battery Street, Ste. 610 MAR 26 2015 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 318-5709 aa LERICOF THE COURT Fax: (415) 376-5897 _ Attorney for Plaintiffs Edwin Neil Acosta and Dan Schellenberg SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION case: 060-15-544958 EDWIN NEIL ACOSTA and DAN SCHELLENBERG Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE, SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW vs. SHERMAN LEUNG individually and dba CASELLI-LEUNG BENSHING, LLC, ALEXANDRA VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, CASEY GREEN individually and dba CHEZ JJ, LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL, INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 110 " 2 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs EDWIN NEIL ACOSTA and DAN SCHELLENBERG (“Plaintiffs”) complain as follows against Defendants SHERMAN LEUNG individually and dba CASELLI-LEUNG. BENSHING, LLC, and ALEXANDRA (aka “SASHA”) VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, and CASEY GREEN, individually and collectively dba CHEZ JJ, LLC, and DOES 1-10: 1. Plaintiff EDWIN NEI | ACOSTA is an individual living in the City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco, State of California, who has resided within the rented unit located at 183 Caselli Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94114 (“SUBJECT PREMISES”) from October 31, 2010 through the present. 2. Plaintiff DAN SCHELLENBERG is an individual who resided within the SUBJECT PREMISES from September 2011 to September 2014. 3. All acts alleged in this Complaint occurred in the City of San Francisco, County of San Francisco. 4. This action concems real property located in San Francisco, California and venue in this court is proper. 5. Atall times material herein, Defendant SHERMAN LEUNG, ink lually and dba as CASELLI-LEUNG BENSHING, LLC, has been the owner of the SUBJECT PREMISES. 6. At all times material herein, Defendant LEUNG individually and dba as CASELLI- LEUNG BENSHING, LLC, has been the owner of the residential unit located directly above the SUBJECT PREMISES at 185 Caselli Avenue, San Francisco (“UPSTAIRS PREMISES”). 7, From the period of May 1, 2012 to January 31, 2015 (‘OPERATIVE PERIOD”), Defendants ALEXANDRA VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, and CASEY GREEN, individually and dba as CHEZ JJ, LLC (“CHEZ JJ”) leased the UPSTAIRS PREMISES from Defendant LEUNG. 8. It is believed that Defendant JADE WANG is the registered agent of CHEZ JJ. 9. Defendant LEUNG knowingly leased the UPSTAIRS PREMISES to the business entity CHEZ JJ for non-residential, commercial use. 10. At all times during the OPERATIVE PERIOD, CHEZ JJ rented individual beds within the UPSTAIRS PREMISES for illegal short-term rentals to up to ten guests at once. ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANC ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEM ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF ‘THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 210 " 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 11. CHEZ JJ rented individual beds within the UPSTAIRS PREMISES to guests through posting online listings, including listings on the website AirBnB.com. 12. At all times during the OPERATIVE PERIOD, the San Francisco Administrative Code (S.F. Admin. Code”), Section 41.A, also known as the Residential Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance, states that it is unlawful to offer a residential unit for rent to a business entity that will allow the use of a residential unit for tourist or transient use, or for any business entity to allow the use of a residential unit for tourist or transient use. (S.P. Admin. Code § 41.A.5.) 13. CHEZ J's short-term rentals of the UPSTAIRS PREMISES created additional amounts of noise, habitability problems, safety concerns, and significantly interfered with Plaintiffs’ 4) enjoyment of the SUBJECT PREMIS 14. Throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancies, the SUBJECT PREMISES was uninhabitable, and lacked basic characteristics necessary for human habitation. Substantial defective conditions existed at the subject premises during Plaintiffs’ tenancies which constituted violations of applicable housing laws, including but not limited to the San Francisco Building Code. 15. Despite his actual and constructive notice of conditions requiring repair and maintenance, Defendant LEUNG failed to make repairs or perform ordinary maintenance. 16, Despite their actual and constructive notice of the illegality of CHEZ U's use of the UPSTAIRS PREMISES as a short-term rental business and the nuisance this business was causing to Plaintiffs, Defendants continued to allow the UPSTAIRS PREMISES to be rented out short-term to multiple guests, in violation of the law. 17. Defendant LEUNG was at all pertinent times personally aware of conditions needing repairs and maintenance about the SUBJECT PREMISES, but failed to correct them. None of these conditions were caused by Plaintiffs or anyone under Plaintiffs’ control, 18, At all pertinent times a landlord-tenant relationship existed between Plaintiffs and Defendant LEUNG. 19. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names of Defendants listed as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and has therefore sued them by the foregoing names which are fictitious, PlaintiffS will ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF ‘THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 310 " R 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 28 5 6 ar 28 amend this Complaint by inserting the true names in lieu of said fictitious names, together with apt and proper charging words, when said true names are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is responsible and liable to Plaintiffs in some manner for the events, happenings, and contentions referred to in this Complaint. All references herein to “Defendant” or “Defendants” shall be deemed to include all DOE Defendants. 