Complaint For Compensatory Damages, Injunctive Relief and Punitive Damages For Housing Discrimation

FOL[SE)
JON M. ICHINAGA (#137290)

Chief Counsel
2 NELSON CHAN (#109272)
Associate Chief Counsel
3 PAULA PEARLMAN (#109038)
Senior Staff Counsel
4 JULIA MONTGOMERY (#184083)
5 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
AND HOUSING
6 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100
Elk Grove, CA 95758
7 Telephone: (916)478-7251
Facsimile: (888) 382-5293
B>L
., LOspMH^
8
Attomeys for Plaintiff, DFEH
9 (Fee Exempt, Gov. Code, 6103)

10
11
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
Case No.
14 AND HOUSING, an agency ofthe State of

Califomia,
15
Plaintiff,
16
vs.
17
BELFORT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Califomia
18 corporation; JOSETTE BRUNO, an individual;

J.J. RIOS, an individual; and DOES ONE through
COMPLAINT FOR COMPENSATORY

DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE R E L I E F AND
PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR HOUSING
DISCRIMINATION
[Gov. Code, 12955, subds. (a) & (d); Civ.
Code, 51 et seq.]
19 THIRTY, inclusive.
20
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

(More than $25,000)
Defendants.
21
22
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

STANLEY HUBBARD, ETHEL MOORESILVERA, JESSE MAXWELL, and all other
similarly situated individuals,
23
Real Parties in Interest.
24
25
26
Plaintiff DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ("DFEH"), alleges
27 the following against defendants BELFORT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Califomia corporation,

COURT PAPER
State of Colifornia
Std, 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automatod
-1Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et a!., Real Parties in Interest)
Complaint for Compensatory Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Punitive Damages for Housing Discrimination
JOSETTE BRUNO, an individual, J.J. RIOS, an individual, and DOES ONE through THIRTY,
2 inclusive, on behalf of Real Parties in Interest STANLEY HUBBARD, ETHEL MOORE3 SILVERA, and JESSE MAXWELL (real parties in interest) and all other similarly situated current
4 and future tenants with disabilities at the real property that is the subject of this action.'
5
6
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
The State of Califomia, Department of Fair Employment and Housing brings this
7 case to address defendants' conduct related to the management of their apartment building.
8 Defendant Belfort Management, Inc., systematically and intentionally fails to accommodate tenants
9 with disabilities and their guests by: (1) failing to ensure that the elevator in the building is regularly
10
operable; (2) failing to provide tenants who make reasonable accommodation requests for ground
11
level apartments in order to avoid being trapped in upper level apartments because the elevator is
12
chronically and regularly not working; and (3) limiting access to the apartment building's elevator
13 by restricting access to the key that is required to operate the elevator. This case is brought to redress
14
this disability discrimination in violation of Califomia law and to ensure that real parties in interest
15
and other current or future tenants are not subjected to the same illegal practices, including
16
retaliation based on their complaints of discrimination
17
18
PARTIES
2.
Plaintiff DFEH is the Califomia state agency charged with enforcing the Fair
19
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Govemment Code, sections 12900 et seq., and is authorized
20
by section 12981 to file civil complaints in its own name and on behalf of real parties in interest
21
aggrieved by discriminatory housing practices. DFEH's enforcement of the FEHA is in furtherance
22
of the public policy of the State of Califomia to protect the civil rights of Califomians and to end
23
discrimination in housing because of, inter alia, disability.
24
25
3.
At all times relevant to this complaint, the Real Parties in Interest Stanley Hubbard,
Ethel Moore-Silvera, and Jesse Maxwell (collectively, real parties in interest) were residents of
26
27
COURT PAPER
State of Califomta
Std. 113 Rov. 3*05
FE&H Automatod
^ All further statutory references shall be to tlie Govemment Code unless otherwise noted.
-2Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al, Real Parties in Interest)
Belfort Arms Apartments, a three-story apartment building with approximately sixty (60) units
2 located at 3541 Whitney Avenue, Sacramento, Califomia (the subject property). Real parties in
3 interest are each persons with a physical disability, as recognized by the FEHA. Specifically,
4 Govemment Code section 12926, subdivision (m)(l), holds, in pertinent part, that a physical
5 disability is a "physiological disease, disorder, condition . . . that. . . [ajffects one or more of the
6 following body systems: neurological... musculoskeletal, special sense organs [and] [IJimits a
7 major life activit}'.. .." Each real party is a "person" within the meaning of the FEHA, section
8 12927, subdivision (f), and 12955, subdivisions (a) and (d), and are "aggrieved persons" within the
9 meaning of sections 12927, subdivision (g), and 12980, subdivision (a).
10
11
4.
Defendant Belfort Management, Inc. (Belfort) is an active Califomia corporation, and
is now and was, at times relevant to this complaint, an "owner" of a housing accommodation
12 pursuant to sections 12927, subdivision (e), and 12955, subdivision (a), as well as a "person" within
13 the meaning of sections 12927, subdivision (f), 12948, and 12955, subdivisions (c) and (d). Belfort
14 is a "business establishment" within the meaning of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act), Civil
15 Code section 51 et seq. Upon information and belief, Belfort Management, Inc. is the successor in
16 interest of Belfort Arms Apartments, Inc.
17
5.
Defendant Josette Bruno (Bmno), an individual, was an on-site property manager of
18 the subject property during the relevant time period. At all times relevant to this complaint, Bruno
19 was a "managing agent" and thus, an "owner" of a housing accommodation pursuant to sections
20
12927, subdivision (e), and 12955, subdivision (a), as well as a "person" within the meaning of
21
sections 12927, subdivision (f), 12948, and 12955, subdivisions (c) and (d).
22
6.
Defendant J.J. Rios (Rios), an individual, is now and was the on-site property
23 manager of the subject property during the relevant time period. At all times relevant to this
24 complaint, Rios was a "managing agent" and thus; an "owner" of a housing accommodation
25 pursuant to sections 12927, subdivision (e), and 12955, subdivision (a), as well as a "person" within
26 the meaning of sections 12927, subdivision (f), 12948, and 12955, subdivisions (c) and (d).
27
COURT PAPER
Stato of Califomia
Sld. 113 Rev. 3-05
FE&H Automatod
-3Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. {Hubbard, et al., Real Parties in Interest)
7.
The true names of defendants DOES ONE through THIRTY, inclusive, are unknown
2 at this time. DFEH sues these defendants by fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
3 section 474. The DFEH is ignorant of the true names or capacities of the defendants sued as DOES
4 ONE through THIRTY and will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
5 they are ascertained. Each of the DOE defendants is legally responsible for the injuries and damages
6 alleged in this complaint.
7
8.
The DFEH is informed and believes, and upon such infonnation and belief alleges
8 that at all times mentioned, each defendant is and was, in doing the things complained of, the owner,
9 agent, representative, alter ego, successor in interest, and/or manager of the subject property, of
10
Belfort Management, Inc., and was acting within the scope of such agency, service, employment,
11
and/or representation, and that each and every defendant is jointly and severally responsible and
12
liable to the real parties and all other similarly situated current and fiiture tenants with disabilities at
13
the subject property that is the subject o f this action for the damages alleged.
14
15
9.
The DFEH brings this action on behalf of itself and the group of the named individual
Real Parties in Interest and all other similarly situated current and fiature tenants with disabilities
16 residing at the subject property.

