Ethan Frome

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

__________________________________________________________________________________________________-5-COMPLAINTMOTAZ M. GERGES, SBN 202175LAW OFFICES OF MOTAZ M. GERGES21550 OXNARD STREET, SUITE 300WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367PHONE: 818-279-2749FAX: 818-401-0711EMAIL: mgerges@aol.com

Attorneys for PlaintiffsAbdullah Abed and Diana Abed

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHWEST JUDICIAL DISTRICTVAN NUYS COURTHOUSE

ABDULLAH ABED AND DIANA ABED

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

MICHAEL STEVENSON, and DOES 1 TO 4, inclusive,

DEFENDANT.)))))))))))

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF LEASE AND RENT

INTRODUCTIONCOME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, the Law Office of Motaz M. Gerges, and to show the Court the following:Plaintiffs, Abdullah Abed and Diana Abed(hereinafter Abed), are individuals and are now and at all times mentioned in this complaint were, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.Plaintiffs are now and at all times mentioned in this complaint were, the owner of the single family resident located at 5015 Escobedo Drive, Woodland Hills CA 91364, (the Subject Property).Defendant, Michael Stevenson (Stevenson), is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, individual residing in Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiffs do not know the true name of defendants DOES 1 through 4, and therefore sue them by those fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of that information and belief allege, that each of those defendants was in some manner legally responsible for the events and happenings alleged in this complaint and for plaintiffs damages. The names, capacities and relationships of DOES 1 through will be alleged by amendment to this complaint when they are known.

JURISDICTION AND VENUEThis Court has proper jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 410.10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The violations of law complained of herein occurred in this county. Furthermore, the amounts in controversy exceed the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.Venue is proper in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 395 and 395.5.

CAUSE OF ACTIONBreach of ContractOn or about May 4, 2010, plaintiffs and defendant entered into a written lease for the premises described in paragraph 2, under the terms of which plaintiffs leased the premises to defendant for the term of One Year (1) at the agreed monthly rent of Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500.00) payable in advance on the first day of each month commencing on May 10, 2010 and terminating on May 10, 2011. A copy of the lease agreement is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated by reference.Defendant entered into possession of the premises on May 10, 2010, and paid the monthly rent pursuant to the lease terms from May 10, 2010 to May 31, 2010.Defendants failed to pay plaintiffs the monthly rent on October 1, 2010, and have failed to pay to plaintiff any part of the rent owing on or becoming due since that date. Further, on or October 17, 2010, without plaintiffs consent or agreement, and contrary to the term of the lease, defendant vacated and abandoned the premises.The lease described in paragraph 2 and attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1 specifically provides in section 35 that even though defendant has breached the lease and abandoned the property, the lease will continue in effect for so long as plaintiff does not terminate the defendants' rights to possession, and that plaintiff may enforce all plaintiffs rights and remedies under the lease, including the right to recover rent as it becomes due under the lease.Plaintiffs have not terminated defendant's rights to possession of the premises nor have plaintiffs terminated the lease.Plaintiffs have continued to perform all obligations and covenants plaintiffs are obligated to perform under the lease.Since October 1, 2010, defendant has failed to pay rent due and owing under the terms of the lease. And has abounded the Subject Property by leaving the premises over night without first informing Plaintiffs. As a proximate result of defendant's failure to pay rent plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of $10,762.50 which represents rent due and owing for the period October 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010, plus interest on that amount calculated at the legal rate.Additionally, Plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of $260.00 for wood blind repair and restring. Also Plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of $6,432.00 for repair and replacement of carpet in master Bedroom and 2nd bedroom including tax in the amount of $627.00.Furthermore, Plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of $2,864.00 by way of removal of Landlords Property more specifically, the Pioneer Elite Plasma Television that was installed in the Living Room, and Samsung Plasma Television in the amount of $1,685.00, in accordance with Paragraph 12, of the Lease Agreement.Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled for the actual cost of recovery of damages in restoration of the Subject Property to rental condition, advertising and net loss incurred in the amount of $1,500.00, in accordance with Paragraph 35 of the lease. Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of attorneys fees and court costs in accordance with paragraph 20 of the lease provision providing for recovery of attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request the court enter a judgment against defendant Michael Stevenson, awarding plaintiffs:Rent in the amount of $3,500, representing rent due for the periods of October 1, 2010, to January 31, 2011, in the amount of $10,500.00; and interest on this amount calculated at the legal rate;Pre judgment interest on the rent amount at the legal rate beginning October 1, 2010;For actual damages of replacement of carpet and wood blind including tax for the sum of $7,319.00;For the cost of replacement of Pioneer Elite Plasma and Samsung Plasma Televisions in the sum of $4,549.00;For reasonable attorneys fees;For the Costs of this suit; andAny other and further relief the court considers proper.

DATED: March 25, 2011LAW OFFICES OF MOTAZ M. GERGES

___________________________Motaz M. Gerges, Esq.Attorneys for Plaintiffs