Complaint for compensatory damages, injunctive relief and punitive damages for housing discrimation

7/23/2019 Complaint for compensatory damages, injunctive relief and punitive damages for housing discrimation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-for-compensatory-damages-injunctive-relief-and-punitive-damages 1/23

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

State of Colifornia

Std,

113 Rev. 3-95

FE H

Automatod

FOL[SE)

B>L ., LOspMH

JON

M .

ICHINAGA

(#137290)

Chief

Counsel

NELSON CHAN (#109272)

Associate Chief Counsel

PAULA PEARLMAN (#109038)

Senior

Staff Counsel

JULIA

MONTGOMERY

(#184083)

Senior Staff

Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT

A N D HOUSING

2218

Kausen

Drive, Suite 100

Elk Grove,

CA

95758

Telephone: (916)478-7251

Facsimile:

(888) 382-5293

Attomeys for Plaintiff, DFEH

(Fee

Exempt,

Gov. Code, § 6103)

IN

T H E

S U P E R I O R C O U R T

OF T H E S T A T E OF

C A L I F O R N I A

IN AND

F O R

T H E C O U N T Y OF

S A C R A M E N T O

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT

A N D HOUSING, an

agency

ofthe

State of

Califomia,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BELFORT M A N A G E M E N T , INC., a Califomia

corporation; JOSETTE

BRUNO, an individual;

J.J. RIOS, an individual; and DOES ONE

through

THIRTY, inclusive.

Defendants.

STANLEY HUBBARD, ETHEL MOORE-

SILVERA,

JESSE M A X W E L L, and all other

similarly situated individuals,

Real Parties in Interest.

Case No.

C O M P L A I N T FOR C O M P E N S A T O R Y

D A M A G E S I N J U N C T I V E R E L I E F

AND

P U N I T I V E

D A M A G E S

F O R

H O U S I N G

D I S C R I M I N A T I O N

[Gov.

Code,

§

12955, subds.

(a) & (d); Civ.

Code, § 51 et seq.]

U N L I M I T E D

C I V I L

J U R I S D IC T I O N

(More than

25,000)

J U R Y T R I A L D E M A N D E D

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

the following

against defendants

BELFORT M A N AG EM E N T, INC., a Califomia corporation,

- 1 -

Dept. 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



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

State

of

Califomta

Std. 113 Rov. 3*05

FE H Automatod

JOSETTE BRUNO, an individual, J.J. RIOS, an individual, and DOES O NE through

THIRTY,

inclusive, on behalf of Real Parties in Interest STANLEY H U B B A R D , ETHEL

MOORE-

SILVERA,

and

JESSE M A X W E LL

(real parties in interest) and all other

similarly

situated current

and

future

tenants

with

disabilities

at the real property that is the subject

o f this

action.'

P R E L I M I N A R Y

S T A T E M E N T

1. The State of

Califomia,

Department of Fair Employment and Housing brings this

case to address defendants' conduct related to the management of their apartment building.

Defendant Belfort Management, Inc., systematically and intentionally fails to accommodate tenants

with

disabilities and their guests by : (1)

failing

to ensure that the elevator in the

building

is regularly

operable; (2)

failing

to provide

tenants

who make

reasonable

accommodation requests for ground

level

apartments in order to

avoid

being trapped in upper

level

apartments because the elevator is

chronically and regularly not working; and (3) limiting

access

to the apartment building's elevator

by restricting access to the key that is required to operate the elevator. This case is brought to redress

this

disability

discrimination in violation of

Califomia

law and to ensure that real parties in interest

and other current or future

tenants

are not subjected to the

same illegal

practices,

including

retaliation

based on their complaints of

discrimination

P A R T I E S

2. Plaintiff DFEH is the Califomia

state

agency charged with enforcing the Fair

Employment and Housing A ct

(FEHA),

Govemment Code, sections 12900 et seq., and is authorized

by section 12981 to

file

civil complaints in its own

name

and on behalf of

real

parties in interest

aggrieved by discriminatory housing practices. DFEH's enforcement of the

FEHA

is in furtherance

of the public

policy

of the State of

Califomia

to protect the civil rights of Califomians and to end

discrimination in housing because of, inter alia,

disability.

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

^ A l l

further

statutory references shall be to tlie Govemment Code unless otherwise noted.

-2 -

Dept.

Fair

Empl.

& Hous. v.

Belfort

Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al, Real Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

for

Compensatory Damages,

Injunctive Relief,

and

Punitive

Damages fo r Housing Discrimination



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

Stato

of

Califomia

S ld . 113 Rev. 3-05

FE H Automatod

Belfort Arms Apartments, a three-story apartment building with approximately sixty (60) units

located at 3541

Whitney

Avenue,

Sacramento, Califomia

(the subject property). Real parties in

interest are each persons with a physical

disability,

as recognized by the FEHA. Specifically,

Govemment

Code

section 12926, subdivision

(m)(l) ,

holds,

in

pertinent part, that a physical

disability is a "physiological

disease,

disorder, condition . . . that. . . [ajffects one or more o f the

following

body

systems:

neurological... musculoskeletal, special sense

organs

[and] [IJimits a

major

life activit}' . . . ." Each real party is a "person"

within

the meaning of the FEHA, section

12927, subdivision (f), and 12955, subdivisions (a) and (d), and are "aggrieved persons" within the

meaning of

sections

12927, subdivision (g), and 12980, subdivision (a).

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

pursuant to

sections

12927, subdivision (e), and 12955, subdivision (a), as

well

as a "person"

within

the meaning of sections 12927, subdivision (f), 12948, and 12955, subdivisions (c) and (d). Belfort

is a

"business

establishment" within the meaning of the Unruh

Civil

Rights A ct (Unruh

Act), Civil

Code section 51 et seq. Upon

information

and belief, Belfort

Management,

Inc. is the successor in

interest of Belfort Arms Apartments, Inc.

5. Defendant Josette Bruno

(Bmno),

an

individual,

was an on-site property

manager o f

the subject property during the relevant time period. At

all

times relevant to this complaint, Bruno

was a "managing agent" and thus, an "owner" of

a

housing accommodation pursuant to sections

12927, subdivision (e), and 12955, subdivision (a), as well as a "person" within the meaning of

sections

12927, subdivision

(f),

12948, and 12955, subdivisions (c) and (d).

