Bed Bug Infested Apartment Case

This is the lawsuit filed by Mitra Azizi and Kazem Sanikhatam over a bed bug infestation. Mitra was taking care of her 90 year old father Kazem who had been bitten by bed bugs. Azizi accused the apartment complex for the infestation.

The apartment complex used heat treatment to exterminate the bed bugs and claimed that it cost $3,040.00 to treat his unit.

The apartment complex claimed that they did not cause or bring about the bed bugs in Mr Sanikhatam’s unit.

A Settlement Conference was held before Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar on May 25, 2016 and a settlement was reached.

Below are details about the case (initial complaint) which I converted to an easy to read format; I also did the same for the docket, but please keep in mind that although I have tried to correct any mistakes, the conversion process is not full-proof and may have errors and omissions. Do not rely on the information below, but rather the official records available from the Central District Of California (Western Division – Los Angeles) in case number 2:15-cv-07613-RGK-AS.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiffs MITRA AZIZI and KAZEM SANIKHATAM,

V.

Defendants LAS SERENAS SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership; USA LAS SERENAS, INC., a California Corporation; USA MULTIFAMILY MANAGEMENT, INC., a California Corporation; USA MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES I through 20 inclusive.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING PRACTICES DIRECTED AT PLAINTIFFS ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY AND MEDICAL CONDITION AND IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING LAWS

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST A TRIAL BY JURY

COME NOW PLAfNTIFFS MITRA AZIZI and KAZEM SANIKHATAM (PLAINTIFFS) and pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, set forth the following allegations in support of their claims for relief in this action:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. PLAINTIFFS bring this action to enforce the provisions of the State of California and federal fair housing laws, including but not limited to the provisions of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act), as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794; laws and statutes of the State of California, especially Civil Code § 51, et seq. (The Unruh Civil Rights Act); and California Government Code § 12900, et seq., commonly known as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 3612(0) and 3614. The venue of this action is properly in the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. 3612(0) as · Defendants are located in this judicial district and the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in this judicial district.

PLAINTIFFS

3. PLAINTIFF MITRA AZIZI is now, and has at all times herein mentioned been an adult American citizen and resident of Los Angeles County, State of California.

4. PLAINTIFF KAZEM SANIKHATAM is now, and has at all times herein mentioned, been an American citizen and resident of Ventura County, State of California.

5. PLAINTIFF KAZEM SANIKHATAM is the 90 year old father of PLAINTIFF MITRA AZIZI.

6. PLAINTIFF MITRA AZIZI is “associated with” PLAINTIFF KAZEM SANJKHATAM within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)( c ).

DEFENDANTS

7. Built in 1995, DEFENDANT LAS SERE JAS SENIOR APARTMENTS, LP, is now, and was at all times herein mentioned, a California limited partnership that owns the 108-unit senior affordable housing real property built on a 2.88 acre site located at 2090 Yosemite Avenue, Simi Valley, California 93063 (hereinafter referred to and wherever appropriate as the “SUBJECT PROPERTY”).

8. DEFENDANT USA LAS SERENAS, INC., is the general partner of DEFENDANT LAS SERENAS SENIOR APARTMENTS, LP, and a California corporation that does business in the Central District of California.

9. At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, DEFENDANT USA MULTIFAMILY MANAGEMENT, INC. was and is a California corporation engaged in the operation, management and rentals of multifamily dwellings in the State of California, including the SUBJECT PROPERTY.

10. At all times relevant to the allegations contained herein, DEFENDANT USA MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, INC. was and is a California corporation engaged in the operation, management and rentals of multifamily dwellings in the State of California, including the SUBJECT PROPERTY.

11. PLAINTIFFS are informed, and based upon such information believe that DEFENDANTS, LAS SERENAS SENIOR APARTMENTS, L.P., USA LAS SERENAS, INC., USA MULTIFAMILY MANAGEMENT, INC., and USA MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, INC receive state and federal funding and benefits, including but not limited to low-income housing tax credits and tax-exempt bonds in connection with their ownership, management and rental of the SUBJECT PROPERTY.

12. PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM has resided in unit 228 of the SUBJECT PROPERTY since approximately April of 2005.

13. LAS SERENAS SENIOR APARTMENTS is a “dwelling” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b) 5269707065642066726f6d204c6177737569747352657669657765642e636f6d

14. PLAINTIFFS are informed, and based upon such information, believe that business entity and individual DEFENDANTS whose identities are presently unascertained are residents within the Central District of California and are related to the corporate DEFENDANTS in a partnership, agency, joint venture, supervisorial, and management capacity.

15. PLAINTIFFS are ignorant of the true names and capacities of certain parties who may later be identified as proper parties to this action and PLAINTIFFS pray leave of this court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained pursuant to the provisions of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

16. PLAINTIFFS are informed and based upon such information believe that each of the DEFENDANTS named herein gave consent to ratified, and authorized the acts alleged herein as to each of the remaining DEFENDANTS.

17. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times hereto mentioned, unless specifically otherwise alleged, the DEFENDANTS and their agents and servants employed each of the remaining DEFENDANTS and were at all times relevant hereto acting within the scope of their authority as such agent, servant and employee and with the permission and consent of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS, or in the alternative, acted individually for their personal advantage and conspired to do the acts alleged herein, and that PLAINTIFFS’ damages were proximately caused by said DEFENDANTS.

18. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege, that there exists, at all times herein mentioned, there existed a unity of interest between all the DEFENDANTS such that any individuality, and separateness between each of said DEFENDANTS, and each of the remaining of said DEFENDANTS, has ceased.

19. PLAINTIFF SANIKHA TAM has been diagnosed with several ailments, including but not limited to coronary artery disease, macular degeneration, cardiopulmonary disease, ongoing rhythm problems, congestive heart failure, hypertension, mitral valve disorder, heart block, palpitations, aortic regurgitation, and a chronic skin condition. PLAINTIFF has suffered from most of these ailments for many years.

20. In July 2006, PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM underwent coronary artery bypass surgery.

21. PLAINTIFF SANJKHATAM’S advanced age, disability and handicap substantially limits him from performing most major life activities.

22. He is not able to care for himself or perform activities such as walking or moving around without the help of a walker or wheelchair, seeing, hearing, preparing his meals and performing manual tasks. He is also easily fatigued.

23. As a result of these ailments, disabilities and medical conditions, PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM has also become severely depressed.

24. PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM (a) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of his major life activities; (b) has a record of having such an impairment, and (3) is regarded as having such an impairment.

25. PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM is thus a handicapped person within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h).

26. PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S doctors have recommended that be be constantly supervised and care for.

27. As a result of PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S needs and the doctor’s instructions, his daughter and co-PLAINTIFF, MITRA AZIZI, embarked on a schedule to ensure that his needs were and continue to be fully met.

28. PLAINTIFF AZIZI assists her father with most of his major life activities, including but not limited to: eating, taking care of his personal hygiene, doctors’ appointments, moving from one place to another, and cleaning bis apartment.

29. PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM moved into the SUBJECT PROPERTY in April 2005. Since then, he has not had visitors other than his family (his daughter, PLAINTIFF AZIZI, and occasionally his son-in-law and two grandchildren).

30. PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S fixed and sole source of income is his social security benefits.

31. PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM is also a recipient of the federal government funded Section 8 housing assistance.

32. PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S Section 8 housing assistance comes primarily in the form of rental subsidies, which in his case, is paid directly to his landlord, DEFENDANT LAS SERENAS SENIOR APARTMENTS, LP.

33. Based on his total annual income of $10,668.00, PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM pays the sum of $212 which constitutes the difference between the actual rent charged by DEFENDANTS and the amount subsidized by the program.

34. DEFENDANTS and their agents, including RUBEN AYDINYAN, Community Manager of LAS SERENAS APARTMENTS and ALLA SUZDALTSEV, Manager of USA MULTIFAMILY, have been advised and are aware of PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S age, disabilities and medical condition.

