Karen Bass re Hyundai
to Sale of Property
Los Angeles Rent Control
LA Civil Rights Lawsuit re Hi Point Apts
the Law Firm
Racism Terrorism and Federal Funds
Case 2:16-cv-03236-JLS-AJW. Filed May 11, 2016. First amended
Complaint [FAC] filed September 9, 2016
The defendants are:
HI POINT APTS, LLC , CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, WALTER BARRATT, INDIVIDUAL, CLIFF RENFREW, INDIVIDUAL, ARMIDA OLGUIN-FLORES, INDIVIDUAL, BARBARA BRASCIA, INDIVIDUAL, ALAN CHEN, INDIVIDUAL, RICHARD BRINSON, INDIVIDUAL, CHARLES GARCIA, INDIVIDUAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants
Other persons named in the complaint and/or exhibits include:
Marilyn G London, Fred Pippin, Lorrie Sakuchi, Cynthia Ogan, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Gilbert Cedillo, Paul Krekorian, Bob Blumenfield, David E. Ryu, Paul Koretz, Nury Martinez, Felipe Fuentes, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Curren D. Price, Jr., Herb J. Wesson, Jr., Mike Bonin, Mitchell Englander, Mitch O’Farrell, Jose Huizar, Joe Buscaino, Javier Nunez Raymond D. Chan, Frank Bush Jeffery J. Daar, Tai Glenn, Jose Oliva, Carole Brogdon Leonora Gershman PittsPaula Leftwich Jane Paul, Armida Olguin-Flores, Investigator, Araceli Sophia Gonzalez, Supervisor; Javier Nunez, Raymond D. Chan, Frank Bush, Jeffery J. Daar, Tai Glenn, Carole Brogdon, Leonora Gershman , Pitts Paula Leftwich Jane
Are tenants or former tenants named in the complaint?
Exhibit Number 1.
Why is the complaint 335 pages long?
The original complaint was 217 pages long. Some of the defendants complained there was not enough detail.
So the complaint was revised and information and exhibits added. The Complaint is now 335 pages long.
How can I get a copy of the Complaint?
See Pacer.gov. The case is filed in Central District Los Angeles, a civil case.
You can also access the case for free if you go to the Courthouse.
[What follows is excerpts.]
Can the Plaintiff, as a Black man in America in the year 2016, get housing services at the 1522 Hi Point Apartments, 90035?
"The quandary posed herein is can the Plaintiff ,who is perceived as a "Nigger" by the defendants, get fair housing in America? Is the Plaintiff as a Ham-Jew-DNA-Kushite/Black, race/color, over the age of 60, entitled to fair housing in America? Is an intercom a housing service? Is a tandem parking stall a housing service? Can the defendants state a legitimate business interest for treating the Plaintiff like a "Nigger"? Are the defendants entitled to deny Plaintiff a tandem parking stall due to race/color or because he has opposed unlawful discrimination? Are the defendants entitled to deny Plaintiff maintenance to his intercom or repair or replacement due to race/color or because he has opposed unlawful discrimination? Can the Plaintiff, as a Black man in America in the year 2016, get housing services at the 1522 Hi Point Apartments, 90035? Is arbitrary and circumstantial discrimination actionable in America? White tenants in the building have the privilege of an intercom but the Plaintiff, a Black, does not for over two years. Admittedly, as regards parking privileges, there are not enough tandem parking stalls for all 18 tenants. But why is Plaintiff, a Black, denied a tandem parking stall for over two years; while a discriminatory application process allows the privileged White tenants a tandem parking stall but that same application process privilege is denied to the Plaintiff, a Black American, over a two year period?" [page 6]
"The catalyst for the enactment of the Act 42 U.S.C. section §1983 was the "campaign of violence and deception in the South, fomented by the Ku Klux Klan, which was denying citizens their civil and political rights." [page 7]
"Tenants who are white at the 1522 HI POINT St address continue to enjoy the advantage and privilege of a working intercom and tandem parking stall while the Plaintiff, a Black, is deprived of such housing terms and conditions." [Page 8]
None of them have been able to get the Plaintiff a working intercom and tandem parking stall.