6. Defendant J.J. Rios (Rios), an individual, is now and was the on-site property

manager

o f the subject property

during

the relevant

time period.

At

all

times relevant to this

complaint, Rios was a "managing

agent"

and thus; an "owner" of a housing accommodation

pursuant to

sections

12927, subdivision (e), and 12955, subdivision (a), as

well

as a "person"

within

the meaning of sections 12927, subdivision (f), 12948, and 12955, subdivisions (c) and (d).

-3 -

Dept. Fair

Empl.

&

Hous.

v.

Belfort

Management,

Inc.

{Hubbard,

et

al.,

Real

Parties

in Interest)

Complaint

for

Compensatory

Damages, Injunctive

Relief, and Punitive

Damages for Housing Discrimination



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT

PAPER

Stato

of

California

Std . 1 1 3 R e v . 3-gs

FE H Automated

7. The true

names of

defendants DOES

O NE

through THIR TY, inclusive, are unknown

at this time.

DFEH

sues these defendants by fictitious

names

pursuant to Code

of Civil

Procedure

section 474. The DFEH is ignorant o f the true names or capacities of the defendants sued as DOES

ONE

through

THIRTY

and

will

amend this complaint to allege their true

names

and capacities when

they are ascertained. Each

of

the

DO E

defendants is legally responsible

fo r

the injuries and

damages

alleged in this complaint.

8. The DFEH is informed and believes, and upon such infonnation and belief alleges

that at

all

times mentioned, each defendant is and was, in doing the things complained of, the owner,

agent,

representative, alter ego, successor in interest, and/or

manager

o f the subject

property,

of

Belfort Management, Inc., and was acting

within

the scope of such agency, service, employment,

and/or representation, and that each and every defendant

is

jointly and severally responsible and

liable

to the real parties and all other similarly situated current and fiiture tenants with disabilities at

the subject property that is the subject of this action for the damages alleged.

9. The DFEH brings this action on behalf o f itself and the group o f the named individual

Real Parties in Interest and

all

other similarly situated current and fiature tenants with disabilities

residing at the subject property.

P R O C E D U R A L H I S T O R Y A ND V E N U E

10. The DFEH re-alleges and incorporates by reference

each

allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 9, inclusive, as i f fully set forth herein.

11. This action arises under Govemment Code section 12955, subdivisions (a) and (d),

and the Unruh

Civil

Rights

Act, C ivil

Code section

5 1 .

Govemment Code section 12955,

subdivisions (a) and (d), provide that it is unlawful fo r an owner of any housing accommodation to

discriminate

against a person

because

of disability,

and any person subject to die provisions of

section

51 of

the

Civil

Code. The Unmh

Civil

Rights Ac t,-Givil Code section

51 ,

provides that

all

persons

within

the

jurisdiction

of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their

disability

are

entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or ser\'ices in all

business establishments

of

every kind whatsoever.

-4-

Depl.

Fair

Empl.

& Hous. v.

Belfort

Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et al., Real Parties in Interest)

Complaint

fo r


Injunctive





3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

State

of

Catifomia

Std. 113 Rav. 3-95

FE H Automated

12. 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

with

a

building entrance

on an

accessible

route shall be designed and constructed in a

manner

tliat

complies

with

all of the

following:

(A) The public and common

areas

are readily

accessible

to and

usable

by persons

with

disabilities." Section 12955.1 (b)(1) holds, [ f ] or

purposes

of Section

12955.1,

the

following definitions

shall apply: (a) "Covered multifamily

dwellings"

means both of

the

following:

(1)

Buildings

that consist of at

least four

condominium dwelling units or at

least three

rental apartment dwelling units i f the buildings

have

at

least

one elevator. For purposes o f this

definition, dwelling units

within

a single stmcture separated by firewalls do not constitute separate

buildings."

13. Venue is proper in this Court in that

Sacramento

County is the county in this state in

which the

unlawfiil

practices alleged were committed and the subject property is located in this

county.

14. The real

parties

in interest

filed

a

verified written

complaint

with

the Department on

June

11 ,

2013, alleging that

defendants Belfort

and Bmno committed

unlawfiil

housing

practices

in

violation of

the

FEHA

and Unmh Act

within

the preceding

year.

Their complaint was properly

served on Defendants.

15. On

June

10, 2014, a Director's Complaint was issued, alleging that

defendants

Belfort,

Bruno, and Rios committed

unlawful

housing

practices

in

violation

of

the

FEHA

and Unruh

Act.

(Cal.

Code of Regs., tit.

2, § 1047.) The Director's Complaint was properly served on

defendants.

16. A ll conditions

precedent

to the filing of this civil complaint were fulfilled, including

the requirement that the

DFEH

require all

parties

to participate in mandatory dispute resolution in

the DFEH's intemal dispute resolution free of

charge

in an effort to resolve the dispute

without

litigation.

(Gov. Code, §§ 12965, subd. (a)

«

12963.7.)

17. The harm that is the subject

of

this complaint occurred in

Sacramento

County.

Dept. Fair

Empl. &

Hous.

v.

Belfort

Management,

Inc.

(Hubbard, et

al.,

Real

Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint for Compensatory

Damages,

Injunctive Relief, and Punitive Damages for Housing Discrimination



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT

PAPER

Stato ofCalifomia

Std . 113 Rov. 3-95

FE H Automatod

court.

18. The amount of damages sought exceeds the

minimum jurisdictional

limits of this

F A C T U A L A L L E G A T I O N S

19.

DFEH

realleges and incorporates by reference

each


paragraphs 1

through 18,

inclusive.

20. The subject property is a

sixty unit,

three-story apartment building with

approximately twenty units per floor. The Department is informed and believes that at all times

mentioned,

Cameron Razavi ("Owner") is and was the sole owner,

officer,

director, and shareholder

fo r

the corporation. Defendant

Belfort

Management,

Inc.,

and is the

agent for

service

o f

process

for

the corporations. The DFEH is

informed

and believes, and upon such

information

and belief alleges

that the subject property is marketed as a low-income housing property that attracts individuals who

cannot afford to live elsewhere.