17
18
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND VENUE

10.
The DFEH re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in
19 paragraphs 1 through 9, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.

20
11.
This action arises under Govemment Code section 12955, subdivisions (a) and (d),
21
and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51. Govemment Code section 12955,
22
subdivisions (a) and (d), provide that it is unlawful for an owner of any housing accommodation to
23
discriminate against a person because of disability, and any person subject to die provisions of
24
section 51 of the Civil Code. The Unmh Civil Rights Act,-Givil Code section 51, provides that all
25
persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their disability are
26
entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or ser\'ices in all
27
business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
COURT PAPER
Stato of California
Std. 113Rev. 3-gs
FE&H Automated
-4Depl. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al., Real Parties in Interest)
12.
1
2
Operation of the subject property is also govemed by Govemment Code section
12955.1, subdivision (2), which provides in relevant part, that "[a]ll covered multifamily dwellings
3 with a building entrance on an accessible route shall be designed and constructed in a manner tliat
4 complies with all of the following: (A) The public and common areas are readily accessible to and
5 usable by persons with disabilities." Section 12955.1 (b)(1) holds, "[f]or purposes of Section
6
12955.1, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "Covered multifamily dwellings" means both of
7 the following: (1) Buildings that consist of at least four condominium dwelling units or at least three
8 rental apartment dwelling units if the buildings have at least one elevator. For purposes of this
9 definition, dwelling units within a single stmcture separated byfirewallsdo not constitute separate
10 buildings."
11
13.
Venue is proper in this Court in that Sacramento County is the county in this state in
12
which the unlawfiil practices alleged were committed and the subject property is located in this
13
county.
14
14.
The real parties in interest filed a verified written complaint with the Department on
15
June 11, 2013, alleging that defendants Belfort and Bmno committed unlawfiil housing practices in
16
violation of the FEHA and Unmh Act within the preceding year. Their complaint was properly
17
served on Defendants.
18
15.
On June 10, 2014, a Director's Complaint was issued, alleging that defendants
19
Belfort, Bruno, and Rios committed unlawful housing practices in violation of the FEHA and Unruh
20
Act. (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 2, 1047.) The Director's Complaint was properly served on
21
defendants.
22
16.
All conditions precedent to the filing of this civil complaint were fulfilled, including
23
the requirement that the DFEH require all parties to participate in mandatory dispute resolution in
24
the DFEH's intemal dispute resolution free of charge in an effort to resolve the dispute without
25
litigation. (Gov. Code, 12965, subd. (a) & 12963.7.)
26
17.
The harm that is the subject of this complaint occurred in Sacramento County.
27
COURT PAPER
State of Catifomia
Std. 113 Rav. 3-95
FE&H Automated
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al., Real Parties in Interest)
18.
The amount of damages sought exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this
2 court.
3
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
19.
DFEH realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in
5 paragraphs 1 through 18, inclusive.

6
20.
The subject property is a sixty unit, three-story apartment building with
7 approximately twenty units per floor. The Department is informed and believes that at all times
8 mentioned, Cameron Razavi ("Owner") is and was the sole owner, officer, director, and shareholder
9 for the corporation. Defendant Belfort Management, Inc., and is the agent for service of process for
10
the corporations. The DFEH is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges
11
that the subject property is marketed as a low-income housing property that attracts individuals who
12
cannot afford to live elsewhere.