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant, including DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, was and is the agent, employee, servant, subsidiary, partner, member, associate, or representative of each other Defendant, including DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and that all of the things alleged to have been done by said Defendants were done in the course and scope of said agency, authority, employment, service, subsidiary, partnershi membership, association, or representative relationship and with the knowledge and consent of their respective principals, employers, masters, parent corporations, partners, members, associates, or representatives. Each and every Defendant has authorized, ratified, acknowledged, consented, acquiesced, and/or approved of all acts, conduct, and/or omissions by each and every other Defendant. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SHERMAN LEUNG INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CASELLI-LEUNG BE! ALEXANDRA VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, CASEY GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CHEZ JJ, LLC, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 HING, 21. Plaintiffs incorporate into this cause of action the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs. 22. By reason of the personal and fiduciary relationships between Plaintiffs and the Defendants arising out of the lease agreement, Defendants owed Plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, operation, management, and control of the subject premises, which included but was not limited to the following: the duty to comply with all applicable state and local laws governing Plaintiffs’ rights; the duty not to interfere with Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENIOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF ‘THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 410 1" 12 13 14 18 16 7 18 19 20 a 23 24 25 7 28 of the premises; and the duty to maintain the unit in a habitable condition. 23. Every individual has a duty to act reasonably toward other individuals and not negligently invade their right to privacy, and by virtue of this all Defendants had a duty to act reasonably toward the Plaintiff. 24, Defendant LEUNG, as an owner and landlord, breached those obligations to Plaintiffs by failing to properly address the maintenance and habitability issues at the SUBJECT PREMISES, and for allowing illegal short-term rentals in the UPSTAIRS PREMISES, which significantly interfered with Plaintiffs’ tenancies. 25. Defendants VOLYNE’ WANG, and GREEN breached their obligations to act with reasonable care to Plaintiffs by illegally renting the UPSTAIRS PREMISES short-term to numerous individuals, and continuing to do so despite Plaintiffs’ complaints 26. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages, including the loss of their rents during the time period they lived at the SUBJECT PREMISES and also emotional distress, in an amount according to proof. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SHERMAN LEUNG INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CASELLI-LEUNG BENSHING, LLC. ALEXANDRA VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, CASEY GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CHEZ JJ, LLC, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 27. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations into this Cause of Action. 28. In renting the unit to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LEUNG impliedly undertook not to do anything to disturb Plaintiffs’ peaceful and beneficial possession of the premises. 29. In renting the unit to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LEUNG impliedly undertook a duty to maintain the premises in a tenantable condition as required by law. 30. By neglecting to make repairs, and allowing illegal short-term rentals within the UPSTAIRS PREMISES, the Defendants severely interfered with Plaintiffs! tenancy. 31. By severely interfering with Plaintiffs’ tenancy, Defendants breached the implied ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLI Y, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ‘ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 510 1" 2 8 14 18 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 24 25 26 ar 28 warranty of habitability of the premises. 32. Many defective conditions existed in the SUBJECT PREMISES during the entire time that Plaintiffs resided there, specifically including, but not limited to, the following: a) mold; b) bedbugs; d) safety issues, 33. ‘The defective conditions listed above affected the tenancy of Plaintiffs. The above conditions existed contrary to sections of the California Civil Code, California case law, municipal codes and certain health, fire, and safety and building codes that require the Defendants to maintain dwellings intended for human occupancy in good repair and in a habitable condition. 34. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of each defective condition, and Plaintiffs notified Defendants of the defects but Defendants failed and/or refused to correct these defective conditions. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and the failure to address the Plaintiffs’ complaints, Plaintiffs’ suffered distress and anguish all to their general damage and in an amount according to proof. Plaintiffs move for both contract and tort habitability damages. 36. Defendants’ acts and omissions were knowing, intentional, willful and done with full knowledge of the discomfort and annoyance that such acts and omissions would cause the Plaintiffs and the severe emotional distress that would result and that did result to the Plaintiffs from the rental of an illegal unit, the intentional failure to provide heat and hot water, and the withholding of repairs. The Defendants knew that the Plaintiffs were suffering severe emotional distress and the Defendants continued with their actions and took no actions to address the Plaintiffs’ complaints and difficulties. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, ABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 610 1" 12 13 4 18 v7 18 19 20 Fa 2 23 24 25 26 2r 28 SHERMAN LEUNG INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CASELLI-LEUNG BENSHING, LLC, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 37. Plaintiffs incorporate into this cause of action the foregoing allegations of this Complaint, 38. In renting the subject premises to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LEUNG impliedly undertook not to do anything to disturb Plaintiffs’ peaceful and beneficial possession of the premises. 39, Pursuant to Proposition M and Section 37.10B, subdivisions (a)(10) and (a)(15), of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, Defendant LEUNG was prohibited from interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to quiet use and enjoyment of their unit and from undertaking repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb their comfort, repose, peace or 4) and which caused, or were likely to cause them fo vacate their units or surrender or waive any rights in relation to their occupaney of the unit. 40. By failing to perform repair and maintenance, and allowing for the illegal rental of the UPSTAIRS PREMISES for tourist and transient use, which caused excessive noise, bedbugs, mold, and security problems to the SUBJECT PREMIS! . Defendant LEUNG severely interfered with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of the SUBJECT PREMISES. 41. Defendant's acts and omissions was knowing, intentional, willful and done with full knowledge of the discomfort and annoyance that such acts and omissions would cause the Plaintiffs and the severe emotional distress that would result and that did result to the Plaintiffs from the failure to perform repairs and maintenance Defendant LEUNG knew that the Plaintiffs were suffering severe emotional distress and Defendant LEUNG took no actions to address the Plaintiffs’ complaints and difficulties. 42. Asa rect and proximate result of the actions and inaction of Defendants, and the failure to address Plaintiffs! complaints, Plaintiffs suffered distress and anguish all to their general damage and in an amount according to proof. 43, Plaintiffs also did not receive the benefit of their rental payments where they paid rent, ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE. VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 710 " 2 13 “4 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 26 25 26 ar 28 but did not receive a unit that they could live in free from unreasonable disturbances. 44. Plaintiffs suffered damages in the loss of their rent during the time period they lived in the unit and also emotional distress, for a total to be proven. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS SHERMAN LEUNG INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CASELLI-LEUNG BENSHING, LLC. ALEXANDRA VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, CASEY GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CHEZ JJ, LLC, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 45. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations. 46. Proposition M and section Sec. 37.10B(a), Tenant Harassment, provides that “No landlord, and no agent, contractor, subcontractor or employee of the landlord shall do any of the following in bad faith or with ulterior motive or without honest intent: (1) Interrupt, terminate or fail to provide housing services required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws; (2) Fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws; ... (4) Abuse the landlord's right of access into a rental housing unit as that right is provided by law; (5) Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion; ... (10) Interfere with a tenants' right to quiet use and enjoyment of a rental housing unit as that right is defined by California law; . . . (13) Interfere with a tenant's right to privacy; . . . (15) Other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that cause, are likely to cause, or are intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy.” 47. Defendant LEUNG violated San Francisco Rent Ordinance Section 37.10B and Proposition M_ by failing to address the habitability concerns regarding the SUBJECT PREMISES, and by interfering with Plaintiffs’ quiet use and enjoyment of the SUBJECT PREMISES. Defendants violated San Francisco Rent Ordinance Section 37.10B and Proposition M by ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE. VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 810 " 2 13 14 15 7 18 19 20 2a 2 23 24 25 26 ar substantially interfere with and disturbing the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of Plaintifis. 48. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts alleged herein, Plaintiffs have incurred damages which include legal costs and attorney’s fees. In addition, Plaintiffs have suffered inconvenience, annoyance, and severe emotional distress. 49. Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur attomey’s fees as a result of prosecuting this action, 50. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive and Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof, and to the trebling of damages awarded for Plaintifi's emotional distress, where Defendants intended that Plaintiffs suffer severe emotional distress as a result of their actions or consciously disregarded the probability that the Plaintiffs would suffer severe emotional distress as a result of allowing for the UPSTAIRS PREMISES to be rented out to numerous individuals for tourist or transient use. H CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS AGAINST DE! ENDANTS SHERMAN LEUNG INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CASELLI-LEUNG BENSHING, LLC. ALEXANDRA VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, CASEY GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA. CHEZ JJ, LLC, AND DOES | THROUGH 10 51. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations in this cause of action. 52, Throughout Plait SUBJECT PREMISES, including the existence of mold, bedbugs, and security issues. iff’ tenancies, numerous habitability problems existed at the 53. Defendant LEUNG refused to make needed repairs to render the SUBJECT PREMISES habitable. 54, During the OPERATIVE PERIOD, Defendants VOLYNETS, WANG, and GREEN rented the UPSTAIRS PREMISES for transient or tourist use to up to ten individuals at once. These illegal short-term rentals created significant additional amounts of noise and security issues, thereby interfering with Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of the SUBJECT PREMISE! 55. Defendant LEUNG had full knowledge that the UPSTAIRS PREMISES was being used ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITA ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ‘ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW10 1" 2 13 4 18 16 7 18 19 20 a 23 26 25 26 ar as a short-term rental business and the negative impact this caused to Plaintiff’' tenancies, 56. The acts and omissions taken by Defendants were intentionally done to cause harm to the Plaintiffs, or Defendants consciously disregarded the risk of severe emotional distress and physical harm, 57. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered severe mental distress, all to their general damage in an amount according to proof. 58. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive, and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages. The Defendants had full knowledge that the consistent short-term rentals within the UPSTAIRS PREMISES caused significant noise and increased security risks yet allowed such short-term rentals to continue. ‘The Defendants intended to, or consciously disregarded the probability that, their actions would cause the Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress as a result of failing to provide basic habitability and quiet enjoyment. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SHERMAN LEUNG INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CASELLI-LEUNG BENSHING, LLC, ALEXANDRA VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, CASEY GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CHEZ JJ, LLC, AND DOES | THROUGH 10 59. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations. 60. S.F. Admin. Code, Section 41.A.5 stated, during the OPERATIVE PERIOD, that it is unlawful to offer a residential unit for rent to a business entity that will allow the use of a residential unit for tourist or transient use, or for any business entity to allow the use of a residential unit for tourist or transient use. 61. Tourist or transient use is the use of a residential unit for occupancy for less than a 30- day term of tenancy, or occupancy for less than 30 days of a residential unit leased or owned by a business entity, whether on a short-term or long term basis, including any occupancy by employees or guests for less than 30 days where payment for the residential unit is contracted for or paid by ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENIOYMENT, VIOLATION OF TIE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 1010 " 12 13 14 18 16 v7 19 20 a 23 24 25 26 ar 28 the business entity. S.F. Admin, Code § 41.4.4.(C). 62, For all times herein mentioned, Defendants VOLYNETS, WANG, and GREEN, dba CHEZ JJ LLC, rented the UPSTAIRS PREMISES, a re jidential unit, for tourist or transient use in violation of S.F. Admin Code, Section 41.4.5. 63. Defendant LEUNG knowingly rented the UPSTAIRS PREMISES to CHEZ JJ as a business entity and allowed CHEZ JJ to rent individual beds within the UPSTAIRS PREMISES for tourist or transient use despite Plaintiffs! repeated complaints to Defendants of excessive noise and security issues. 64. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants’ conduct and are entitled to recover damages and costs and fees from Defendants pursuant to the $.F. Admin Code, Section 41.4.5. 65. The Department of Building Inspection (“DBI”) is charged with enforcing S.F. Admin, Code, Section 41.4. 66. Under S. . Admin. Code, Section 41.A, there are administrative procedures and remedies that address violations of S.F. Admin. Code, Section 41.A. 67. The adi strative procedures and remedies that address violations of S.F. Admin. Code, Section 41.A are inadequate, unavailable, and futile to remedy Plaintiffs’ complaints and attempting to exhaust administrative remedies under S.P. Admin. Code, Section 41.A is inadequate, unavailable, and futile because the City of San Francisco has not cited tenants or landowners who have used AirBnB's services. 68. Plaintiffs have attempted to exhaust all administrative remedies under S.F, Admin, Code, Section 41.A and such remedies were inadequate, unavailable, and futile 69. On January 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the DBI. The Complaint alleged the illegal use of the UPSTAIRS PREMISES by Defendants. Despite a Notice of Violation issued for “overcrowding,” Defendants continued to commit violations of 8.F, Admin Code, Section 41.4. by renting the UPSTAIRS PREMISES for tourist and transient uses. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PRIVATE NUISAN AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SHERMAN LEUNG INDIVIDUALLY, ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENIOVMENT, VIOLATION OF Tilt SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF ‘THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 1110 " 12 B 14 18 16 7 18 19 20 a 23 24 25 26 ar 28 AND DBA CASELLI-LEUNG BENSHING, LLC, ALEXANDRA VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, CASEY GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CHEZ JJ, LLC, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 70. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations contained in this Complaint, 71, Plaintiffs are individuals who lease the property affected by Defendants’ conduct. 72. Defendants VOLYNETS, WANG, and GREEN, by renting out the UPSTAIRS PREMISES for short-term rentals in violation of the law, created and enabled conditions to exist that were harmful to health, participated in acts that were indecent and offensive to the senses, and interfered with Plaintiffs' free use and enjoyment of the SUBJECT PREMISES. Those conditions include but are not limited to decreased safety, excessive noise, mold, and bedbugs. 73. Defendant LEUNG, by knowingly leasing the UPSTAIRS PREMISES to CHEZ JJ for non-residential use, and by continuing to allow the UPSTAIRS PREMISES to be used for tourist and transient use, created and enabled conditions to exist that were harmful to health, failed to stop acts that were indecent and offensive to the senses, and interfered with Plaintiffs’ free use and enjoyment of the SUBJECT PREMISES. Those conditions include but are not limited to decreased safety, excessive noise, mold, and bedbugs. 74. The conditions listed in this complaint interfered with Plaintiffs! use and enjoyment of their tenancy. 75, Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. 76. An ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed and disturbed by Defendants’ conduct. 77. Plaintiffs were harmed, in amounts to be proven at trial, including but not limited to damages arisi ig from increased safety concerns, excessive noise, and the loss of their rents during the time period they lived at the SUBJECT PREMISES. 78. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 79. The seriousness of the harm outweighs the public benefit of Defendants’ conduct. ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ‘ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF ‘THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 1210 " 12 13 4 18 16 v7 18 19 20 at 2 28 25 26 2 28 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 17200, ET SEQ) AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SHERMAN LEUNG INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CASELLI-LEUNG BENSHING, LLC, ALEXANDRA, VOLYNETS, JADE WANG, CASEY GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CHEZ JJ, LLC, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 80. PlaintiffS incorporate in this cause of action the foregoing allegations contained in this Complaint. 81. Atall relevant times the UPSTAIRS PREMISES was permitted only for residential use. 82. CHEZ JJ rented the UPS STAIRS PREMISES for illegal short-term use by advertising individual beds in the UPSTAIRS PREMISES on AirBnB to up to ten individuals at a given time. 83. Defendant LEUNG knowingly permitted the illegal short-term rentals of the UPSTAIRS PREMISES by CHEZ JJ. 84, CHEZ JJ's short-term rentals of the UPSTAIRS PREMISE! violated the San Francisco Planning Code, Section 209.2(d) through its operation of unauthorized short-term rentals within a Residential, Two Family Zoning District. Exhibit A 85. CHEZ JJ's illegal short-term rentals of the UPSTAIRS PREMISES violated S.F Admin. Code Section 41.A.5, as these rentals were for tourist and transient uses. 86. Plaintiffs suffered injury-in fact by, without limitation, losing the value of their monthly rents paid to Defendant LEUNG. 87, Plaintifs are entitled to recover from Defendant LEUNG restitution, including without limitation, all excess rents paid. 88, Plaintiffs are also entitled to an injunction enjoining Defendants from further violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Any injunction against Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices will benefit Plaintiff’. 89, Plaintiffs are also entitled to and request costs of filing this lawsuit, including reasonable attomey's fees. ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, ITABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF ‘THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 1310 " 12 13 14 8 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 28 a 28 WHEREOF, Plaintiffs PRAY for judgment AS FOLLOWS: ‘On all Causes of Action: general and special damages in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional minimum; ‘On all Causes of Action: attorney's fees pursuant to statute and contract; On all Causes of Action: cost of suit herein incurred; On the Sixth Cause of Action: statutory damages; On the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action: punitive damages; On the Eighth Cause of Action: restitution; For prejudgment interest; F injunctive relief barring such conduct in the future concerning short term rentals; And for such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. Dated: March 26, 2015 HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP Jenny Jin, Esq. Attorney for Plaintifi's ‘COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, HABITABILITY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RENT ORDINANCE, VIOLATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONVERSION AND DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF ‘THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 14EXHIBIT ASAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Notice of Violation and Penalty Decision 1650Mssin St Sona Santen, Date: December 42014 cxoerst0 Property Owner: Caselli - Leung Benshing LLC sce ‘Yvonne L Poon iy 2345 Dapplegray Lane : Walnut Creek, CA 94596 a 2 4155586409 Site Address: 185 Caselli Avenue Assessor's Block/Lot: 2702/023 tr Zoning District: E42 (Residential, Two-Family) Zoning District. ee Complaint Number; 12960 Code Violation: 209.2(d): Other Housing (hort-Tertn Rental Use for Transient Guests) ‘Administrative Penalty: Up to $250 Each Day Violation Continues Staff Contact: Adrian C. Putra, (415) 