2 1 . The subject property has one elevator, which, when operable or unrestricted by

management, is available for all tenants. The elevator is used to access the subject property's three

floors.

There is also an intemal staircase available for tenants who desire and are able to use the

stairs.

22. Many

elderly

tenants

and

tenants with

disabilities

live

at the subject property,

including

on the second and

third

floors of the

building.

Such

individuals

require the use of the

elevator to

access

their units or to enter or leave the building.

23 .

The subject property's lone elevator is

often

out

o f

order,

requiring elderly tenants

and

tenants with

disabilities to use its stairs. When the elevator is inoperable,

tenants with limited

mobility cannot leave their

homes

due to the dangers posed by using stairs. Moreover, when

tlie

elevator is

nonfunctioning,

tenants

residing

on the second and

third

floors are discouraged

from

inviting their disabled guests to the subject property.

24. The DFEH is informed and believes that defendant Belfort, by and through Owner

Razavi

and defendants Bmno and Rios, are aware that the

building's only

elevator is

often

not

operational.

The

DFEH

is

informed

and believes that defendants ignored requests to repair the

-6-

DepL

Fair

Empl.

& Hous. v.

Belfort

Management, Inc. (Hubbard,

et

al.,

Real Parties in Interest)

Complaint

fo r Compensatory Damages,

Injunctive Relief,

and

Punitive

Damages for Housing

Discrimination



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

State

of

California

Std . 113 Rev. 3.S5

FE H Automated

elevator and refiised reasonable requests by Real

Parties

in Interest and other tenants with disabilities

to fix

t,

or maintain it in working condition. The DFEH is informed and believes that it was not

until

the DFEH threatened to file suit to obtain an

injunction against

defendant Belfort that the inoperable

elevator received

limited

servicing. However, upon information and belief, to this day, the elevator is

often

out of operation.

Tenants Hubbard/Moore/Maxwell

25. Real parties in interest, M r. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and M r. M axwell , were tenants of

and

roommates

at the subject property beginning around

December

2012 through November 2013.

M r. Hubbard and

Ms.

Moore were

partners

from 2009 to late 2014. M r.

Maxwell

is M r. Hubbard's

half-brother.

26.

M r.

Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and

M r. Maxwell

are disabled persons

as

defined by the

Fair Employment and Housing

Act,

Govemment Code section 12926. M r. Hubbard

has

degenerative back disease, neuropathy

in

both legs,

congestive heart failure, diabetes, liver failure,

torn

cartilage in his right knee, and high blood pressure. He sometimes uses a wheelchair for

mobility. Ms. Moore has Chronic Obstmctive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), severe arthritis in her

hands, arms and back, a

heart

murmur, diabetes, diabetic neuropathy in both legs, is partially

paralyzed in both

legs

and her

back,

the bones in her hand are

brittie

and she suffers

from

high blood

pressure.

Ms. Moore's disabilities affect her m obility. M r.

Maxwell

suffers from leg and back pain,

including

arthritis and the inability to bend one leg, back spasms, has a bullet lodged in his spine,

diabetes,

and high blood pressure. He walks with a cane and, at times, uses a wheelchair for

mobility.

27. Upon signing a month-to-month lease in October 2012, M r. Hubbard and Ms. Moore

disclosed their disabilities to the on-site

manager.

Defendant Bruno. They explained that due to their

physical disabilities, they needed a ground-level apartment. Ms. Bmno informed them that no • '

ground floor unit was available at that time but that one would

likely

become available. She assured

M r. Hubbard and Ms. Moore that she would move them into a ground floor unit before that

-7 -

Dept. Fair Empl.

&

Hous.

v.

Belfort

Management,

Inc. (Hubbard, et

al..

Real

Parties

in Interest)

Complaint

for

Compensatory

Damages,

Injunctive Relief, and Punitive

Damages for

Housing Discrimination



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

State

of

Catifomia

Std. 113 Rev. 3-95

FE H Automated

Thanksgiving - Thursday, November 22, 2012.

M r.

Hubbard and

Ms.

Moore queried

Ms.

Bmno

about the subject property's elevator

who,

in

tum,

assured them that the elevator was fiinctional.

28. M r. Hubbard and

Ms.

Moore moved into unit 303, on the

third floor

of the subject

property, on October 27, 2012. When Thanksgiving arrived,

management

had not moved them as

promised and kept them on the

third floor

until

about May 2013.

M r.

Hubbard and

Ms.

Moore,

thereafter repeatedly

requested

a ground

floor

apartment.

M r. Maxwell

moved into the

saine

unit in

December 2012 with the Defendant Bruno's express permission.

29. Despite

repeated

requests and reminders, Defendant Bmno refused to move M r .

Hubbard,

Ms.

Moore, and

M r. Maxwell

to a ground

floor

apartment.

30. In or about

January

or Febmary 2013, Defendant Bmno

informed

M r. Hubbard, Ms.

Moore, and M r.

Maxwell

that unit 103, a ground

floor

apartment had

become

vacant and that they

could

move into the

unit.

Shortly after

M r.

Hubbard,

Ms.

Moore, and

M r. Maxwell

began

packing

their belongings to move into unit 103. However, when M r . Hubbard

asked

Defendant Bruno for

confirmation

of their move-in

date, Ms.

Bmno

informed

him that she had

chosen

to move "a

Mexican family, rather than M r. Hubbard, Ms. Moore and M r. M axwell , into unit 103.

3 1 . The DFEH is further informed and believes that M r. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and Mr.

Maxwell

witnessed

numerous

individuals and

families

without disabilities being moved into ground

floor

apartments.

32. M r. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and M r.

Maxwell

remained in their tliird floor apartment

after

being denied

access

to a ground level unit. Thereafter,

for

a period of at

least

sixty (60)

days,

M r.

Hubbard,

Ms.

Moore, and

M r. Maxwell

were unable to use the elevator

because

it was

inoperable.