21.
13
The subject property has one elevator, which, when operable or unrestricted by
14
management, is available for all tenants. The elevator is used to access the subject property's three
15
floors. There is also an intemal staircase available for tenants who desire and are able to use the
16
stairs.
17
22.
Many elderly tenants and tenants with disabilities live at the subject property,
18
including on the second and third floors of the building. Such individuals require the use of the
19
elevator to access their units or to enter or leave the building.
20
23.
The subject property's lone elevator is often out of order, requiring elderly tenants
21
and tenants with disabilities to use its stairs. When the elevator is inoperable, tenants with limited
22
mobility cannot leave their homes due to the dangers posed by using stairs. Moreover, when tlie
23
elevator is nonfunctioning, tenants residing on the second and third floors are discouraged from
24
inviting their disabled guests to the subject property.
25
24.
The DFEH is informed and believes that defendant Belfort, by and through Owner
26
Razavi and defendants Bmno and Rios, are aware that the building's only elevator is often not
27
operational. The DFEH is informed and believes that defendants ignored requests to repair the
COURT PAPER
Stato ofCalifomia
Std. 113 Rov. 3-95
FE&H Automatod
-6DepL Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al., Real Parties in Interest)
elevator and refiised reasonable requests by Real Parties in Interest and other tenants with disabilities
2 tofixit, or maintain it in working condition. The DFEH is informed and believes that it was not until
3 the DFEH threatened to file suit to obtain an injunction against defendant Belfort that the inoperable
4 elevator received limited servicing. However, upon information and belief, to this day, the elevator is
5 often out of operation.
6
7
Tenants Hubbard/Moore/Maxwell
25.
Real parties in interest, Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Maxwell, were tenants of
8 and roommates at the subject property beginning around December 2012 through November 2013.
9 Mr. Hubbard and Ms. Moore were partners from 2009 to late 2014. Mr. Maxwell is Mr. Hubbard's
10 half-brother.
11
26.
Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Maxwell are disabled persons as defined by the
12 Fair Employment and Housing Act, Govemment Code section 12926. Mr. Hubbard has
13 degenerative back disease, neuropathy in both legs, congestive heart failure, diabetes, liver failure,
14 torn cartilage in his right knee, and high blood pressure. He sometimes uses a wheelchair for
15 mobility. Ms. Moore has Chronic Obstmctive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), severe arthritis in her
16 hands, arms and back, a heart murmur, diabetes, diabetic neuropathy in both legs, is partially
17 paralyzed in both legs and her back, the bones in her hand are brittie and she suffers from high blood
18 pressure. Ms. Moore's disabilities affect her mobility. Mr. Maxwell suffers from leg and back pain,
19 including arthritis and the inability to bend one leg, back spasms, has a bullet lodged in his spine,
20 diabetes, and high blood pressure. He walks with a cane and, at times, uses a wheelchair for
21
22
mobility.
27.
Upon signing a month-to-month lease in October 2012, Mr. Hubbard and Ms. Moore
23 disclosed their disabilities to the on-site manager. Defendant Bruno. They explained that due to their
24 physical disabilities, they needed a ground-level apartment. Ms. Bmno informed them that no '
25 ground floor unit was available at that time but that one would likely become available. She assured
26 Mr. Hubbard and Ms. Moore that she would move them into a ground floor unit before that
27
COURT PAPER
State of California
Std. 113 Rev. 3.S5
FE&H Automated
-7Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al.. Real Parties in Interest)
Thanksgiving - Thursday, November 22, 2012. Mr. Hubbard and Ms. Moore queried Ms. Bmno
2 about the subject property's elevator who, in tum, assured them that the elevator was fiinctional.
3
28.
Mr. Hubbard and Ms. Moore moved into unit 303, on the third floor of the subject
4 property, on October 27, 2012. When Thanksgiving arrived, management had not moved them as
5 promised and kept them on the third floor until about May 2013. Mr. Hubbard and Ms. Moore,
6 thereafter repeatedly requested a ground floor apartment. Mr. Maxwell moved into the saine unit in
7 December 2012 with the Defendant Bruno's express permission.
8
29.
Despite repeated requests and reminders, Defendant Bmno refused to move Mr.
9 Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Maxwell to a ground floor apartment.

10
11
30.
In or about January or Febmary 2013, Defendant Bmno informed Mr. Hubbard, Ms.
Moore, and Mr. Maxwell that unit 103, a ground floor apartment had become vacant and that they
12 could move into the unit. Shortly after Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Maxwell began packing
13 their belongings to move into unit 103. However, when Mr. Hubbard asked Defendant Bruno for
14 confirmation of their move-in date, Ms. Bmno informed him that she had chosen to move "a
15 Mexican family," rather than Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore and Mr. Maxwell, into unit 103.
16
31.
The DFEH is further informed and believes that Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr.
17 Maxwell witnessed numerous individuals and families without disabilities being moved into ground
18 floor apartments.
19
32.
Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Maxwell remained in their tliird floor apartment
20 after being denied access to a ground level unit. Thereafter, for a period of at least sixty (60) days,
21
Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Maxwell were unable to use the elevator because it was
22 inoperable.
23
33.
On at least two additional occasions, in January and Febmary 2013, the elevator was
24 either inoperable or unavailable for use for significant lengths of time.