575-9079 or adrian.putragsfgov.org. DECISION: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PENALTY UPHELD DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION The Zoning Administrator has determined that the above referenced property is in violation of Planning Code Section 209.2(d) for the operation of an unauthorized short-term rental (d.b.a, Chez J) at 185 Caselli Avenue within an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) Zoning District. The details of the violation and decision are discussed below. The original complaint alleged that the dwelling unit at 185 Caselli Avenue operates as a commercial short-term rental (d.b.a. Chez JJ). Additionally, the Planning Department found a website for Chez JJ (chezjj.com) listing a total of ten beds for rent atthe subject dwelling on a nightly or weekly basis through Airbnb (www airbnb.com), Pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.2(4), a short-term rental use containing five or fewer rooms may nly be allowed with a Conditional Use Authorization. ‘The subject property has not received a Conditional Use Authorization for a short-term rental use In January of 1992, the Zoning Administrator supplemented Section 102.7's definition of a “dwelling unit" with an interpretation that added criteria pertaining to the required length of stay for renters. The interpretation states: This Section defines dwelling unit. It says that a dwelling unit must have a kitchen but it does not mention length of stay for renters. It has been ruled that a unit with a kitchen rented for a duration longer than one swoek but less than one month is a hotel, Such unit rented for less than a transient hotel These wits would be subject to the rules of the Planning Code applicable to their respective uses. Certain hotel rooms with kitchens as designated and controlled by the Residential Hotel Ordinance must have a tenure of at least 32 days or be subject to abatement as illegal conversions t0 a transient hotel unit under the Residential Hotel Ordinance,185 Caselli Avenue Notice of Violation and Penalty Decision Complaint No, 12960 December 4, 2014 Pursuant to Planning Code Section 174, every condition, stipulation, special restriction, and other limitation shall be complied with in the use of land and structures to the effect that the existing lawful use or proposed use of a structure or land conforms to the provisions of Planning Code. Failure to comply with any of these provisions constitutes a violation of Planning Code and is subject to enforcement process uncler Code Section 176. TIMELINE OF INVESTIGATION On February 24, 2014, the Planning Department received a complaint alleging that the subject property ‘was operating as an unauthorized short-term vacation rental. On March 4, 2014, the Planning Department sent you an Enforcement Notification to inform you about the violation and abatement process. ‘On April 1, 2014, Planning Department staff contacted Chez JJ representative, Alexandra Volynets (aka Sasha Willins) requesting copies of booking confirmations to verify that all guests are staying for at least 32 days, (On April 10, 2014, Ms. Volynets provided booking confirmations for two guests staying for at least 32 days. On April 29, 2014, Planning Department staff received a letter from the complainant stating that there continues to be guests staying at the property for a period of less than 32 days, Additionally, the complainant provided Planning Department staff a copy of a guest review that Ms. Volynets posted in March, 2014 on Airbnb’s website, stating that she only hosted this guest for a few days On May 14, 2014, Planning Department staff contacted Ms. Volynets inquiring on the number of guests ‘currently staying at the property. Ms. Volynets later informed Planning Department staff that there were ight people (including her) at the property. Ms. Volynets also claimed that in addition to Airbnb booking confirmations, she also has verbal booking agreements with her other guests, Ms. Volynets did not provide Planning Department staff documentation verifying that all of her guests were staying for at least 32 days, despite being requested to do so. (On May 15, 2014, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to the property with a representative of the property owner. During the site visit Planning Department staff observed that there were at least ight beds being occupied at the time, On May 20, 2014, Planning Department staff received photographs from the complainant showing that at least two beds were added to the property resulting in a total of 10 beds being occupied at the time. Planning Department staff also made another request to Ms. Volynets for documents verifying that all of her guests were staying for at least 32 days. On June 6, 2014, Ms. Volynets provided Planning Department Staff with Airbnb booking confirmations for three guests staying at least a month. Ms. Volynets also provided payment receipts from three other guests, but did not give specific information 2s to when they arrived, or how long they were staying, Plannin DEPARTMENT cs!185 Caselli Avenue Notice of Violation and Penalty Decision Complaint No. 12960 December 4, 2014 On June 10, 2014, Planning Department staff made another site visit to the property and observed that there were ten beds. Additionally, it appeared that atleast eight of these beds were currently being used by guests. ‘The documents provided by Ms. Volynets on June 6, 2014, confirmed the stay of only three guests at this time. However, Planning Department staff did not received sufficient evidence to conclude that all of her guests were staying for at least 32 days. (On June 18, 2014, the Zoning Administrator issued a Notice of Violation and Penalty (NOVP) advising the property owner to either abate the violation within fifteen days or file an appeal, The notice reiterated the time and materials cost of case investigation and potential administrative