"Plaintiff has had numerous communications with public officials over the last years. None of them have been able to get the Plaintiff a working intercom and tandem parking stall. The public officials/emails and others acting under color of law include: but are not limited to : Marilyn G London, Fred Pippin, Lorrie Sakuchi, Cynthia Ogan, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Gilbert Cedillo, Paul Krekorian, Bob Blumenfield, David E. Ryu, Paul Koretz, Nury Martinez, Felipe Fuentes, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Curren D. Price, Jr., Herb J. Wesson, Jr., Mike Bonin, Mitchell Englander, Mitch O’Farrell, Jose Huizar, Joe Buscaino, Javier Nunez Raymond D. Chan, Frank Bush Jeffery J. Daar, Tai Glenn, Jose Oliva, Carole Brogdon Leonora Gershman PittsPaula Leftwich Jane Paul, Armida Olguin-Flores, Investigator, Araceli Sophia Gonzalez, Supervisor; Javier Nunez, Raymond D. Chan, Frank Bush, Jeffery J. Daar, Tai Glenn, Carole Brogdon, Leonora Gershman , Pitts Paula Leftwich Jane, email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.org), RSO Contact (email@example.com); Fair Housing Doj (firstname.lastname@example.org); email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.org); Hi LLC (email@example.com); Cliff Renfrew (firstname.lastname@example.org); David Greene (email@example.com); Charles Garcia (firstname.lastname@example.org); Lincoln Lee (email@example.com); firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com); Rodney Arias (firstname.lastname@example.org); David Casian (email@example.com); Steve Ongele (firstname.lastname@example.org); email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.org); Ifa Kashefi (email@example.com); firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com); Jeff Paxton (firstname.lastname@example.org); Debbie L. Harmon, (email@example.com); firstname.lastname@example.org ,(email@example.com); firstname.lastname@example.org ,(email@example.com). [page 16-17]
"I thought about Emmett Till, and I could not go back. My legs and feet were not hurting, that is a stereotype. I paid the same fare as others, and I felt violated. I was not going back." Rosa Parks. [Page 18]
"By their actions herein, the defendants each and every one, have determined that the plaintiff because he is Black is not entitled to an intercom.
By their actions herein, the defendants each and every one, have determined that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintenance of housing services intercom.
By their actions herein, the defendants each and every one except for the County of Los Angeles and Alan Chen, have determined that the plaintiff is not entitled to a tandem parking stall.
By their actions each and every one, the defendants have determined that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the protections and benefits of the federal and state constitutions and civil rights laws.
Plaintiff’s constitutional and federal rights denied by defendants are, right to be free of discrimination; equal rights, civil rights, housing rights." [Page 19]
"Unlawful discrimination can be circumstantial, arbitrary, disparate treatment, disparate impact, indirect, direct, or consequential." [Page 23]
"Unlawful discrimination can be circumstantial, arbitrary, disparate treatment, disparate impact, indirect, direct, or consequential." [Page 23]
"Plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress including but not limited to the anxiety that he believed that he is perceived as a "Nigger" and might suffer at any time a lynching at the hands of the owner and the conspiring government officials. " [Page 131]
"That 'all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.' [California] Civil Code 51, 52 Unruh Act. By their actions, the Defendants, each and every one, have unreasonably decided that Plaintiff is a "Nigger" and is not a "person" who is entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." " [Page 161]
"Defendants Armida Olguin-Flores, Barbara Brascia, Richard Brinson, and Charles Garcia are employees of he City of Los Angeles, California, they are sued herein in their official capacity and individual capacity. "
"Defendant ALAN CHEN is an employee of the County of Los Angeles, California and the Department of Public Health. At all times in the Complaint he is sued in his official and individual capacity. "
134. During the October 28, 2015 hearing on the THP appeal, after Plaintiff has submitted over 58 issues (sic) concerning the THP and apt 9, and has questioned the lack of adequate asbestos cleanup in the building [after renovations to about fourteen units], employee Garcia states in writing that tests for asbestos in apt 9 were inadequate, that asbestos was found in apt 9, and that the owner must hire a state certified asbestos contractor. No further asbestos testing in apt 9 has occurred to date. Plaintiff has also brought to the city’s attention the claims of terrorists at Hi Point Apts by former tenant Willie Allen. See Exhibits 2 and 3 emails from former tenant #11 Willie Allen. Those allegations of TERRORISM, made by a government employee are ignored by city and county employees and by the property owner and there is no discussion of such at the October 28 2015 city public hearing.
