[PDF]San Francisco City Attorney Lead Paint Lawsuits

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO


Document Scanning Lead Sheet

Jun-04-2015 1:41 pm


Case Number: CGC-1 5-5461 52
Filing Date: Jun-04-2015 12:00
Filed by: VICTORIA GONZALEZ
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04939628
COMPLAINT


CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL ET AL VS. ANNE

KIHAGI ETAL

001C04939628


Instructions:

Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.





SMMONS

(CITACION JUDICIAL)

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: ANNE KfflAGI aka ANNA KfflAGI aka
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO): ANNA SWAIN aka ANNE KIHAGI SWAIN
aka ANNA KIHAGI SWAIN, JULIA MWANGI aka JULIA MUNENE,
CHRISTINE MWANGI aka CHRISTINA MWANGI aka CHRISTINE
JOHNSON, XELAN PROP 1, LLC, RENKA PROP, LLC, NOZARI 2,
LLC, ZORIALL, LLC, and DOE ONE THROUGH DOE FIFTY,


YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): FRANCISCO, a Municipal
Corporation, and the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through
DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco


Q ORIGINAL.


FOR COURT USE ONLY
(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)


NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center ( www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp ), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your waqes money and DroDertv
may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.

/ AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dtas, ia code puede decidiren su contra sin escucharsu version. Lea la informacion a
continuacion

Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARED despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legates para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
code y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una cada o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la code. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta
Puede encontrar estos formularios de la code y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Codes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la code que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la code
que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presents su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento v la code le
podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advedencia.

Hay otros requisitos legates. Es recomendabie que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamara un servicio de
remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legates gratuitos de un
programs de servicios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpcalifornia.orgl, en el Centro de Ayuda de las Codes de California, fwww.sucorte.ca.gov! o poniendose en contacto con la code o el
colegio de abogados locales. A I /ISO: Por ley, la code tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de la code antes de que la code pueda desechar el caso.


The name and address of the court is:

(El nombre y direccion de la code es):

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
400 McAllister Street, Room 103
San Francisco, CA 94102

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
dzL n ° mbre ’ direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene aboaado
DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney (SBN 139669) 415-554-3824 415-437-

MICHAEL WEISS, DeputvCity Attorney (SBN 168378)

1 390 Market Street, Sixth Floor • j

San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 Victoria/ 3o

DATE.’ ^ ^ ^ i— Clerk, bv \ I ffl 4

(Fecha) .11 IN 04 2015 CLERK OF THE COURT (Secretario) H *'

(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) *

(Para prueba Jejznlrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010))

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
as an individual defendant.

as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):


CASE NUMj
(Numt


1 5 -5 4 6 1 51 ?




Deputy

(Adjunto)


I on behalf of (specify):

under: [ ] CCP 416.10 (corporation)

1 i CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
i I CCP 416.40 (association or partnership)

I ] other (specify):

by personal delivery on (date):


□ CCP 416.60 (minor)

I I CCP 416.70 (conservatee)

I 1 CCP 416.90 (authorized person)


Page 1 of 1


Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Council of California
SUM-100 [Rev. Ju(y 1, 2009]


SUMMONS


Solutions'

G^Plus


Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465



1


2

3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10


DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney

YVONNE R. MERE, State Bar #173594
Chief Attorney

Neighborhood and Resident Safety Division
MICHAEL S. WEISS, State Bar #168378
VICTORIA L. WEATHERFORD, State Bar #267499
Deputy City Attorneys
Fox Plaza

1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3824

Facsimile: (415) 437-4644

E-Mail: michael.weiss@sfgov.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FILED

Superior Court of California
County of San Francisoo

m 04 2015

CLERK OF THE COURT

BY:

/ Deputy Clerk


1 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


12


COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO


13


UNLIMITED JURISDICTION


14

15

16
17


CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation, and
the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, by and through DENNIS J.
HERRERA, City Attorney for the City and
County of San Francisco,


Case No. c G C 1 §-546 152


18

19

20
21
22

23

24

25

26
27


Plaintiffs,


vs.