35. Sometime in March 2015, PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM informed his daughter PLAINTIFF AZIZI that his body was itching.

36. Upon inspection of her father’s body, PLAINTIFF AZIZI observed that he had rashes all over.

37. PLAINTIFF AZIZI took PLAINTIFF SANIKHAT AM to the dermatologist who treated him for allergies and advised him to wait for two weeks for results.

38. A few weeks after his visit to the dermatologist, PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’s condition did not improve and he continued to suffer from what appeared to be an allergy.

39. PLAINTIFFS became very concerned because the allergies became worse.

40. Shortly thereafter, PLAINTIFF AZIZI observed a bug on her father’s bedroom wall. She then took the initiative and performed a thorough inspection of the room and realized that there was an infestation of bugs in his bed, the carpet and in other places.

41. As soon as PLAINTIFF AZIZI observed and noticed the insect infestation, she notified management about it.

42. Two days later AZIZI notified management about the insect infestation, management sent someone out to physically inspect PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S, at which point it was determined that the bugs present in his room were bedbugs.

43. At all relevant times to this action and throughout PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S tenancy at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, DEFENDANTS failed to make reasonable effort to regularly ( or to ever other than after notification by AZIZI) inspect PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S unit for such issues as insect/pest control.

44. Moreover, throughout his almost decade-long tenancy at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, DEFENDANTS have never had the carpet in PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S apartment cleaned or replace(

45. As a result of the bedbug infestation, which was not caused or brought on by PLAINTIFFS, SANIKHA TAM suffered from numerous bites and severe skin rashes on bis body, sleepless nights, severe depression, anxiety, sadness, and other pain and suffering.

46. At all relevant times to this action, PLAINTIFF AZIZI pleaded with management to take care of the infestation immediately because her father was having problems sleeping at night due to the bedbug bites.

47. The manager subsequently informed PLAINTIFF AZIZI that she would look into the matter and get back to AZIZI.

48. DEFENDANTS then notified PLAINTIFFS that they would perform a chemical treatment on the apartment,

49. PLAINTIFF AZIZI was concerned about a chemical-based extermination process since she is aware that any contact with chemicals would be extremely dangerous or even lethal to her father who has also been diagnosed with chemical insensitivity.

50. As evidence of her father’s disability/handicap and sensitivity to chemicals, PLAINTIFF AZIZI obtained letters from his cardiologist and dermatologist which letters she sent by certified U.S. Mail to DEFENDANTS, thus putting them on notice about PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S disability/handicap.

51. For instance, in a letter dated April 29, 2015. PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S cardiologist, DR. KEVIN ARIAN!, MD, FACP, FACC, FSCAI, Associate Professor of UCLA Geffen School of Medicine, noted in a letter dated April 29, 2015:

“[KAZEM SANIKHA TAM] is suffering from chronic skin condition and has extremely sensitive skin. As well he suffering from cardiopulmonary disease and ongoing rhythm problems. It is completely contraindicated for him to be in contact or in the vicinity of fumes and chemicals and fumes and fumigation materials. Should you need any additional information or if you wish to contact me in this regard please contact me at the above address.”

52. Moreover, in another letter dated April 30, 2015, PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S dermatologist, ROBERT HARTMAN, MD, advised:

“Kazem Sanikhatam was seen in my office on March 28, 2015. Due to his skin condition, he should not be subjected to any chemicals in his home.”

53. PLAINTIFF AZIZI provided these two letters to DEFENDANTS, along with a written request for reasonable accommodation for DEFENDANTS to exterminate her father’s apartment utilizing a heating treatment as opposed to spraying chemicals in his unit.

54. Sometime around April 30, 2015, DEFENDANTS provided PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM with a single-page document which noted in pertinent part:

“Heat treatment for bedbugs due to chronic skin condition. Management currently does chemical treatments for bed bugs; therefore, any additional costs associated with this request will be at resident’s expense.”

55. In spite of the doctors’ notes and without engaging in any meaningful interactive process, DEFENDANTS continued to insist that PLAINTIFF SANIKHAT AM pay for the bulk of the heat treatment.