33. On at

least

two additional

occasions,

in

January

and Febmary 2013, the elevator was

either inoperable or unavailable

for

use

for significant

lengths

of time.

34. The DFEH is

informed

and believes that during periods of

the

elevator's

inoperability. Defendant Rios posted

signs

stating that the elevator was "out of order." The DFEH is

fiirther informed

and believes that the elevator was in fact operational, but that the licensing fee had

Dept. Fair

Empl. &

Hous.

v.

Belfort

Management,

Inc.

(Hubbard, et

a l .

Real

Parties

in Interest)

Complaint

for

Compensatory

Damages,

Injunctive Relief, and Punitive Damages

for




3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT

PAPER

State of Califomia

Std . 113

Rev. 3-95

FE H Automated

not

been paid. During this "non-operational" period, M r. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and M r.

Maxwell

observed management

unlocking

the elevator

for

younger and non-disabled tenants to move in and

out

o f

the

building.

35.

In or about

A pr i l

2013,

M r.

Hubbard was

in

Defendant Rios'

office

with

Defendant

Bruno, who was on the phone with the subject property's owner, Cameron Razavi. M r. Hubbard

overheard owner Razavi say to defendant Bmno, Tell them i f they don't

like

it they can move and

I l l f i ll it

right

back up," or words to that

effect.

36. Fmsfrated by defendant Bruno's

failure

to

keep

her promise, in

March

2013, Mr.

Hubbard

complained to the Department of

Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) alleging

disability

discrimination. Upon information and belief, a HUD representative contacted defendants

about defendant Hubbard's complaint. In or about

May

2013, a HUD representative infomied M r .

Hubbard that he would be

"moving

that day."

37. In early

May

2013, defendant Brano

told

M r. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and M r.

Maxwell

that ground

floor unit

101 was available

for

move i n. She

fiirther

infonned them that they

only

had

two days to move

in

or someone

else

would get the apartment. M r. Hubbard asked to use the

elevator to move but Ms. Bmno said it was

broken.

Defendant Bmno falsely promised that the

maintenance man would help them move. He did not. The Real Parties in Interest were forced to

pack their belongings, hire

moving

help, and complete their move using the stairs within two days.

Further,

because

of the narrow

building hallways,

the real parties in interests' fiimiture had to be

lowered

over the rail from the third floor balcony, driven to the other side of the building with the

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

i n.

The

carpet smelled badly and was not replaced

until

November 2013, when

M r.

Hubbard

refiised

to pay

rent until it was changed.

39.

The DFEH is

further

informed and believes that M r. Hubbard, Ms. Moore, and M r .

Maxwell's disabilities were exacerbated by ascending and descending stairs several times per day

between Febmary 2013 and

June

2013.

-9-

Dept. Fair

Empl.

&

Hous.

v.

Belfort

Management, Inc. (Hubbard, et

al..

Real Parties in Interest)

Complaint for Compensatory Damages,

Injunctive


Damages

for Housing

Discrimination



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

Stato

ot

California

Std. 113 Rev. 3-95

FE H Automated

40 .

The

DFEH

is further

informed

and believes

alleges

that in about mid-June

2013,

the

elevator was

made

operational.

41. In

or about 2014,

M r.

Hubbard tore his meniscus and sought medical attention. The

DFEH

is

informed

and believes, and upon such

information

and

belief

alleges

that in or about this

same time, M r. Hubbard's doctor. Dr . Pessaran, told him that his tom meniscus was a direct result of

climbing stairs. The DFEH is further informed and believes that M r. Hubbard underwent knee

surgery, on June 13, 2014,

because of

the

damage caused from climbing

stairs. The

DFEH

is

furtiier

informed

and believes that as

a

result

of all

the

stair-climbing, M r.

Hubbard's

blood

pressure

soared

to

dangerously

high

levels.

42 . The

DFEH

is

informed

and believes that M s.

Moore

experienced

significant physical

disfress

because

she was relegated to climbing stairs when the subject property's elevator was

inoperable. The DFEH is

fiirther informed

and believes that

M s.

Moore experienced significant

emotional

distress as a direct result

o f having

to use stairs, rather than an elevator. He r

hands

became more impaired and lost significant manual dexterity because she had to carry groceries up

the stairs. Now she can no longer do housework, cook more than simple meals,

hold

books, crochet,

and enjoy other simple

pleasures of life. Ms.

Moore's doctor.

Dr . Pessaran, stated

that

failure

to

fransfer her to a

first floor unit would

cause increased shortness

of

breath

and joint

pain.

43 .

The DFEH is

informed

and believes that

in

or around November 2013, the subject

property's elevator was again out

o f service. Accordingly, M r. Maxwell

was forced to use the stairs.

While attempting to descend the

stairwell,

M r. Maxwell fell and sustained injuries. The DFEH is

informed and believes that the stairway's handrails were not adequately secured to its walls and

detached

when

used

by

tenants walking

up and

down

the

stairwell.

44. In

November

2013, M r. Maxell

and

M r.

Hubbard moved

from

the subject property.

M s.

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

property.

During

its investigation, the Department discovered that several other tenants with

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

-10-

Dept.

Fair

Empl.

& Hous. v.

Belfort


al..

Real

Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

f or


Injunctive Relief,

and

Punitive




3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT

PAPER

State

of

Califomia

Std . 113

Rev. 3-95

FE H Automated

46.

The

DFEH

also uncovered

a policy wherein

the elevator was shut

o ff

daily

from

10

p.m.

to 6 a.m. in order to keep the

r i f f - r a f f

out. The DFEH is informed and believes that r i f f r a f f

means

disreputable or undesirable people. This policy negatively affects many of the tenants with

disabilities,

limiting the

time

they

may

enter and

exit

the

building.

47.

In January 2015, an onsite visit revealed that the license

certificate in

the elevator was

again

expired.

Other

Tenants

with

Disabilities^

48.

Tenant A and her husband are disabled

tenants who

have lived at the subject property

for

approximately

three years. They

live

in

a second floor apartment. Tenant A wears a knee brace

and

has screws

in

her leg. Tenant A's friends have to

assist

her up and down the stairs because the

elevator is often

inoperable.