135. The Allen TERRORISM emails are forwarded to numerous state, county, and local public officials without absolutely any comments from any federal, state, of local public officials or HI POINT, except for one response from a COUNTY official.
"...the TERRORISM allegations are never told to rental applicants or incoming tenants by the owner HI POINT or by WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC."
136. Based on information and belief, the TERRORISM allegations are never told to rental applicants or incoming tenants by the owner HI POINT or by
WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC. [Page 40]
140. November 21, 2015. By website, Apt 18 is being advertised for lease by Williams Real Estate Advisors, Inc.. The ad states air conditioners can be installed for an additional $50 per month but fraudulently concealing this is an illegal rent in a rent control building. The ad says "intercom" but fraudulently omits that the intercom system is not fully operational thus a health and safety hazard. Again evidence that Plaintiff’s request as a Black tenant for an intercom are ignored. [Page 42]
143. Similar information comes to light in 2016 when the city Los Angeles code enforcement employees says over the phone that the city has no jurisdiction over the state Health and Safety code and Building and Safety Codes and he says he has no jurisdiction over the intercom, and says this comes from his supervisors and other departments, thus establishing the government corruption and providing grounds for declarative and injunctive relief. A transcript recall of that phone talk is released to the owner and public officials but still the intercom and parking issues remain unresolved. [Page 44]
182. The non-working intercom is an obstruction to Plaintiff’s free use of property, so as to interfere with his comfortable enjoyment of life or property, and since an intercom is known as a safety and security feature, it is injurious to Plaintiff’s health to be without the working intercom, and such non-working intercom is a nuisance.
183. This complaint and damage claim supplement is based on any and all statutes, theories of law, or any other applicable law, without limitation, that holds government employees and officials liable for damages and liable for declarative and injunctive relief. This complain includes damages for vicarious liability under civil code 815.2; intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, negligence, abuse of process, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, joint and several liability, discriminatory enforcement, negligent inspection, negligent enforcement, separate and unequal enforcement, violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.
184. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff states that thousands of tenants are at risk of the threat of injury due to the racist practices of the city and county government entities named, that such actions are pattern and practice of the city and county governments. [Page 57]
210. The city government of Los Angeles and Armida Olguin-Flores, Richard Brinson, Barbara Brascia, and Charles Garcia have admitted the allegations of this complaint as true. [Page 64]
211. The Exhibits to this first amended complaint prove the pattern and practice of defendants to engage in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional and federal and state civil rights.
212. The Exhibits prove the actual fraud, corruption, and actual malice of the Defendants.
213. The Exhibits prove the futility of administrative channels and grounds for injunctive relief. [Page 65]
601. REQUEST FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF
Damages: $600 million dollars prospective damages against State of California to fund reparations for Black housing tenants suffering discrimination in Los Angeles County due to the actual fraud, corruption, and actual malice of public officials. That the State of California will engage in racial sensitivity training for all State workers, officials, and political subdivisions. [Page 162]
Request for Declarative Relief
l. The Court will refer the matter to the District attorney and recommend criminal prosecution against Charles Garcia and the owner regarding lack of tenant habitability plans and conspiracy by property owner Hi Point Apts, LLC, and city of Los Angeles, to violate plaintiff’s rights under California civil code section 1940.4.
m. The usage and deprivation of rights because of Plaintiff’s race was a pattern and practice over the last 12 months or more enforced by officials of the State of California, State Department of Fair Employment and Housing and "political subdivisions city and county, county, district, or other local governmental agency or public agency authorized by law", and more specifically by the City of Los Angeles, California, the County of Los Angeles, California, the county Public Health Department of Los Angeles County [county and Public Health for the intercom only], and the City of Los Angeles Code Enforcement, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety and Los Angeles City Housing and Community Investment Department. [Page 165]
x. That the Defendants City of Los Angeles, State of California, and County of Los Angeles, and Williams Real Estate Advisors have participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s civil rights and the subsequent harm to Plaintiff [Page 166]
"aa. That city Los Angeles government and Los Angeles County government have reneged on their mandatory duty to enforce the city rent control ordinance, and state health and safety codes. That such conduct has put thousands of residents at risk of injury. That federal funds going to such agencies are revoked in favor of private contractors that can do the job of enforcement in a less discriminatory and more productive manner." [Page 167]
Request for Injunctive Relief
I. Further, the city, and county if applicable, will issue an order that any and all other tenants effected by the loss of working intercom and loss of tandem parking stall will be similarly compensated by the owner as the Plaintiff is compensated. [Page 170]
J. The court grants injunctive relief that federal funds to the city of Los Angeles, county Los Angeles, and applicable local, county, and state agencies, be suspended until racial discrimination and housing unsanitary conditions are revolved at the 1522 Hi Point St property. [Page 170]
K. The decisions of various administrative agencies from the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing to the city of Los Angeles HCIDLA, and Los Angeles Code Enforcement and Los Angeles Public Health department, between 2014- current, have been issued with the sole purpose of denying Plaintiff’s Constitution equal protection and denying Plaintiff fair housing. [Page 170]
M. That all state, county, and city employees who claim their department does not have jurisdiction over the California H & S code and state Buildings Standards, and who claim those entities do not have authority over all "portions" of buildings, will suffer discipline.