56. In response to this letter, DEFENDANTS ‘ agent and Manager/Regional Supervisor, ALLA SUZDALTSEV, sent an email message, dated May 4, 2015, to PLAINTIFF AZIZI:

“Please note that no where in the lease does it states (sic) that Landlord is responsible for the cost associated with bed bugs (sic) treatment. Nevertheless, as a customer service to our clients we provide one regular ( chemical spray) complementary treatment of $450 free of charge. Per your request, Mr. Sankhatam {sic) was approved for heat treatment and is responsible for all additional cost (sic) in access (sic) of our $450.00 treatment. As stated in the Lease Agreement it is Resident’s responsibility to maintain unit clean and report any signs of bedbugs immediately …. “

57. DEFENDANTS further informed PLAINTIFFS that if PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM did not pay for the treatment nothing would be done to eradicate the bed bug infestation.

58. In or about early May 2015 , DEFENDANTS had PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S unit exterminated by heat treatment.

59. Subsequently and in a letter dated July 15, 2015, DEFENDANT LAS SERENAS APARTMENTS ‘ Community Manager, RUBEN AYDINYAN, noted:

“Dear Mr. Sankhatam (sic):

We have received all invoices associated with the Heat Treatment for Bed Bugs in your unit. The total cost was $3,040.00 (Attached for your records). The regular treatment of the unit is $450.00 and is credited toward your balance. You are responsible for $2,590.00 payable to Las Serenas Apartments. Please submit your payment by the end of business day on July 21 , 2015.

Sincerely,

Rubin Aydinyan
Community Manager”

At all relevant times to this action and two months after the heat treatment was done, DEFENDANTS sent a bill to PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM in the sum of $2,590 which amount purportedly included the additional cost of turning off all the sprinklers at the SUBJECT PROPERTY.

DEFENDANTS continued to insist on their unwavering position that because it was PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S choice that the heating treatment be employed, he was obligated to assume the cost of said treatment in addition to the cost of disconnecting all the sprinklers at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, the latter cost of which was only made known to PLAINTIFFS after the heat treatment was completed.

Upon receipt of MS. SUZDALTSEV’S email and MR. RUBIN AYDINYAN’S letter, PLAINTIFF AZIZI reiterated the fact, in writing and orally, that her father is disabled and the heat treatment was the reasonable accommodation that PLAINTIFFS were seeking pursuant to state and federal laws.

PLAINTIFF AZIZI continued to plead with DEFENDANTS to engage in an interactive process to reconsider their position, and to provide all necessary and reasonable accommodation for PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM as a result of his medical condition and disability.

PLAINTIFF AZIZI’S pleas were nonetheless ignored.

65. DEFENDANTS and their agents, including MS. SUZDALTSEV failed and refused to engage in an interactive process with PLAI TIFFS to figure out a solution or alternative to the exorbitant cost of the heat treatment.

66. On or about September 1, 2015, PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM made a rent payment of $212 – the total sum of his portion.

67. Shortly thereafter, on or about September 4, 2015, DEFENDANTS posted two single page documents entitled, “THREE-DAY NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT” on PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S door which notices were posted for all to see.

68. The two notices each advised, in relevant part:

“THREE-DAY NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT
TO: Kazem Sanikhatam ….
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the rent has not been paid for the below described premises and is due and unpaid in the sum of $212 …. for the rental period from 09/01/2015 through 09/30/2015.

WITHIN THREE DAYS of the date of service of this Notice upon you, you are required to pay said rent or, in the alternative, to quit and deliver up possession of said premises.

SHOULD YOU FAIL to pay the rent or to deliver up possession of said premises within said three day period, your landlord will institute legal proceedings to evict you from said premises, to declare a forfeiture of the lease or rental agreement by which you hold possession of said premises, and to recover all unpaid rent, unlawful detainer, damages, attorney’s fees , and Court costs, as allowed by law, plus Owner/ Agent may seek to recover additional punitive award of six hundred dollars ($600) in accordance with California law for such unlawful detainer.