25
34.
The DFEH is informed and believes that during periods of the elevator's
26 inoperability. Defendant Rios posted signs stating that the elevator was "out of order." The DFEH is
27 fiirther informed and believes that the elevator was in fact operational, but that the licensing fee had
COURT PAPER
State of Catifomia
Std. 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automated
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al. Real Parties in Interest)
not been paid. During this "non-operational" period, Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Maxwell
2 observed management unlocking the elevator for younger and non-disabled tenants to move in and
3 out of the building.
4
35.
In or about April 2013, Mr. Hubbard was in Defendant Rios' office with Defendant
5 Bruno, who was on the phone with the subject property's owner, Cameron Razavi. Mr. Hubbard
6 overheard owner Razavi say to defendant Bmno, "Tell them if they don't like it they can move and
7 I'll fill it right back up," or words to that effect.
8
36.
Fmsfrated by defendant Bruno's failure to keep her promise, in March 2013, Mr.
9 Hubbard complained to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging
10 disability discrimination. Upon information and belief, a HUD representative contacted defendants
11
about defendant Hubbard's complaint. In or about May 2013, a HUD representative infomied Mr.
12 Hubbard that he would be "moving that day."

13
37.
In early May 2013, defendant Brano told Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Maxwell
14 that ground floor unit 101 was available for move in. She fiirther infonned them that they only had
15 two days to move in or someone else would get the apartment. Mr. Hubbard asked to use the
16 elevator to move but Ms. Bmno said it was broken. Defendant Bmno falsely promised that the
17 maintenance man would help them move. He did not. The Real Parties in Interest were forced to
18 pack their belongings, hire moving help, and complete their move using the stairs within two days.
19 Further, because of the narrow building hallways, the real parties in interests' fiimiture had to be
20 lowered over the rail from the third floor balcony, driven to the other side of the building with the
21
22
rental tmck, and then lifted over the patio fence in order to enter each item into the unit.
38.
Defendants failed to clean or paint unit 101 before the real parties moved in. The
23 carpet smelled badly and was not replaced until November 2013, when Mr. Hubbard refiised to pay
24 rent until it was changed.
25
39.
The DFEH is further informed and believes that Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr.
26 Maxwell's disabilities were exacerbated by ascending and descending stairs several times per day
27 between Febmary 2013 and June 2013.
COURT PAPER
State of Califomia
Std. 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automated
40.
The DFEH is further informed and believes alleges that in about mid-June 2013, the
2 elevator was made operational.

3
41.
In or about 2014, Mr. Hubbard tore his meniscus and sought medical attention. The
4 DFEH is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges that in or about this
5 sametime,Mr. Hubbard's doctor. Dr. Pessaran, told him that his tom meniscus was a direct result of
6 climbing stairs. The DFEH is further informed and believes that Mr. Hubbard underwent knee
7 surgery, on June 13, 2014, because of the damage caused from climbing stairs. The DFEH is furtiier
8 informed and believes that as a result of all the stair-climbing, Mr. Hubbard's blood pressure soared
9 to dangerously high levels.
10
42.
The DFEH is informed and believes that Ms. Moore experienced significant physical
11
disfress because she was relegated to climbing stairs when the subject property's elevator was
12
inoperable. The DFEH is fiirther informed and believes that Ms. Moore experienced significant
13
emotional distress as a direct result o f having to use stairs, rather than an elevator. Her hands
14 became more impaired and lost significant manual dexterity because she had to carry groceries up
15
the stairs. Now she can no longer do housework, cook more than simple meals, hold books, crochet,
16
and enjoy other simple pleasures of life. Ms. Moore's doctor. Dr. Pessaran, stated that failure to
17
fransfer her to a first floor unit would cause increased shortness of breath and joint pain.
18
43.
The DFEH is informed and believes that in or around November 2013, the subject
19 property's elevator was again out of service. Accordingly, Mr. Maxwell was forced to use the stairs.
20
While attempting to descend the stairwell, Mr. Maxwell fell and sustained injuries. The DFEH is
21
informed and believes that the stairway's handrails were not adequately secured to its walls and
22
detached when used by tenants walking up and down the stairwell.
23
24
25
44.
In November 2013, Mr. Maxell and Mr. Hubbard moved from the subject property.
Ms. Moore continues to live in-a ground floor unit.

45.
On or around April 11, 2014, the DFEH conducted an onsite inspection of the subject
26
property. During its investigation, the Department discovered that several other tenants with
27
disabilities were adversely affected by the subject property's non-operational elevator.
COURT PAPER
Stato ot California
Std. 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automated
46.
The DFEH also uncovered a policy wherein the elevator was shut off daily from 10
2 p.m. to 6 a.m. in order to keep the "riff-raff out. The DFEH is informed and believes that "riff r a f f
3 means disreputable or undesirable people. This policy negatively affects many of the tenants with
4 disabilities, limiting the time they may enter and exit the building.
5
47.
In January 2015, an onsite visit revealed that the license certificate in the elevator was
6 again expired.
7
8
Other Tenants with Disabilities^

48.
Tenant A and her husband are disabled tenants who have lived at the subject property
9 for approximately three years. They live in a second floor apartment. Tenant A wears a knee brace
10 and has screws in her leg. Tenant A's friends have to assist her up and down the stairs because the
11
elevator is often inoperable. Tenant A's husband uses a wheelchair and is sometimes unable to leave
12 his unit because ofthe lack of a functioning elevator.