ANNE KJHAGI aka ANNA KIHAGI aka
ANNA SWAIN aka ANNE KIHAGI SWAIN
aka ANNA KIHAGI SWAIN, JULIA
MWANGI aka JULIA MUNENE,
CHRISTINE MWANGI aka CHRISTINA
MWANGI aka CHRISTINE JOHNSON,
XELAN PROP 1, LLC, RENKA PROP, LLC,
NOZARI 2, LLC, ZORIALL, LLC, and DOE
ONE THROUGH DOE FIFTY,

Defendants.


COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER
RELIEF


[REAL PROPERTY]

Type of Case: (42) Other Complaint


28


COMPLAINT - CCSF v KIHAGI, et al.


1




The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter,
“SAN FRANCISCO” or “City”), and the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and
through DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter,
“PEOPLE”), (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) file their complaint against ANNE KIHAGI aka ANNA
KIHAGI aka ANNA SWAIN aka ANNE KIHAGI SWAIN aka ANNA KIHAGI SWAIN (hereinafter,
“KIHAGI”), JULIA MWANGI aka JULIA MUNENE (hereinafter, “J. MWANGI”), CHRISTINE
MWANGI aka CHRISTINA MWANGI aka CHRISTINE JOHNSON (hereinafter, “C. MWANGI”),
XELAN PROP 1, LLC (hereinafter, “XELAN”), RENKA PROP, LLC (hereinafter, “RENKA”),
NOZARI 2, LLC (hereinafter, “NOZARI”), ZORIALL, LLC (hereinafter, “ZORIALL”), and DOE
ONE through DOE FIFTY (collectively “Defendants”).

Since 2013, Defendants have acquired more than 50 rent-controlled residential units in San
Francisco, most of which were occupied by long-term tenants. In defiance of numerous state and local
laws protecting these tenants and capping rents. Defendants have waged a war of harassment,
intimidation, and retaliation using unlawful, unfair and fraudulent practices designed to force them out
to make room for new tenants who pay market rent. The victims of Defendants’ relentless campaign
include a public school teacher, a cabinet maker, a professional skydiver, and at least six elderly and
disabled tenants, including a 71-year-old retired school crossing guard, a 65-year-old Army veteran
who is battling cancer, a 68-year-old employee of Saints Peter and Paul Church, and a 91 -year-old
great grandmother, who is bedridden.

Plaintiffs hereby allege as set forth below:

INTRODUCTION

1 . San Francisco is currently in the midst of a historic housing crisis. According to real
estate blog Curbed SF, the median rent in San Francisco “now sits at a terrifying $4, 225/month.”
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/05/22/san_franciscos_median_rent_climbs_to_a_whopping_4225.
php. Because of skyrocketing rents in today’s white-hot real estate market, San Francisco residents
who lose their rent-controlled apartments have few options but to move out of the City they call home.

2. In 1979, San Francisco established the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration

Ordinance, codified as San Francisco Administrative Code § 37 (“Rent Ordinance”). The Rent

2

COMPLAINT - CCSF v KIHAGI, et al.




1




2

3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Ordinance was enacted in response to a critical housing shortage, in which tenants were displaced as a
result of their inability to pay increased rents, and were forced to relocate because they were unable to
find decent, safe, and sanitary housing at affordable rent levels. This situation had a detrimental effect
on a substantial numbers of San Francisco renters, especially creating hardships on senior citizens,
persons on fixed incomes and low- and moderate-income households. San Francisco Administrative
Code Section 37.1(b)(2).

3. It has long been settled that the police power of municipalities extends to objectives in
furtherance of the public peace, safety, morals, health and welfare, and is not a circumscribed
prerogative, but is elastic and, in keeping with the growth of knowledge and the belief in the popular
mind of the need for its application, capable of expansion to meet existing conditions of modern life.
The municipal police power justifies reasonable regulations upon private property rights to serve the
larger public good. Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129 (1976).

4. The Rent Ordinance covers approximately 172,000 residential units. Designed to
stabilize San Francisco’s housing market, the Rent Ordinance caps annual rent increases and permits
evictions only under limited circumstances. The Rent Ordinance furthers the legitimate objectives of
promoting the public health and welfare in San Francisco.