As required by law, you are hereby notified that a negative credit repoii reflecting on your credit history may be submitted to a credit reporting agency if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations …. .

SAID PREMISES ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LAS SERENAS SENIOR APARTMENTS
2090 YOSEMITE A VE. #228
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93603”

69. At all relvant times to this action, PLAINTIFF SANIKHA TAM also received correspondence from DEFENDANTS ‘ attorneys ordering them to pay for the heat treatment or face eviction.

70. DEFENDANTS delivered more copies of the same notice to pay or quit described above and in the same fashion as the previous one -taped to PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’ S door for all to see.

71. By this action, PLAINTIFFS seek, among other relief: (a) that DEFENDANTS be ordered to cease and desist the service, on PLAINTIFF SANIKHA TAM, of notices to pay or quit, or other notices that threaten to evict PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM from the SUBJECT PROPERTY based on his purported failure to pay rent or in retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodation; (b) that DEFENDANTS be enjoined from assessing PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM the sum of $2,590 for the extermination, by heat treatment, of the bedbug infestation in his unit at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, ( c) that DEFENDANTS be ordered to deem the $212.00 paid by PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM as rental payments for September 2015; and (d) that DEFENDANTS cease and desist from initiating an Unlawful Detainer Action against PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM.

72. By making the requests and pleas set forth above, PLAINTIFFS sought reasonable accommodation that were reasonable and necessary, on account of PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S disability/handicap, to afford him equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

73. Through the foregoing actions, DEFENDANTS have:

(a) Discriminated in the rental, or otherwise made unavailable or denied, a dwelling to PLAINTIFFS because of handicap, in violation of42 U.S.C. § 3604(£)(1 )(A);

(b) Discriminated against PLAINTIFFS in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of handicap, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604, et seq;

(c) Refused to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, which were necessary to afford PLAINTIFF SANlKHATAM an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

74. At all relevant times to this action, DEFENDANTS through their above­ referenced actions, have coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed any right granted or protected by applicable fair housing laws of the State of California and the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617.

75. PLAINTIFFS are “aggrieved person[s]” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(I). 5269707065642066726f6d204c6177737569747352657669657765642e636f6d

76. As a result of DEFENDANTS’ unlawful conduct, PLAINTIFFS suffered damages including, but not limited to, emotional damages, pain and suffering, damage to their body and mind, and economic loss.

77. The discriminatory actions of the DEFENDANTS were intentional, willful, and taken in disregard of the State of California and federally protected rights of PLAINTIFFS.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHTS UNDER TITLE VIII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1968, AS AMENDED, AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS

78. PLAINTIFFS incorporate by this reference all of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, and by this reference incorporate said allegations as part of this FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION.

70. Pursuant to the provisions of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended and set forth in Title 42 of the United States Code, § 3604, et seq., PLAINTIFFS may not be denied the same benefits of full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services as a resident at the SUBJECT PROPERTY because of PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S handicap.

80. DEFENDANTS, by and through a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination, have violated the Fair Housing Act in that they injured PLAINTIFFS by engaging in discriminatory housing practices.

81. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them, PLAINTIFFS were injured in their health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to their bodies, and shock and injury to their nervous system and person, including injuries of severe pain and mental anguish. These injuries will result in some permanent disability to PLAINTIFFS.

82. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them, as herein alleged, PLAINTIFFS have included, and will incur, further medical and incidental expenses for the care and treatment of these injuries, the exact amount of which will be determined at the time of trial.

83. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them, as herein alleged, PLAINTIFF AZIZI has been, and will continue to be, prevented from attending to her usual occupation, and the amount of earnings which will be lost to PLAINTIFF AZTZI will be determined during trial.

84. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, PLAINTIFFS have suffered great damage to their reputation and embarrassment in their community, all to their damage in the sum of money over the jurisdictional minimum of this court.

85. The acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them as herein alleged, were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and justify the awarding of punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT UNLAWFUL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION (Cal. Gov. Code § 12955, et seq.)

86. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein in this SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION.

87. PLAINTIFFS are aggrieved persons as defined in Cal.Gov.Code§ 12927(g), in that he claims injury as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory housing practices.

88. Through DEFENDANTS’ above-referenced conduct as alleged herein, DEFENDANTS have violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code§§ 12926-95, including but not limited to discriminating against PLAINTIFFS.

The DEFENDANTS’ treatment of PLAINTIFFS in refusing to provide them with the same advantages, privileges, or services, and in imposing additional terms and conditions related to PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S residency at the SUBJECT PROPERTY are discriminatory because it is based on PLAINTIFF SANIKHATAM’S disability.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS ,and each of them, PLAINTIFFS were injured in their health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to their body, and shock and injury to their nervous system and persons, including injuries of severe pain and mental anguish. These injuries will result in some permanent disability to PLAINTIFFS.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them, as herein alleged, PLAINTIFFS have incurred, and will incur, further medical and incidental expenses for the care and treatment of these injuries, the exact amount of which will be determined at the time of trial.

As a further direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them, as herein alleged, PLAINTIFF AZIZI has been, and will continue to be, prevented from attending to her usual occupation, and the amount of earnings which will be lost to PLAINTIFF AZIZI will be determined during trial.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, PLAINTIFFS have suffered great damage to their reputation and embarrassment in their community, all to their damage in the sum of money over the jurisdictional minimum of this court.

94. The acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them as herein alleged, were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and justify the awarding of punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS (Cal. Civil Code § 51 et seq.)

95. PLAINTIFFS incorporate by this reference all of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, and by this reference incorporate said allegations as part of this THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION.

96. DEFENDANTS owned, operated and managed the SUBJECT PROPERTY, which is a business establishment under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

97. DEFENDANTS’ acts and omissions described herein constitute discriminatory practices in violation of Cal. Civil Code § 51, et seq.

98. Specifically, DEFENDANTS’ treatment of PLAINTIFFS in refusing to provide them with the same advantages, privileges, or services, and in imposing additional terms and conditions related to his residency at the SUBJECT PROPERTY are discriminatory because it is based on PLAINTIFF’s disability.

99. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them, PLAINTIFFS were injured in their health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to their body, and shock and injury to their nervous system and persons, including injuries of severe pain and mental anguish. These injuries will result in some permanent disability to PLAINTIFFS.

100. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them, as herein alleged, PLAINTIFFS have incurred, and will incur, further medical and incidental expenses for the care and treatment of these injuries, the exact amount of which will be determined at the time of trial.

101. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them, as herein alleged, PLAINTIFF AZIZI has been, and will continue to be, prevented from attending to her usual occupation, and the amount of earnings which will be lost to PLAINTIFF AZIZI will be determined during trial.

102. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all of the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, PLAINTIFFS have suffered great damage to their reputation and embarrassment in their community, all to his damage in the sum of money over the jurisdictional minimum of this court.

103. The acts of all of the DEFENDANTS and each of them as herein alleged, were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and justify the awarding of punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

104. PLAINTIFFS demand a trial by jury on all issues triable of right by a jury under the Constitution, and laws of the United States of America.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray that this Court:

1. Declare that the conduct of DEFENDANTS as set forth above violates the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.

2. Enter an injunction against DEFENDANTS, their agents, employees and successors, and all other persons or entities in active concert or participation with any of them, from discriminating on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq. and the applicable laws of the State of California.

3. A ward monetary damages and such other damages in a sum equal to the total damages shown by the evidence presented herein at the time of trial.

4. Award exemplary damages against the DEFENDANTS herein in an amount in excess of $500,000.00 pursuant to the provisions of law;

5. Award PLAINTIFFS their costs, including attorney fees, expert fees and costs in an amount to be determined based upon the evidence presented at the time of trial.

6. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted:
Dated: September 28, 2015

Law Offices of ODION OKOJIE
ODION L. OKOJIE, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mitra Azizi and Kazem Sanikhatam