13
49.
Tenant B has lived on the second floor of the subject property building since
14 November of 2012. Tenant B has difficulty walking and needs to use a cane because of the arthritis
15 in his knees. When forced to use the stairs after shopping. Tenant B struggles to ascend the stairwell
16 because he has to juggle holding his groceries, the handrail, and his cane. Tenant B often requested
17 defendants Bmno and Rios when the elevator would be restored to working order but his requests
18 were ignored.
19
50.
Tenant C, a disabled person who uses a wheelchair for mobility, has lived at the
20 subject property for two years. Tenant C lives on the third floor and is unable to use the stairs.
21
During the period in which the elevator was shut down for four months. Tenant C was trapped in her
22 unit with no relief. She has asked defendants to fix the elevator on numerous occasions. By the time
23 defendant Rios offered her a ground floor apartment, Tenant C was unable to afford the move.
24
25
26
The names of other affected tenants are omitted from this public filing to protect their privacy.
27
COURT PAPER
State of Califomia
Std. 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automated
-11Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al., Real Parties in Interest)
51.
Tenant D has lived at the Belfort Arms building for about three years. He lives on the
2 second floor. Tenant D has a disabled cousin who cannot visit him in his second floor apartment
3 because he uses a wheelchair.
4
52.
Tenant E has lived in an apartment on the second floor of the Belfort Anns building
5 for approximately seven years. Upon information and belief, Tenant E's uncle, who is blind and has
6 diabetes, lives with him. Once, during the subject property's routine elevator outage. Tenant E's
7 uncle almost fell down the stairs trying to grab onto a broken handrail.
8
53.
Tenant F has lived in a third floor apartment at the Belfort Arms building for
9 approximately one year. Upon information and belief. Tenant F's grandfather, who has bad knees
10 and is unable to walk up and down tlie stairs without assistance, lives with him. Despite his limited
11
mobility, Tenant F's grandfather is forced to use the subject property's stairs whenever the elevator
12 is non-operational.
13
54.
The DFEH is informed and believes that there are many other tenants with-disabilities
14 living on the second and thirdfloorsof the subject property and who are adversely affected by the
15 non-operational elevator. By failing to adequately maintain the elevator. Defendants make it
16 impossible for people with disabilities to have as full access and enjoyment of the premises as those
17 without disabilities.
18
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19
Discrimination in Connection with a Housing Accommodation

(Gov. Code, 12955, subd. (a).)
[Against All Defendants]
20
21
55.
The DFEH realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in

23
56.
It is imlawful for "the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against.
24 .. any person because of the . . . disability of that person." ( 12955, subd. (a).) Housing
25 "discrimination" under the FEHA includes the "refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules
26 policies, practices, or services when these accommodations may be necessary to afford a disabled
27 person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." ( 12927, subd. (c)(1), 12955, subd. (a).)
COURT PAPER
State of California
Std. 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automatod
Complaint for Compensatory Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Punitive Damages for Housing Discriminafion
"In order to establish discrimination based on a refusal to provide reasonable accommodations, a
2 party must establish that he or she (1) suffers from a disability as defined in FEHA, (2) the
3 discriminating party knew of, or should have known of, the disability, (3) accommodation is
4 necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, and (4) the discriminating
5 party refused to make this accommodation." (Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. Fair
6 Employment and Housing Com. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4tii 1578, 1592 (Auburn Woods) citing Gov.
7 Code, 12927, subd. (c), & Giebelerv. M&B Associates (9th Cir. 2003) 343 F.3d 1143.)
8
57.
As alleged herein and in violation of Govemment Code section 12955 (a), defendants
9 discriminated against the real parties in interest by refusing to make reasonable accommodations.
10 This includes failing to offer the real parties in interest a ground floor apartment, failure to maintain
11
a working elevator, restricting access to the elevator during certain hours, and failing to make other
12 repairs necessary to afford disabled persons equal opportunity to equal use and enjoy the subject
13 property.
14
58.
As a result of defendants' unlawfiil housing practices, each real party ih interest
15 incurred economic dainages in an amount to be proven at time of trial.

16
59.
As a fiirther and direct result of defendants' unlawfiil housing practices each real
17 party in interest suffered anxiety, frusfration, emotional disfress, and injury in an amoimt to be
18 proven at time of trial.
19
60.
Defendants' conduct was malicious,fraudulentor oppressive, or taken in conscious
20 disregard of therights,health, safety, and economic condition of the real parties in interest, as
21
22
defined in Civil Code section 3294, entitling them to an award of exemplary damages.
61.
By discriminating against the real parties in interest, in addition to other tenants with
23 disabilities in the subject property, defendants demonsfrated that they will continue to engage in a
24 pattem and practice of unlawfiil housing discrimination that is- the subject of this complaint until this
25 Court enjoins them from doing so and orders compliance with the mandates of the FEHA. Plaintiff
26 DFEH lacks any plain, speedy, adequate remedy at law to prevent such harm, injury, and loss, which
27
COURT PAPER
Stato of Califomia
Std. 113 Rev. 3.95
FE&H Automated
-13Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al. Real Parties in Interest)
will continue until this court enjoins the complained of unlawful conduct and grants other
2 affirmative relief as prayed for herein.

3
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Discrimination in Connection with a Housing Accommodation

(Gov. Code, 12955, subd. (k).)
5
6
62.

8
63.
Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision (k), makes it unlawfiil housing practice
9 to "otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based on discrimination because of ...disability."