605. Plaintiff contends that if not for race and retaliation by Defendants, Plaintiff would have reasonably had his intercom repaired or replaced within a 35 days period, and the tandem stall would have reasonably been provided in June 2014 without any extra rent charges.[Page 171]
"613. That the Plaintiff is not asking for "special treatment"; plaintiff is not asking for a housing service that is beyond the reach of the Defendants. Plaintiff is simply asking for full and equal rights to the intercom, the tandem stall, that are clearly provided with the tenancy and the building, and provided to other tenants, services that are clearly within the reasonable and economic reach of the Defendants, especially since it is the tenant’s rent that is paying for equal and full available housing services." [Page 175]
",,,the owner arbitrarily assign tandem stalls to tenants who only had one car,,,"
"Since May 2014, Plaintiff has witnessed HI POINT make privileges
available to white tenants who wanted an additional parking stall, or wanted a
tandem stall, or wanted to move from one stall to another. Plaintiff witnessed the
owner even extend one stall’s striping to make a stall into tandem at the tenant’s
request. The tenant was perceived to be white. Plaintiff witnessed the owner
arbitrarily assign tandem stalls to tenants who only had one car. "[FAC page 160]
"That HI POINT acted in an unreasonable manner in April 2014 by reducing
Plaintiff to a single stall, while six tandem stalls remained vacant." [FAC p. 161]
",,,By their actions, the Defendants, each and every one, have unreasonably decided that Plaintiff is a "Nigger" and is not a "person" who is entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever..."
"That "all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and
no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability,
medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are
entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." Civil Code 51,
52 Unruh Act. By their actions, the Defendants, each and every one, have
unreasonably decided that Plaintiff is a "Nigger" and is not a "person" who is
entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.’ " [FAC P. 161]
"Such blatant denial of mandatory duty by the city and county government
prove that federal funding should be suspended in some small measure due to the
violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights." [FAC, p. 168]
"City Los Angeles Code enforcement and county Public Health department
is ordered to re-inspect any and all properties over the past five years where city
and county said they did not have jurisdiction over all portions of a building; such
inspections shall be summarized in a report to the court and filed as a document
accessible to public viewing." [FAC p. 168]
"That the owner, and all other defendants are hereby enjoined and estopped
from violating Plaintiff’s civil rights, and hereby enjoined to provide Plaintiff full
and equal terms, conditions, advantages, and privileges, and specifically
defendants, where applicable, and the property owner, will provide Plaintiff with a
working intercom, assignment to parking for two cars or tandem stall, without
extra charge, within 10 days of the signing and entry of this Order." [FAC, p. 168]
"Further, the city of Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment
department will issue an order that Plaintiff will be provided a rent reduction and
rent reimbursement for the loss of intercom and loss of parking stall. The amounts
of the rent reduction and rent reimbursement, including treble damages, shall be in
accordance with Plaintiff’s complaints, and separate from any damages awarded by
a jury in this matter." [FAC p. 169]
"...[that] The court [will] grants injunctive relief that federal funds to the city of Los Angeles, county Los Angeles, and applicable local, county, and state agencies, be
suspended until racial discrimination and housing unsanitary conditions are revolved at the 1522 Hi Point St property..."