Tenant A's husband uses a wheelchair and is sometimes unable to leave

his

unit

because

ofthe lack

of a

functioning elevator.

49.

Tenant

B

has lived on the second floor of

the

subject property

building

since

November o f 2012.

Tenant

B

has

difficulty walking

and

needs

to use a

cane because of the arthritis

in

his knees. When forced to use the stairs after shopping. Tenant B struggles to ascend the stairwell

because he has

to juggle

holding his groceries, the

handrail,

and his cane. Tenant

B

often requested

defendants

Bmno

and Rios when the elevator

would

be restored to

working

order but

his requests

were ignored.

50.

Tenant C, a disabled person

who

uses a wheelchair for

mob ility,

has lived at the

subject

property for

two years. Tenant

C lives

on the

third

floor and is unable to use the stairs.

During

the period

in

which the elevator was shut down for four months. Tenant C was trapped

in

her

unit with no relief. She has asked defendants to fix the elevator on numerous occasions. By the time

defendant Rios

offered

her a ground

floor

apartment, Tenant

C

was unable to

afford

the move.

The

names

of other affected tenants are omitted from this public filing to protect their privacy.

-11-

Dept. Fair

Empl. &

Hous.

v.

Belfort

Management,

Inc.

(Hubbard,

et al., Real Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

for


Injunctive

Relief, and Punitive Damages

for




3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT

PAPER

State

of

California

Std. 113

Rev. 3-95

FE H Automatod

5 1 . Tenant

D

has

lived

at the Belfort Arms building

for

about three years. He lives on the

second floor. Tenant

D

has a disabled cousin who cannot visit him in his second

floor

apartment

because he uses a wheelchair.

52.

Tenant E has

lived

in an apartment on the second

floor

of the

Belfort

Anns

building

for approximately seven

years.

Upon information

and belief, Tenant E's uncle, who is

blind

and has

diabetes, lives with him. Once, during the subject property's routine elevator outage. Tenant E's

uncle almost fell down the stairs

trying

to grab onto a broken handrail.

53. Tenant

F

has

lived in

a

third floor

apartment at the

Belfort Arms building for

approximately

one year. Upon

information

and belief. Tenant F's grandfather, who has bad knees

and is unable to

walk

up and down

tlie

stairs

without

assistance,

lives

with

him.

Despite his

limited

mobility, Tenant F's grandfather is forced to use the subject property's stairs whenever the elevator

is non-operational.

54. The

DFEH

is

informed

and believes that there are many other

tenants with-disabilities

living

on the second and

third

floors

of

the subject property and who are adversely

affected

by the

non-operational elevator. By

failing

to adequately maintain the elevator. Defendants make it

impossible for people with disabilities to

have

as

full

access and enjoyment of

the

premises as those

without

disabilities.

F I R S T

C A U S E

O F

A C T I O N

Discrimination in Connection with a Housing Accommodation

(Gov.

Code, § 12955, subd. (a).)

[Against A ll

Defendants]

55.

The DFEH realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in

paragraphs 1

through 54,

inclusive.

56. It is

imlawful for

"the owner

o f any

housing accommodation to

discriminate

against.

. . any person because

of

the . . .

disability of

that person." (§ 12955, subd. (a).) Housing

"discrimination" under the

FEHA

includes the "refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules

policies, practices, or services when these accommodations may be necessary to afford a disabled

person equal opportunity to use and

enjoy

a dwelling." (§§ 12927, subd.

(c)(1),

12955, subd. (a).)

-12-

Dept.

Fair

Empl.

&

Hous.

v.

Belfort

Management,

Inc.

(Hubbard, et

al..

Real Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

for

Compensatory Damages, Injunctive

Relief,

and

Punitive

Damages

for

Housing Discriminafion



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

Stato

of

Califomia

Std . 113 Rev. 3.95

FE H Automated

In

order to establish

discrimination based

on a

refusal

to provide

reasonable

accommodations, a

party

must establish that he or she

(1)

suffers

from

a

disability

as defined

in

FEHA,

(2) the

discriminating

party knew

of,

or should

have known of,

the

disability,

(3) accommodation is

necessary

to

afford

an equal

opportunity

to use and

enjoy

the

dwelling,

and

(4)

the

discriminating

party

refused

to make this accommodation."

(Auburn

Woods I

Homeowners

Assn. v. Fair

Employment

and Housing Com. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4tii 1578, 1592

(Auburn

Woods) citing Gov.

Code, § 12927, subd. (c), & Giebelerv. M & B Associates (9th Cir. 2003) 343 F.3d 1143.)

57.

As alleged herein and in violation of Govemment Code section 12955 (a), defendants

discriminated against the real parties

in

interest by refusing to make

reasonable

accommodations.

This includes

failing

to

offer

the real parties in interest a ground

floor

apartment,

failure

to maintain

a working elevator, restricting

access

to the elevator

during

certain hours, and

failing

to make other

repairs necessary to afford disabled persons equal opportunity to equal use and enjoy the subject

property.

58. As a result

o f

defendants'

unlawfiil

housing practices,

each

real party

ih

interest

incurred economic

dainages

in an amount to be proven at time

o f trial.

59.

As a fiirther and direct result of defendants'

unlawfiil

housing practices each real

party in

interest

suffered

anxiety,

frusfration,

emotional disfress, and

injury in

an amoimt to be

proven

at time

o f trial.

60. Defendants' conduct was malicious,

fraudulent

or oppressive, or taken

in

conscious

disregard of the rights, health, safety, and economic

condition

of the real parties

in

interest, as

defined in

Civil

Code section 3294, entitling them to an award o f exemplary damages.

61 . By discriminating against the real parties in interest, in addition to other tenants with

disabilities in the subject property,

defendants

demonsfrated that they will continue to

engage

in a

pattem and practice

o f unlawfiil

housing

discrimination

that

is-

the subject

o f

this complaint

until

this

Court enjoins them from doing so and orders compliance with the mandates

of the FEHA. Plaintiff

DFEH lacks any

plain,

speedy, adequate remedy at

law

to prevent such harm, injury, and loss, which

-13-

Dept.