10
64.
As alleged herein and in violation of Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision
11
(k), defendants repeatedly failed to maintain a working elevator, and accommodate tenants with
12
disabilities by offering them vacant groundfloorunits.
13
65.
14
disregard of therights,health, safety, and economic condition of the real parties in interest, as
15
defined in Civil Code Section 3294, entitling them to an award of exemplary damages.
16
66.
17
disabilities in the subject property, defendants demonstrated that they will continue to engage in a
18
pattem and practice of unlawfiil housing discrimination that is the subject of this complaint until this
19
Court enjoins them from doing so and orders compliance with the mandates of tlie FEHA.
20
67.
Plaintiff DFEH lacks any plain, speedy, adequate remedy at law to prevent such
21
harm, injury, and loss, which will continue until this court enjoins the complained of unlawful
22
conduct and grants other affirmative relief as prayed for herein.
23
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24
Public Accommodations Discrimination

(Gov. Code, 12955, subd. (d); Gov. Code, 12948; Civ. Code, 51.)
25
26
27
68.
paragraphs 1 through 67, inclusive, as i f fiilly set forth herein.

COURT PAPER
Slate of Califomia
Std. 1t3Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automated
69.
Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision (d), provides that it is unlawfiil "[fjor
2 any person subject to the provisions of section 51 of the Civil Code . . . to discriminate against any
3 person" on any basis protected under the FEHA.
4
70.
Govemment Code section 12948 provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]t is an unlawful
5 practice under this part for a person to deny or to aid, incite, or conspire in the denial of the rights
6 created by Section 5 1 . . . " .
7
71.
Civil Code section 51, subdivision (b), provides: "All persons within the jurisdiction
8 of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their . . . disability, are entitied to the fiill and
9 equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges, or services in all business
10 establishments of every kind, whatsoever."
11
72.
Defendants failed to provide the Real Parties in Interest and other tenants with
12 disabilities with public accommodations by engaging in discrimination based on their disabilities, as

13 described above, in violation of Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision (d), and Civil Code
14 section 51.
15
73.
As a result of defendants' unlawfiil housing practices, each real party in interest
16 incurred economic damages in an amount to be proven at time of frial.

17
74.
As a fiirther and direct result of defendants' unlawfiil housing practices, each real
18 party in interest suffered anxiety,frustration,emotional distress, and injury in an amount to be

19 proven attimeof trial.
20
21
75.
As a fiirther result of the unlawfiil housing practices, real parties in interest suffered
out-of-pocket expenses, including moving costs and medical expenses, in an amount to be proven at
22 time of trial.
23
76.
Defendants' conduct, as set forth above, was malicious, fraudulent or oppressive, or
24 taken in conscious disregard of therights,health, safety, and economic condition of the real parties
25 in interest, as defined in Civil Code Section 3294, entitling them to an award of exemplary damages.
26
77.
27 disabilities in the subject property. Defendants have demonstrated that they will continue to engage
COURT PAPER
State of Califomia
Std. 113 Rev. 3.95
FE&H Automated
in discrimination in public accommodations until this Court enjoins them from doing so and orders
2 compliance with the mandates of the FEHA.

3
78.
4 harm, inj ury, and loss, which will continue until this court enjoins the complained of unlawful
5 conduct and grants other affirmative relief as prayed for herein.
6
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unlawful Housing Practices

(Gov. Code, 12955.1, subd. (a)(2))
8
9
10
79.
The DFEH realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in paragraphs 1 through 78, inclusive, as i f fiilly set forth herein.
11
80.
Govemment Code section 12955.1, subdivision (a)(2), provides in relevant part, that
12
"[a]ll covered multifamily dwellings with a building enfrance on an accessible route shall be
13
designed and constmcted in a manner [that allows] the public and common areas [to be] readily
14
accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.
15
81.
As set forth above and in violation of Govemment Code section 12955.1, subdivision
16
(a)(2), defendants discriminated against the real parties in interest on the basis of their disabilities by
17
failing to properly maintain the subject property's lone elevator, which interfered with the real
18
parties in interest's and other disabled tenants' ability to access the property's public and common
19
areas.
20
82.
Defendants' conduct was malicious, fraudulent or oppressive, or taken in conscious
21
22
23
83.
disabilities in the subject property, defendants demonsfrated that they will continue to engage in a
25
pattem and practice of unlawful housing discrimination that is the subject of this complaint until this
26
Court enjoins them from doing so and orders compliance with the mandates of the FEHA.
27
COURT PAPER
State of Califomia
Std. 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automated
84.
2 harm, injury, and loss, which will continue until this court enjoins the complained of unlawfiil
4
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Blind and Other Physically Disabled Persons Act

(Civil Code, 54 et seq.)
6
7
85.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 84 above,
8 as i f each such allegation was set forth in fiill herein.

9
86.
Califomia's Blind and Other Physically Disabled Persons Act prohibits discrimination
10
against individuals with disabilities. Section 54 of the Califomia Civil Code, subdivision (b)(1),
11
provides, in relevant part, that "[ijndividuals with disabilities shall be entitied to fiill and equal
12
access, as other members ofthe general public, to all housing accommodations offered for rent, lease
13
or compensation . . . ".
14
87.
As set forth above, defendants discriminated against the real parties in interest on the
15
basis of their disabilities by refiising to make reasonable accommodations which were and continue
16
to be necessary in order to afford the real parties in interest equal opportunity to use and enjoy the
17
subject property.
18
88.
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, real parties in interest
19
have suffered and continue to suffer substantial damages, including humiliation, hardship, anxiety,
20
indignity and severe mental and emotional anguish.
21
89.
Defendants' conduct, as set forth above, was malicious,fraudulentor oppressive, or
22
taken in conscious disregard oftherights,health, safety, and economic condition of the real parties
23
in interest, as defined in Civil Code section 3294, entitling them to an award of exemplary damages.
24
90.
25
disabilities in the subject property, defendants have demonsfrated that they will continue to engage
26
in a pattem and practice of unlawful housing discrimination that is the subject of tiiis complaint until
27
this Court enjoins them from doing so and orders compliance with the mandates of the FEHA.
COURT PAPER
State of California
Std. 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automated
91.
2 harm, injury, and loss, which will continue until this court enjoins the complained of unlawful
4
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation
(Gov. Code, 12955, subd. (f))
6
7
92.
The DFEH re-alleges and incorporates, each allegation contained in paragraphs 1
8 through 91, as if fully set forth herein.