"The rent reduction and reimbursement to Plaintiff, shall continue unabated
and will be paid by all defendants, except the State of California, as money
damages until such time the intercom is repaired or replaced, and until such time
the defendant Hi Point Apts, LLC provides plaintiff with a tandem parking stall at
no extra cost to the Plaintiff." [FAC, p. 169]
"The court [will] grants injunctive relief that federal funds to the city of Los
Angeles, county Los Angeles, and applicable local, county, and state agencies, be
suspended until racial discrimination and housing unsanitary conditions are
revolved at the 1522 Hi Point St property." [FAC p. 170]
"That all state, county, and city employees who claim their department does
not have jurisdiction over the California H & S code and state Buildings Standards,
and who claim those entities do not have authority over all "portions" of buildings,
will suffer discipline." [FAC p. 171]
"For each incident of discrimination, Plaintiff is entitled to full
refund of monthly rent because owner has collected rent under false and
deceptive pretenses, i.e fraudulent omission of tenant rights under civil
code section 1940.4, denial of maintenance, denial of tandem parking
stall. The rental agreement month to month ends on the last day of the
month. The rental agreement is renewed upon receipt of a new rent
amount. Therefore plaintiff calculates the denial of intercom and as
separate incidents, per month. Therefore plaintiff is entitled to $25,000 x
each incident per 24 months = $600,000. Civil Code 52(a)(2). Every
time rent $1100 [to be adjusted] was renewed for last x 24 months =
$26,400 x treble = $79,200. Civil code section 52(a). Joint and several
damages against which defendants for every month that Plaintiff was
denied repair or replacement of the intercom, and Plaintiff was denied a
tandem parking stall, and the privilege of applying for and competing
for, a tandem parking stall. Total $679,200 subtotal each against
defendants, per statute, excepting defendant State of California." [FAC
"That the Plaintiff is not asking for "special treatment"; plaintiff is
not asking for a housing service that is beyond the reach of the
Defendants. Plaintiff is simply asking for full and equal rights to the
intercom, the tandem stall, that are clearly provided with the tenancy and
the building, and provided to other tenants, services that are clearly
within the reasonable and economic reach of the Defendants, especially
since it is the tenant’s rent that is paying for equal and full available
housing services." [FAC p. 175]
"Total damages, adjustable, and continuing: $687,768.83, jointly and severally liable." [FAC p. 176]
What do Tenant’s Court Motions Ask for ?
"The CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a political subdivision of the STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, has failed to provide effective remedies to eliminate
discriminatory practices, such practices as alleged in the JOHNSON
FAC." [Document 103, page ID 2612, filed November 7, 2016. Opposition to City
Motion to Dismiss]
"PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THE COURT STRIP THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OF FEDERAL FUNDING SAYING
IT HAS NO MANDATORY DUTY TO ABATE A NUISANCE AND
FOR DENYING EQUAL PROTECTION TO THE PLAINTIFF
"Under "CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION
OF RIGHTS SEC. 26. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and
prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.’ " The
county has failed to diligently fulfill its mandatory duty to enforce HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE TITLE 5. SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SUBTITLE A. SANITATION CHAPTER 343. ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC
NUISANCES SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS. See FAC, page
207-208, Exhibit 4. "Sec. 343.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (6) "Premises"
means all privately owned property, including vacant land or a building designed
or used for residential, commercial, business, industrial, or religious purposes. The
term includes a yard, ground, walk, driveway, fence, porch, steps, or other structure
appurtenant to the property. " [emphasis added.]" [Document 64, page ID 1716,
filed October 6, 2016.]
Plaintiff/Tenant Seeks Order
from the Court Against the County of Los Angeles
[Proposed Order] This Court, having read and considered the papers
submitted by the parties and finding good cause therefor, orders that the Motion To
Dismiss And Strike the First Amended Complaint, Or In The Alternative, For A
More Definite Statement, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
12(f), and 12(e), filed by Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND ALAN
CHEN, is hereby DENIED with prejudice as to all causes of action alleged as to
Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND ALAN CHEN, because the
claims for relief state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
a. Judgment is entered against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND ALAN
CHEN for the whole amount of $687,768.83, [six hundred eighty seven
thousand seven hundred sixty eight dollars and eighty three cents] for the
filing of a frivolous motion;
b. The Court issues on its own motion summary judgment under rule12C against
all other defendants, on the grounds they joined in to violate Plaintiff’s due
process rights to discovery and right to receive a responsive pleading and
answer, and conspired with the defendant City of Los Angeles to file
untimely documents with the Court, in the amount of $687,768.83, [six hundred
eighty seven thousand seven hundred sixty eight dollars and eighty three cents]
against each Defendant.