penalties due to the violation. On july 2, 2014, Ms. Volynets submitted a request for a Zoning Administrator Hearing, On September 10, 2014, the Zoning Administrator held a hearing on the NOVP at the Planning, Department. EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S HEARING. + The Zoning Administrator Hearing was attended by Scott Sanchez - Zoning Administrator, Christine Haw ~ Code Enforcement Manager, Adrian Putra ~ Code Enforcement Planner, Alexandra Volynets (aka Sasha Willins) ~ representing Chez JJ (leaseholder for 185 Caselli Avenue), Jade Wang - representing Chez J} (leaseholder for 185 Caselli Avenue), William Kilmer ~ representing Cher. J}, Daniel Wayne ~ attomey for Chez JJ, Sherman Leung - representing the property owner, Acosta - member of the public, and Eric Neplokh - member of the public. win Neil ‘+ Mr. Wayne stated that once the NOVP was issued the tenants at 185 Caselli Avenue began to change their behavior and that are currently no violations at the property. Mr. Wayne added that their Airbnb listings have been modified to require 32 days or more and noted that his clients have previously submitted past reservations for guests that stayed for 32 days or longer. Mr. Wayne also said that his clients will begin having all their guests sign sublease agreements for the required period of at least 32 days. ‘+ Ms. Volynets submitted affidavits from current guests at 185 Caselli Avenue, declaring that they are staying at the property for atleast 32 days. ‘= Ms, Volynets stated that she currently has seven guests and that she is the eighth person living at the property. Later in the hearing it was discovered she had submitted only six guest affidavits. ‘+ Mr, Putra stated that Mses. Wang and Volynets were previously issued an Enforcement Notice (under Complaint No. 12553) on July 3, 2013, alleging the operation of an unauthorized short-term. rental at the property. Complaint No. 12553 was closed on July 22, 2013, after Mses. Wang and Volynets modified their Airbnb listings requiring guests to stay for at least a month, = Mr. Acosta alleged that Mses. Wang and Volynets have made booking arrangements with guests ‘outside of Airbnb for periods less than a month, through means such as personal/iwork referrals and185 Caselli Avenue Notice of Violation and Penalty Decision Complaint No. 12960 December 4, 2014 other websites. Mr, Acosta also noted that he has submitted Airbnb reviews from guests who stayed at the property for less than 32 days. + Ms, Volynets stated that there are now eight beds at the property. Previously there were 10 beds at the property, but two beds were later removed in response to an overcrowding complaint filed against the property with the Department of Building Inspection. + The Zoning Administrator brought up an Airbnb guest review from a person named “Zach” who gave an guest review on Airbnb for the property in March of 2014 stating: “Chez J} is cool spot, not far from the mix of The Castro, The place is clean and remarkably well-organized, Good people. Thanks for the kind hospitality, Sasha!” The Zoning Administrator observed that Ms. Volynets also gave “Zach” a host review on Airbnb for “Zach” in the same month, in which she said that, "Zach is very friendly, outgoing, and fun! We only hosted him for a few days, but he was great to be around. Fd definitely be happy to have him back any time.” Ms. Volynets response to the reviews was that “Zach” stayed at the Chez JJ location at 1162 Geneva Avenue and also spent time at 185 Caselli Avenue, but admitted that he only stayed with Chez J] for a few days. = Contrary to her earlier statements, Ms. Volynets confessed that she has not lived at the property for ‘over a month. In her absence, Ms. Volynets stated that a person named Emma has been living at the property and assumed her role of “house captain” + Mr. Putra reiterated that a NOVP was issued against Chez J} because Planning Department staff never received sufficient evidence to conclude that all of the guests at 185 Caselli Avenue are staying, fora period of at least 32 days. ‘+ The Zoning Administrator asked for Planning Department staff to conduct a site inspection following, the hearing to confirm the number of beds and guests staying at the property. The Zoning. Administrator also requested that the operators of Chez JJ requize signed subleases from guests along, With submitting a signed affidavit acknowledging that fact, and modify the Chez JJ website to disclose that they require a 30-day minimum stay for guests. EVIDENCE PRESENTED FOLLOWING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S HEARING + Ms. Haw and Mr. Putra conducted a site inspection and found a total of eight beds at the proper During the site inspection Ms. Haw and Mr. Putra also met Emma, the current “house captain” living at the property, = Ms. Volynets provided Mr. Putra with an affidavit for the seventh guest staying at the property. The Zoning Administrator found evidence to conclude that the subject dwelling at 185 Caselli Avenue had a history of operating as a short-term rental and isnot currently being occupied as a dvveling by its leaseholders, Mses. Wang and Volynets. Additionally, Ms. Volynes has admitted to having a guest stay at a Chez JJ property for less than month after Planning Department staf had informed her that doing 50 ‘would be a violation of the Planning Code. Scenes sarees185 Caselli Avenue Notice of Violation and Penalty Decision Complaint No, 12960, December 4, 2014 DECISION NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PENALTY UPHELD. Pursuant to Planning Code Section 176, the Zoning Administrator upholds the Notice of Violation and Penalty issued on June 18, 2014, for Complaint No. 12960. However, the subject property shall not accrue penalties from the date of this letter on the condition that the responsible parties continue to demonstrate to the Planning Department that the violation has been