9
93.
Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision (f), makes it unlawful for any owner of
10
housing accommodations to harass, evict, or otherwise discriminate against any person . . . when the
11
owner's dominant purpose is retaliation against a person who has opposed [unlawfiil] practices.
12
94.
As set forth above and in violation of Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision
13
(f), defendants retaliated against the real parties in interest for complaining to DFEH and-assisting in
14
the Department's investigation by failing to repair the elevator and, during the elevator's Hmited
15
periods of operation, threatened to tum it off
16
95.
17
18
19
96.
By discriminating against the real parties in interest, in addition to other tenants witii
20
disabilities in the subject property. Defendants demonsfrated that they will continue to engage in a
21
pattem and practice of unlawfiil housing discrimination that is the subject of this complaint until this
22
Court enjoins them from doing so and orders compliance with the mandates of the FEHA.
23
97.
24
harm, injury, and loss, which will continue until this court enjoins the complained of unlawfiil
25
conduct and grants other affirmative relief as prayed for herein.
26
27
COURT PAPER
Stato of Califomia
Std. 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automated
PRAYER FOR R E L I E F
1
2
WHEREFORE, DFEH requests that judgment be entered against defendants Belfort
3 Management, Inc., Josette Bmno, J.J. Rios, and DOES ONE through THIRTY, inclusive, and order
4 them to provide the following relief:
5 On All Causes of Action
6
1.
Enjoin the defendants from discriminating against all current and fiiture tenants at the
7 Belfort Arms building, and all other housing accommodations owned, managed, or operated by
8 Defendzmts Belfort Management, Inc., Josette Bmno, and J.J. Rios, on the basis of a disability or on
9 any other protected basis.
10
2.
11
12
13
Enjoin defendants from failing to reasonably accommodate tenants with disabilities.

a.
Determine which tenants with disabilities want to relocate to ground floor
apartments and effectuate the move at defendants' expense.

3.
Order defendants to ensure full time maintenance and operation of the elevator in the
14
Belfort Arms building in good and safe working order at all times. Maintenance of the elevator(s) to
15
include:
16
a.
Paying all licensing fees to keep the elevator operational; posting the current
17
elevator operating certificate in the elevator; and maintaining a copy of the current elevator operating
18
certificate for inspection by any tenant, member of the public, and govemment official, in the
19
manager's office during regular business hours;
20
21
b.
and operational working condition;
22
23
Making immediate repairs to the elevator when necessary to keep it in a safe
c.
Maintaining a service agreement with an elevator repair service to ensure that
repairs are done promptly.
24
4.
Enjoin defendants from locking or shutting off the elevator in Belfort Arms building.
25
5.
Order Belfort, its officers, directors and managers, including defendants Bruno and
26
Rios, shall forthwith undergo training with a fair housing organization, at their own expense,
27
regarding the duties, responsibilities, obligations, andrightsof an owner and/or managing agent
COURT PAPER
Stato of Califomia
Std. 113 Rov. 3-95
FE&H Automated
-19Dept. Fair Empl. &Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al.. Real Parties in Interest)
under the FEHA and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"):
a.
Order defendants, including its supervisory, management, and lead employees
3 to undergo anti-discrimination fraining, as recognized under the FEHA to include:

4
i.
Maintaining a discrimination-free housing;
ii.
Compliance with the Belfort Arms building's policy statement
prohibiting discrimination.
iii.
Compliance with state and federal law prohibiting housing

discrimination, including regulations implementing such provisions.
6.
Develop and implement a written policy prohibiting disability discrimination in the
10 Belfort Arms building that complies with the FEHA and ADA, and the regulations interpreting and
11
implementing the FEHA and ADA; disseminate such policy to all owners principals, officers,
12 directors, managers, agents, and employees and tenants; develop a complaint procedure for violation
13 of such policy; and provide training on that policy and complaint procedure to all of its owners,
14 principals, officers, directors, managers, agents, and employees within the State of Califomia. This
15 policy shall be printed in both English and Spanish and shall be conspicuously posted at the Belfort
16 Arms building in a public place accessible to all tenants and prospective tenants, and in all housing
17 accommodations owned and/or managed by Defendants Belfort, Josette Bruno, and J.J. Rios. The
18 posting shall include DFEH contact information.
19
7.
Within 10 calendar days ofthe Court's order, post, for a minimum period of three
20 years in a conspicuous place in all housing accommodations owned, managed or operated by