Fair

Empl.

&

Hous.

v.

Belfort


a l .

Real

Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

for


Relief,

and

Punitive

Damages

for




3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

Slate

of

Califomia

Std. 1 t 3 R e v .

3-95

FE H Automated

will

continue

until

this court

enjoins

the complained

of unlawful

conduct and grants other

affirmative

relief

as

prayed

for

herein.

S E C O N D C A U S E

O F

A C T I O N

Discrimination

in Connection with a Housing Accommodation

(Gov. Code, § 12955, subd. (k).)

[Against

A ll

Defendants]

62.

The DFEH realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 61, inclusive.

63. Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision (k), makes it

unlawfiil

housing practice

to

"otherwise make unavailable or deny a

dwelling based

on

discrimination because

of

...disability."

64.

As alleged herein and

in

violation

of

Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision

(k),

defendants repeatedly failed to maintain a working elevator, and accommodate tenants with

disabilities by offering them vacant ground

floor

units.

65.

Defendants' conduct was malicious,

fraudulent

or oppressive, or taken in conscious

disregard

of

the rights, health, safety, and economic

condition of the

real parties in interest, as

defined

in

Civil Code Section 3294, entitling them to an award of exemplary damages.

66. By

discriminating against the real parties

in

interest, in addition to other tenants with

disabilities in the subject property, defendants demonstrated that they will continue to engage in a

pattem and practice o f

unlawfiil

housing discrimination that is the subject of

this complaint

until

this

Court enjoins them

from doing

so and orders compliance

with

the

mandates of tlie

FEHA.

67. Plaintiff

DFEH lacks any

plain,

speedy, adequate remedy at

law

to prevent such

harm, injury, and loss, which

will

continue

until

this court enjoins the complained

of

unlawful

conduct and grants other affirmative relief as prayed for herein.

T H I R D C A U S E O F A C T I O N

Public

Accommodations Discrimination

(Gov.

Code, § 12955, subd.

(d); Gov.

Code, § 12948;

Civ.

Code, § 51.)

[Against A ll

Defendants]

68.

The DFEH realleges and incorporates by reference

each


paragraphs 1

through 67, inclusive, as i f

fiilly

set forth herein.

-14-

Dept.

Fair

Empl.

&

Hous.

v.

Belfort

Management,

Inc.

(Hubbard, et

al..

Real Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

for Compensatory Damages, Injunctive

Relief,

and

Punitive




3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT

PAPER

State

of

Califomia

Std . 113

Rev. 3.95

FE H Automated

69. Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision (d), provides that it is

unlawfiil

[ f jor

any person subject to the provisions o f section 51 o f the

Civil

Code . . . to

discriminate

against any

person" on any basis protected under the

FEHA.

70.

Govemment Code section 12948 provides,

in

pertinent part, that

[ i ] t

is an

unlawful

practice under this part for a person to deny or to

aid, incite,

or conspire

in

the denial o f the rights

created by Section 5 1 . . . .

7 1 .

Civil

Code section 51 , subdivision (b), provides: All persons

within

the

jurisdiction

of

this state are free and equal, and no matter what their

.

. .

disability,

are

entitied

to the

f i i l l

and

equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges, or services in

all

business

establishments of every kind, whatsoever."

72. Defendants failed to provide the Real Parties in Interest and other tenants with

disabilities

with public

accommodations by engaging in

discrimination based

on their

disabilities,

as

described above, in violation

of

Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision (d), and Civil Code

section 51.

73. As a result

o f

defendants'

unlawfiil

housing practices,

each

real party in interest

incurred economic damages in an amount to be proven at time of

frial.

74. As a

fiirther

and direct result of defendants'

unlawfiil

housing practices, each real

party

in

interest suffered anxiety,

frustration,

emotional distress, and injury

in

an amount to be

proven

at im

of trial.

75. As a

fiirther

result o f 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

time o f trial.

76.

Defendants' conduct, as set

forth

above, was

malicious,

fraudulent or oppressive, or

taken in conscious disregard of the rights, health, safety, and economic condition of the real parties

in interest, as defined in Civil Code Section 3294,

entitling

them to an award

o f

exemplary damages.

77. By discriminating against the real parties in interest, in addition to other tenants with

disabilities

i n

the subject property. Defendants have demonstrated that they will continue to engage

-15-

Dept.

Fair

Empl.

&

Hous.

v.

Belfort

Management,

Inc.

(Hubbard, et

al.,

Real Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

for Compensatory Damages,

Injunctive Relief,

and

Punitive

Damages for Housing

Discrimination



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

25

26

27

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

compliance with the mandates

of

the FEHA.

78. Plaintiff DFEH lacks any

plain,

speedy, adequate remedy at law to prevent such

harm,

in j ury,

and loss,

which will

continue

until


of unlawful

conduct and grants other affirmative relief as prayed for herein.

F O U R T H C A U S E

O F

A C T I O N

Unlawful Housing Practices

(Gov.

Code, § 12955.1, subd. (a)(2))

[Against A ll

Defendants]

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.

80. Govemment Code section 12955.1, subdivision (a)(2), provides in relevant part, that

[a]l l

covered

m ultifamily dwellings with

a

building

enfrance on an

accessible

route shall be

designed and constmcted in a manner [that

allows]

the public and common

areas [to be]

readily

accessible

to and usable by persons with disabilities.

81 . As set forth above and in violation of Govemment Code section 12955.1, subdivision

(a)(2),

defendants discriminated against the real parties

in

interest on the

basis of

their disabilities by

failing

to properly maintain the subject property's lone elevator, which interfered with the real

parties

in

interest's and other disabled tenants' ability to

access

the property's public and common

areas.

82. Defendants' conduct was malicious, fraudulent or oppressive, or taken in conscious

disregard

of

the rights, health, safety, and economic

condition of

the real parties

in

interest, as

defined

in

Civil Code section 3294, entitling them to an award

of

exemplary damages.