5. By 2008, some landlords, frustrated by the limitations on rent increases imposed by the
Rent Ordinance, were using strong-arm and unlawful tactics such as harassment, threats, reduction in
services, retaliation, and false accusations to hasten natural or lawful attrition. The City’s voters,
many of whom are tenants, clearly perceived a need to prohibit such abuse, to ensure that tenants are
treated fairly, and to prevent landlords from undermining the City’s rent control laws. In 2008, the
voters responded by passing Proposition M, codified as San Francisco Administrative Code Section
37.10B, which prohibits residential landlords from harassing their tenants in bad faith.

6. Since June 2013, Defendants have been rampantly violating the letter and spirit of the
Rent Ordinance, and in particular, Section 37.10B, by harassing, retaliating, and intimidating their
tenants into surrendering their rent-controlled units.

7. Defendants have spent more than $24 million acquiring nine multi-unit residential

rental properties (over 50 rent-controlled residential units) in San Francisco, including the following:

3


COMPLAINT - CCSF v KIHAGI, et al.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22

23

24

25

26

27

28



3947 18th Street (hereinafter, “18th Street”), 1000-1022 Filbert Street (hereinafter, “Filbert”), 195
Eureka Street (hereinafter, “Eureka”), 1 135-1139 Guerrero Street (hereinafter, “Guerrero”), 69-75 Hill
Street (hereinafter, “Hill”), and 650 Church Street (hereinafter, “Church”), collectively, the
“Properties.” The Properties are discussed in greater detail below. Defendants’ acquisitions also
include the following properties: 4018-4022 19th Street (hereinafter, “19th Street”), 1378-1382
Alabama Street (hereinafter, “Alabama”), and 3328-3330 26th Street (hereinafter, “26th Street”).

8. Defendants have engaged in a series of unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive
business practices to systematically displace and recover possession of rent-controlled units in
violation of state and local law. Defendants accomplish this displacement through deliberate,
malicious, and oppressive acts, including, but not limited to, harassment, retaliation, intimidation,
fraud, abuse, false accusations, reduction of services, refusal to timely and properly perform repairs,
bullying, invasion of privacy, and willful destruction of the tenants’ guarantee of quiet enjoyment.
Once Defendants have successfully terrorized the tenants out of the units, they quickly renovate the
units, in many cases without first obtaining the proper City permits and attendant inspections, and then
advertise the units for rent online, seeking to rent the units at substantially increased rents.

9. By engaging in these acts, Defendants are violating the law to achieve a financial gain
at the expense of their tenants. The victims of such practices are not only Defendants’ tenants, but
also other owners of residential property who operate their buildings following local and state law. As
a result, Defendants gain an unfair competitive advantage over other property owners and/or
management companies.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff SAN FRANCISCO is a municipal corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. SAN FRANCISCO brings this action under San
Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.10B, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17910-
17998.3, California Civil Code Section 3294, and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 526.

1 1 . Plaintiff PEOPLE, by and through Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney for the City and

County of San Francisco, brings this action pursuant California Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480,

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 731, and California Business and Professions Code
4

COMPLAINT - CCSF v KIHAGI, et al.



1


Sections 17200-17210.


2

3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22

23

24

25

26

27

28


12. Defendant KIHAGI is, and at all relevant times has been, a resident of California, and
an owner, manager, operator, maintainer, controller, affiliate and/or agent of one or more of the
Properties, either in her name, or as a member of one or more of the limited liability companies named
as Defendants in this action. Defendant KIHAGI, as an individual, and/or as a member of one or more
of the limited liability companies named as Defendants in this action, is sued in her capacity as the
past or present owner, lessor and/or manager of one or more of the Properties, or the agent of the
owner, lessor, and/or manager of one or more of the Properties, and as the person committing the acts
alleged in this Complaint, or the person allowing or directing the commission of the acts alleged in this
Complaint. Defendant KIHAGI is a prolific professional real estate investor and landlord in the San
Francisco and Los Angeles markets. Defendant KIHAGI, as an individual, and/or as a member of one
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>