21
defendants Belfort, Josette Bmno, and J.J. Rios, an order stating that defendants have been found in
22 violation ofthe FEHA, and specifying the remedies ordered, and attaching it to all current and fiiture
23 leases.
24
8.
Within 10 calendar days of the Court's order, distribute DFEH pamphlets nos. 157H
25 and 157Hs, and DFEH fact sheet nos. 193H and 193Hs to all tenants and prospective tenants at
26 properties owned, managed or operated by Defendants, and each of them.
27
COURT PAPER
State of Califomia
Std. 113 Rov. 3-95
FE&H Automatod
9.
Within 10 calendar days of the Court's order, post, for a minimum period of three
-20-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Belfort Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al., Real Parties in Interest)
years, in a conspicuous place in all housing accommodations defendants own, manage or operate,
2 the English and Spanish language posters, "Fair Housing: You Are Protected under Califomia Law"
3 (DFEH nos. 157H and DFEH 157Hs) and "Fair Housing Is the Law" (DFEH nos. 164H and DFEH
4
164Hs), available on the DFEH website.
10.
Provide written proof, under penalty of perjury by each defendant, of defendants'
6 compliance with all the requirements of the court's order within 100 calendar days of the effective
7 date of the order.
8
11.
Pay to Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Moore and Mr. Maxwell: (1) their actual and
9 consequential damages and out-of-pocket expenses in an amount according to proof; and (2) their
10
damages suffered from anxiety, fhisfration, emotional disfress, and injury incurred as a result of the
11
discriminatory acts in an amount according to proof, plus 10% interest thereon.
12
13
12.
As to the second cause of action pursuant to Civil Code section 52, for such actual
damages, as may be determined by a jury or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three
14 times the amount of actual damages, or, altematively, statutory damages of no less than $4,000 for
15
each offense, and which is no less than a total of fifty offenses per real party in interest. Tenants A-F
16
and other similarly situated disabled tenants.
17
13.
Pay punitive damages according to proof.
18
14.
Pay the DFEH's costs, including reasonable attomey fees pursuant to Civil Code
19
section 52, subdivision (a), and Govemment Code section 12989.2.
20
15.
Hire a monitor to be supervised by the Court to ensure compliance with the judgment
21
entered in this case for a period of not less than 10 years.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
26
........
///
///
27
COURT PAPER
State of Catifomia
Std. 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automated
16.
For such other relief as the court deems just and proper.
2
3 Dated: June 3, 2015

AND HOUSING
JON M. ICHINAGA
Chief Counsel
5
6
NELSON CHAN
7
8
PAULA PEARLMAN
JULIA MONTGOMERY
10
11
12
By:
Nelson Chan
Attomeys for the Department
13
14
15 JURY DEMAND
16
17
Plaintiff DFEH hereby demands a jury trial in this action.

Dated: June 3, 2015

AND HOUSING
18
19
JON M. ICHINAGA
Chief Counsel
20
NELSON CHAN
21
22
23
By:
-4-
Nelson Chan
Attomeys for the Department
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
State of California
Sld. 113 Rev. 3-95
FE&H Automated
\--.y...,fO^Vll!A^'")

Complaint For Compensatory Damages, Injunctive Relief and Punitive Damages For Housing Discrimation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Complaint For Compensatory Damages, Injunctive Relief and Punitive Damages For Housing Discrimation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FOL[SE)

JON M. ICHINAGA (#137290)

9 (Fee Exempt, Gov. Code, 6103)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

14 AND HOUSING, an agency ofthe State of

BELFORT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Califomia

18 corporation; JOSETTE BRUNO, an individual;

COMPLAINT FOR COMPENSATORY

UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ("DFEH"), alleges

27 the following against defendants BELFORT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Califomia corporation,

retaliation based on their complaints of discrimination

aggrieved by discriminatory housing practices. DFEH's enforcement of the FEHA is in furtherance

discrimination in housing because of, inter alia, disability.

Defendant Belfort Management, Inc. (Belfort) is an active Califomia corporation, and

Defendant Josette Bruno (Bmno), an individual, was an on-site property manager of

16 residing at the subject property.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND VENUE

The DFEH re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in

19 paragraphs 1 through 9, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.

business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

Operation of the subject property is also govemed by Govemment Code section

litigation. (Gov. Code, 12965, subd. (a) & 12963.7.)

DFEH realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in

5 paragraphs 1 through 18, inclusive.

The subject property is a sixty unit, three-story apartment building with

cannot afford to live elsewhere.

elevator to access their units or to enter or leave the building.

inviting their disabled guests to the subject property.

9 Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Maxwell to a ground floor apartment.

24 either inoperable or unavailable for use for significant lengths of time.

12 Hubbard that he would be "moving that day."

2 elevator was made operational.

detached when used by tenants walking up and down the stairwell.

Ms. Moore continues to live in-a ground floor unit.

disabilities were adversely affected by the subject property's non-operational elevator.

Other Tenants with Disabilities^

12 his unit because ofthe lack of a functioning elevator.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Discrimination in Connection with a Housing Accommodation

The DFEH realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in

22 paragraphs 1 through 54, inclusive.

It is imlawful for "the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against.

"In order to establish discrimination based on a refusal to provide reasonable accommodations, a

As a result of defendants' unlawfiil housing practices, each real party ih interest

15 incurred economic dainages in an amount to be proven at time of trial.

Defendants' conduct was malicious,fraudulentor oppressive, or taken in conscious

2 affirmative relief as prayed for herein.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Discrimination in Connection with a Housing Accommodation

The DFEH realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in

7 paragraphs 1 through 61, inclusive.

9 to "otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based on discrimination because of ...disability."

As alleged herein and in violation of Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision

disabilities by offering them vacant groundfloorunits.

Defendants' conduct was malicious,fraudulentor oppressive, or taken in conscious

conduct and grants other affirmative relief as prayed for herein.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Public Accommodations Discrimination

[Against All Defendants]

The DFEH realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in