83. By

discriminating

against the real parties

in

interest, in

addition

to other

tenants

with

disabilities in the subject property, defendants demonsfrated that they will continue to

engage

in a

pattem and practice

o f unlawful

housing

discrimination

that is the subject

of

this complaint

until

this

Court enjoins them from doing so and orders compliance with the mandates

of

the FEHA.

-16-

Dept.

Fair

Empl.

&

Hous.

v.

Belfort


al..

Real Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint for


Relief,

and

Punitive

Damages

for




3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT

PAPER

State

of

California

Std. 113 Rev. 3-95

FE H Automated

84. Plaintiff DFEH

lacks any plain,

speedy,

adequate remedy at law to prevent such

harm,

injury, and loss, which will continue

until

this court enjoins the complained of

unlawfiil


affirmative relief as

prayed

for

herein.

F I F T H

C A U S E

O F

A C T I O N

Blind and Other Physically Disabled Persons Act

(Civil Code, § 54 et seq.)

[Against A ll Defendants]

85. Plaintiffs

incorporate by reference the allegations

of paragraphs 1

through 84 above,

as i f

each

such allegation was set forth in

f i i l l

herein.

86.

Califomia's Blind and Other Physically Disabled Persons

Act

prohibits

discrimination

against

individuals

with

disabilities.

Section 54

of

the

Califomia C iv i l

Code,

subdivision

(b)(1),

provides, in relevant part, that "[ijndividuals with disabilities shall be entitied to f i i l l and equal

access, as other members

ofthe

general

public,

to

a ll

housing accommodations

offered for

rent,

lease

or compensation . . . ".

87.

As set

forth

above, defendants discriminated against the real parties in interest on the

basis of their disabilities by refiising to make reasonable accommodations which were and continue

to be necessary in order to afford the real parties in interest equal opportunity to use and

enjoy

the

subject property.

88.

As a direct and

proximate

result

o f

the aforementioned

acts,

real parties in interest

have suffered and continue to

suffer

substantial damages,

including

humiliation, hardship, anxiety,

indignity

and severe mental and emotional anguish.

89.

Defendants' conduct, as set forth above, was malicious,

fraudulent

or oppressive, or

taken in conscious disregard ofthe rights, health, safety, and economic condition of the real parties

in interest, as

defined

in

Civil

Code section 3294, entitling them to an award of exemplary damages.

90. By discriminating


in

interest, in

addition

to other

tenants with

disabilities i n the subject

property,

defendants

have

demonsfrated that they will continue to engage

in a pattem and practice of unlawful housing discrimination that is the subject of tiiis complaint

until

this Court enjoins them

from doing

so and orders compliance

with

the

mandates of

the

FEHA.

-17-

Dept.

Fair

Empl. &

Hous.

v. Belfort

Management,

Inc.

(Hubbard, et

al.,

Real Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

for Compensatory Damages,

Injunctive Relief,

and

Punitive

Damages

for




3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

Stato

of

Califomia

Std. 113 Rev. 3-95

FE H Automated

91.

Plaintiff

DFEH lacks any

plain,

speedy, adequate remedy at law to prevent such

harm, injury, and loss, which will continue

until

this court enjoins the complained of unlawful


affirmative

relief

as

prayed

for

herein.

S I X T H C A U S E

O F

A C T I O N

Retaliation

(Gov. Code, § 12955, subd. (f))

[Against A ll Defendants]

92. The DFEH re-alleges and incorporates,

each

allegation contained in paragraphs 1

through 91, as i f fully set forth herein.

93.

Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision

(f), makes it unlawful for

any owner

of

housing accommodations to harass, evict, or otherwise

discriminate

against any person . . . when the

owner's dominant purpose is retaliation against a person who has opposed [unlawfiil] practices.

94. As set forth above and in violation of Govemment Code section 12955, subdivision

( f ) ,

defendants retaliated against the real parties in interest for complaining to

DFEH

and-assisting in

the Department's investigation by

failing

to repair the elevator and,

during

the elevator's

Hmited

periods

of operation,

threatened to tum it

off

95. Defendants' conduct was malicious,

fraudulent

or oppressive, or taken in conscious

disregard of the rights, health, safety, and economic condition of the real parties in interest, as

defined

in

Civil

Code section 3294, entitling them to an award o f exemplary damages.

96. By discriminating


in

interest, in

addition

to other

tenants witii

disabilities in the subject

property.

Defendants demonsfrated that they

will

continue to engage

in

a

pattem and practice o f

unlawfiil

housing discrimination that is the subject o f this complaint

until

this

Court enjoins them from doing so and orders compliance with the mandates of the FEHA.

97.

Plaintiff

DFEH

lacks any

plain,

speedy, adequate

remedy at

law

to prevent such

harm, injury,

and loss, which

will

continue

until


of unlawfiil


affirmative

relief as prayed for herein.

-18-

Dept. Fair

Empl. &

Hous.

v. Belfort

Management,

Inc.

(Hubbard,

et

al..

Real Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

for


Injunctive





3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

Stato

of

Califomia

Std. 113 Rov. 3-95

FE H Automated

P R A Y E R F O R

R E L I E F

W H E R E F O R E D F E H requests that

judgment

be entered against defendants Belfort

Management, Inc.

Josette

Bmno, J.J.

Rios,

and D O E S ONE through T H I R T Y inclusive, and order

them to provide the following relief:

On All Causes of Action

1. Enjoin the defendants from discriminating against all current and fiiture tenants at the

Belfort Arms building,

and

all

other housing accommodations

owned, managed,

or operated by

Defendzmts Belfort Management,

Inc.,

Josette Bmno, and J.J. Rios, on the basis

of a disability

or on

any other protected basis.

2. 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

Belfort Arms building in

good and safe

working

order at

a ll

times. Maintenance

o f

the elevator(s) to

include:

a. Paying all licensing fees to

keep

the elevator operational; posting the current

elevator operating

certificate

in the elevator; and maintaining a copy of the current elevator operating

certificate

for inspection

by any tenant, member

of the public,

and govemment

official,

in the

manager's office during regular business hours;

b. Making

immediate repairs to the elevator when necessary to

keep

it

in

a safe

and operational working

condition;

c.