c. The Court issues on its own motion an order that disqualifies all attorneys, due
to their conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s due process rights to conduct discovery
under the United States Constitution and Equal Rights Protection under the 14th
d. The Court issues on its own motion sanction against all attorneys and defendants
for violating Plaintiff’s due process rights to an Answer at the same time as the
filing of a responsive pleading. Local rule 83-7. FRCP 15(a)(3).
e. The Court issues on its own motion an order that the City defendants are
untimely due to the filed September 1, 2016 motion to dismiss, and subsequent
filings improperly joined by other defendants and counsel, and City defendants has
waived its rights to participate and this acts as estoppel and estops them from any
court filings. Local Rule 7-13. Local rule 83-7.
f. The Court issues on its own motion an order prohibiting any attorney of the City
of Los Angeles, 23 or more, from participating in this lawsuit, and prohibited from
providing legal representation to the City of Los Angeles on the grounds they
participated in providing incompetent representation to the City of Los Angeles
defendants, and participated in filing untimely documents with the Court, such
actions act as estoppel.
g. The Court issues on its own motion an order that Defendants violated the Initial
Standing Order of Judge Josephine Staton as regards Plaintiff’s right to start
discovery. [From Court Document 66, filed Oct 6, 2016, Page ID 1803-1805]
Plaintiff Opposition to Williams Real Estate Advisors
Motion to Declare Vexatious
"…Plaintiff requests that, not only for sanctions on the court’s own
initiative, but also grounds to deny the Motion of WILLIAMS with prejudice."
"Plaintiff requests also that the Court issue an order, on its own motion/
initiative, that DEFENDANT(s) will provide security in the amount of $2 million
dollars [two million dollars] to cover JOHNSON’S fees, costs, and expenses,
before DEFENDANTS proceed with any activity in this case."
[Document 93, filed October 24, 2016, page ID 2340.]
Plaintiff Motion 59 for Entry Default Judgment
against City of Los Angeles
"For example but not limited to, Plaintiff is Black, resides on the left side of
the building. He has no working intercom and only one parking stall used by his
roommate, for over 24 months. On the right side of the building across the hallway
in apt 1, is a tenant who is Causasian, white; that tenant has three parking stalls
and a working intercom. P. Declar. page 4, ¶ 12. This is evidence of the illegal
disparity sanctioned by and participated in by the CITY’s custom and practice."
"Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests the court issue an order that:
Default and Judgment of $150,240 be granted against defendant CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, based on the fact they filed a September 1, 2016 motion that was
untimely after the service of summons and complaint that occurred on August 8,
"Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests the court issue an order that:
Punitive/exemplary damages of of $501 million (five hundred one million) be
granted against defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES, based on the fact CITY filed
a September 1, 2016 motion that was untimely since the service of summons and
complaint occurred on August 8, 2016."
"Plaintiff requests the declarative, injunctive, and equitable relief requested
in the Complaint, to remedy the violation of federal rights and housing disparity
that Plaintiff has suffered." [Court document 95, filed Oct 21 2016, page ID 2480-2481]
Plaintiff Motion Under Rule 12C against Williams Real
Estate Advisors, Inc.
"Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests the court issue an order that:
Summary Judgment of $150,240 be granted against defendant WILLIAMS REAL
ESTATE ADVISORS, Inc. as there is no genuine dispute of the material facts of
the Complaint, based on the default of the CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al
"Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff requests that the Court grant:
Summary judgment be granted against all defendants for the declarative and
injunctive relief requested in the Complaint that WILLIAMS answered.
"Summary judgment of punitive damages be granted against WILLIAMS as
requested in the Complaint that WILLIAMS answered."
" Plaintiff requests that on the court’s own motion its grant sanctions against
all attorneys and defendants for failure to comply with the ISO of December 2015
of Judge Josephine L. Staton as regards discovery."
"Plaintiff requests that on the court’s own motion it grant sanctions against
all attorneys and defendants for committing fraud on the court in not complying
with the ISO of December 2015 of Judge Josephine L. Staton as regards
"Plaintiff requests that the Court on its own motion disqualify all attorneys,
and all 23 or so, without limitation, City of Los Angeles Defendant and attorneys,
and bar them from participating in the case, on the grounds said Defendants and
The DFEH Complaint of June 8, 2016
Supplement to the Damage Claim against Department Fair Employment and Housing re Racism by Hi Point Apts LLC et al.