abated. In addition, the Zoning Administrator determined that the property shall require active monitoring for a period of one year. Monitoring of the property shall include requiring the responsible parties to submit copies of all booking confirmations to the Planning Department on @ monthly basis, payment of any outstanding enforcement time and materials fees, and payment of the Planning Department's monitoring fee (see below). ENFORCEMENT TIME AND MATERIALS FEE Pursuant to Planning Code Section 350(¢)(1), the Planning Department shall charge for “Time and Materials’ to recover the cost of correcting Planning Code violations. Accordingly, a fee of $4,183.84 for Time and Materials’ cost associated with the Code Enforcement investigation is now due to the Planning, Department. Additionally, pursuant to Planning Code Section 351(e)(1), the Zoning Administrator determined that the property shall require active monitoring by the Planning Department to ensure continued compliance. Accordingly, a fee of $1,238 for ‘Monitoring’ costs associated with Code Enforcement monitoring is now due to the Planning Department. Please submit a check for the total amount of $5421.84 payable to ‘Planning Department Code Enforcement Fund’ immediately. ‘These fees are separate from the administrative penalties and are not appealable. PUAN OEPARTAENT 5185 Caselli Avenue Notice of Violation and Penalty Decision Complaint No. 12960 December 4, 2014 APPEALS. This decision letter and any assessed penalties may be appealed to the Board of Appeals within the 15- day time limit from the date of this decision. Again, the time and materials fees are not appealable, The Board of Appeals may not reduce the amount of penalty below $100 per day for each day that the violation exists, excluding the period of time that the matter has been pending either before the Zoning Administrator or before the Board of Appeals. For further information, please contact the Board of “Appeals in person at 1650 Mission Street, (Room 304) or call (415) 575-6880. Sincerely, AY - Scott F, Sanchez Zoning Administrator Ce: Sherman Leung, 390A 30% Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94121 Chez JJ, 185 Caselli Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94114 Edwin Neil Acosta, 183 Caselli Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94114 Law Offices of Daniel W. Wayne, Attn: Daniel Wayne, 315 Noe Street, San Francisco, CA 94114 Daniel Lowrey, Deputy Director, Department of Building Inspection, FRRSNE onranrmene 6- e + cmt Miia i oo ‘Hooshmand Law Group ‘Superior Cour of “D 22 Battery Street, Suite 610 San Praneisco, CA 94111 retzmone no: 415-318-5709 raxno. 415-376-5897 MAR 26 2015 srromevron un Plaintiffs Edwin Acosta and Dan Schellenbers [sewn court or cauronna counryor San Francisco ~~~ CLERK OF 1 HE COURT street anpress: 400 McAllister Street " ee un aooress: 400 McAllister Street Ta Aa crv anoze cont. San Francisco, CA 94102, rancn nawe: Civic Center CASENANE: Acosta, et al. v. Leung, et al. _ CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation Unlimited] Limited - aes eae 1 counter) soinder EG0-415=545 9557 demandes Gemandedis | Filed wih fret appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 orless)|__- (Cal Rules of Cour rule S402) | cers Hers 1-6 below must bo competed (see instctons on page 2) [7 Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case ‘Auto Tort Contract, ovisionally Complex Cli Litigation err) Fe crac ofconacinaranty(e) (Ca Ros of Cour ae 3400360) 1 Crrerea mer 4) Te 3740 eateatons ArtsTade option (2) ‘ter PUPDIND(ereonaliuryPropety [J Omer eaten 0) TS consucin ate 0) Bamogatrongit Death Tor insane coreg (18) Mess tt a) ees) =) Ofer conte [1 ‘seen iaton 28) Pro ay (2) fea Property [1 tnwormeartoxe on 0) [J medial matpractice (8) (Eminent comainteverse Insurance coverage clin arising frm tho flere reso es) Snacareete Soricnecairearig fon en UPOMD (the Tort [rent enon 3 seca? Business trun business practice (07) L] ter real proparty (26) Enforcement of Judgment CE coreg Usa Dtainr ET enerament evden 20) Defamation (13) LJ} Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fras) Freier 2 [F nico an ] htc propery 1) ong 28) omer cml rt socio toe 42 =] Professional negigence (25) judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Otrer non POM 8) A ete) a Employment Proton: atten ave 1n) [=| Part an corporat govomanes "Wrongful teminatin (36) = perenne ae TS other pttion ot pected above) (43) (7) other employment (15) [other jucicial review (39) 2 Thscase [Tis Le Tisnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, ithe case Is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management 2. [5] Large number of separately represented parties 4. [_] Large number of witnesses. b.[) Extensive motion practice raising ditficut or novel _¢. [—] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that willbe time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, orn a federal court cc. [—] Substantial amount of documentary evidence £. [1] Substantial postiudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check al that apply): a Number of causes of action (specify): Thisease [Jis [¥Jisnot a class action suit. there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015,) Date; March 26, 2015 = =) ‘Mark Hooshmand, Esq. f | _ NOTICE + Plaintiff must file this cover sheet withthe ist paper fled in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed Lnder the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Insttulions Code). (Cal. Rules of Cour, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions, * File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all ther partes to the action or proceeding, + Unless this a colectons case under rule 3740 ora complex case his cover sheet wil be used forsaistcal purposes ony | Ee Civil CASE COVER SHEET eee td monetary nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief ¢. [7 }punitive