Maintaining

a service

agreement

with an elevator repair service to ensure that

repairs are

done

promptly.

4. Enjoin defendants from

locking or shutting

o ff

the elevator

in Belfort Arms building.

5. Order Belfort, its

officers,

directors and

managers, including defendants

Bruno and

Rios, shall forthwith undergo training with a fair housing

organization,

at their own expense,

regarding

the duties, responsibilities, obligations, and rights

of an

owner and/or managing

agent

-19-

Dept.

Fair

Empl. &Hous.

v.

Belfort


al..

Real

Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

fo r Compensatory Damages,

Injunctive Relief,

and

Punitive




3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT

PAPER

State

of

Califomia

Std . 113

Rov. 3-95

FE H Automatod

under the

FEHA

and Americans with

Disabilities Act

of 1990

( A DA ) :

a. Order defendants, including its supervisory, management, and lead employees

to undergo anti-discrimination fraining, as recognized under the

FEHA

to include:

i .

Maintaining

a

discrimination-free

housing;

i i .

Compliance with the Belfort

Arms

building's policy statement

prohibiting

discrimination.

i i i . 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

Belfort Arms building that complies with the

FEHA

and

A D A ,

and the regulations interpreting and

implementing the

FEHA

and A D A ; disseminate such policy to all owners principals, officers,

directors, managers, agents, and employees and tenants; develop a

complaint

procedure for violation

o f

such

policy;

and provide training on that

policy

and complaint procedure to all of

its

owners,

principals,

officers,

directors,

managers,

agents, and employees

within

the State of

Califomia.

This

policy shall be printed in both English and Spanish and shall be conspicuously posted at the Belfort

Arms building in

a

public place accessible to a ll tenants and prospective tenants, and in all housing

accommodations owned and/or managed by Defendants Belfort,

Josette

Bruno, and J.J. Rios. The

posting

shall include DFEH contact

information.

7.

Within

10 calendar days ofthe Court's order, post, for a

minimum

period of three

years in a conspicuous place in all housing accommodations owned, managed or operated by

defendants Belfort,

Josette

Bmno, and J.J. Rios, an order stating that defendants have been found in

violation

ofthe FEHA, and specifying the remedies ordered, and attaching it to

a ll

current and fiiture

leases.

8.

Within

10 calendar days of the Court's order, distribute DFEH pamphlets nos. 157H

and 157Hs, and DFEH fact

sheet

nos. 193H and 193Hs to a ll tenants and prospective tenants at

properties owned, managed or operated by Defendants, and each o f them.

9. Within 10 calendar days of the Court's order, post, for a minimum period o f three

-20-

Dept. Fair

Empl. &

Hous.

v.

Belfort

Management,

Inc.

(Hubbard, et al., Real Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint for


Injunctive Relief,

and

Punitive Damages for Housing Discrimination



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

State

of

Catifomia

Std. 113 Rev. 3-95

FE H Automat ed

years, in a conspicuous place in all housing accommodations defendants own,

manage

or operate,

the English and Spanish language posters, "Fair Housing: You Are Protected under

Califomia

Law

(DFEH nos. 157H and DFEH 157Hs) and "Fair Housing Is the Law (DFEH nos. 164H and DFEH

164Hs),

available on the

DFEH

website.

10. Provide written proof, under penalty o f perjury by each defendant, of defendants'

compliance with all the requirements of the court's order

within

100 calendar days of the effective

date of the order.

11. Pay to M r.

Hubbard,

M s. Moore and M r. M axwell : (1) their actual and

consequential

damages

and out-of-pocket

expenses

in an amount according to

proof;

and (2) their

damages

suffered from

anxiety,

fhisfration,

emotional disfress, and

injury

incurred as a result o f the

discriminatory acts in an amount according to proof, plus 10% interest thereon.

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

times the amount of

actual damages,

or, altematively, statutory damages of no

less

than $4,000 for

each offense, and which is no

less

than a

total

of fifty

offenses

per

real

party in interest. Tenants A-F

and other similarly situated disabled tenants.

13. Pay punitive damages according to proof.

14. Pay the DFEH's costs, including reasonable attomey

fees

pursuant to Civil Code

section 52, subdivision (a), and Govemment Code section 12989.2.

15.

Hire

a monitor to be supervised by the Court to ensure compliance with the judgment

entered in this case fo r a period of not less than 10 years.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / / . ........

/ / /

/ / /

-21-

Dept.

Fair

Empl.

& Hous. v.

Belfort

Management,

Inc.

(Hubbard, et

al.,

Real Parties

in

Interest)

Complaint

fo r Compensatory Damages, Injunctive

Relief,

and

Punitive




3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COURT PAPER

State

o f

Ca l i f o rn ia

S l d . 113 Rev. 3-95

FE H Au tomated

16. For such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

Dated: June 3, 2015

DEPARTMENT

OF

FA IR E M P L O Y M E N T

A N D HOUSING

JO N

M .

ICHINAGA

Chief

Counsel

NELS ON CHAN

Associate

Chief

Counsel

P A U L A P E A R L M A N

Senior

Staff

Counsel

JULIA

M O N T G O M E R Y

Senior

Staff

Counsel

By:

Nelson Chan

Attomeys

fo r

the Department

J U R Y

D E M A N D

Plaintiff DFEH

hereby

demands

a

jury trial

in this action.

Dated: June 3, 2015

DEPARTMENT OF F A IR E M P L O Y M E N T

A N D HOUSING

JO N

M .

ICHINAGA

Chief

Counsel

NELS ON CHAN

Associate

Chief

Counsel

By:

Nelson Chan

Attomeys

fo r

the Department

-22-

Dept. Fair

Empl. &

Hous. v.

Belfort

Management, Inc. (Hubbard,

et al..

Real

Parties

in Interest)

Complaint f or Compensatory

Damages,

Injunctive Relief, and Punitive Damages fo r Housing Discrimination



\--.y...,fO^Vll A^'")

Complaint for compensatory damages, injunctive relief and punitive damages for housing discrimation

Documents

Transcript of Complaint for compensatory damages, injunctive relief and punitive damages for housing discrimation