[from Black tenant]
Wed 6/8/2016 11:29 PM
To: State Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 Elk Grove, CA 95758
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development San Francisco Regional Office
One Sansome Street Suite 1200 San Francisco CA 94104-4430
The Ku Klux Klan Fights Hard By Authority of Kevin Kish and Governor Jerry Brown
I further respond to the case closure by the DFEH dated May 18 and May 31 2016 as part of this claim for damages as dates of injury. This email shall also supplement documents from me of DEFH complaint May 30 2016 DFEH number 37638-230688; DFEH citizen damage complaint May 19 2016; May 18 20016 email at 9:55 p.m., and the June 6 2016 email at 11:18 p.m.
The decision of the DFEH of May 18 and may 31 is saying that if there are ten Blacks and seven are being treated ok, then it is ok to lynch the other three. I don’t agree with that. Every Black citizen is entitled to equal rights and privileges, the same as those granted to white citizens. The decision of the DFEH is not in compliance with the Unruh Act which states, "All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. " [Emphasis added.]
The decision of the DFEH May 18 and May 31 letters, and the admitted actions of the Hi point Apts LLC and Williams Realty Advisors et al. regarding the intercom and tandem parking stalls, violate my rights under the state California Unruh act to "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever".
42 U.S.C. 3604 Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices
As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful--
(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.
Hi Point Apts LLC Admits Racial Discrimination
Against Black Tenants
But what does Governor Jerry Brown and Mayor Eric Garcetti have to say?
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
"SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution..."
"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
The decision of the DFEH May 18 and May 31 letters, and the admitted actions of the Hi point Apts LLC and Williams Realty Advisors, city government of Los Angeles, and County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors and County government, et al. regarding the intercom and tandem parking stalls, violate the California Constitution in that said government agencies have conspired with the property owner to deny me, and have denied me, equal protection under city, state, and federal laws, and/or regulations, stated herein. Government entities mentioned herein are liable under government code 815.6 (sic) for failure to perform mandatory duties under the California Constitution.
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently in 2015 "acknowledged the validity of "disparate impact" claims, which look not at intent to discriminate but at outcome." The DFEH decision herein ignores the Supreme Court ruling and ignores that the outcome of the actions of Hi Point Apts LLC is that I as a Black tenant continue to be unjustly denied the housing service of an intercom and tandem parking stall, rights granted freely to white tenants, and in violation of my right to equal treatment, i,e, "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." Sufficient evidence has been presented to the DFEH, in particular the words of the Respondent, to make a finding that a violation of the Fair Housing Act has occurred, and continues to occur.
From the Los Angeles Municipal Code section 151.02 et seq:
"410.02 The Rent Adjustment Commission (the Commission) promulgates these regulations on reduction in housing services so that a corresponding reduction in rent can be determined to avoid an increase in rent in violation of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LAMC Sec. 151.02, Definition of Rent Increase).
410.03 A tenant rents an apartment with the appurtenant housing services available at the time of renting the apartment. Landlords who reduce housing services without a corresponding reduction in rent effectuate an increase in rent. The purpose of these regulations is to guide the Los Angeles Housing Department in its evaluation of a corresponding reasonable reduction in rent.
410.04 Housing services are services that are connected with the use or occupancy of a rental unit including, but not limited to, utilities (including light, heat, water and telephone), ordinary repairs or replacement, and maintenance including painting. The term also includes the provision of elevator service, laundry facilities and privileges, common recreational facilities, janitor service, resident manager, refuse removal, furnishings, food service, parking and any other benefits, privileges or facilities. (LAMC Sec. 151.02, Definition of Housing Services)."
Jerry Brown's Klan at 1522 Hi Point Street: equal protection of the law? Not at 1522 Hi Point St in Faircrest Heights
TH RENTAL AGREEMENT AND THE LAMC SECTION 151.02
My recollection is that our intercom was working at the inception of tenancy. Neither the city of Los Angeles or the property owner or the DFEH has presented any verifiable evidence that the intercom apt 9 was not working prior to April 2014. If the intercom was not working it would represent an illegal rent , reg 410.03 above, entitling myself a a Black tenant, to a rent reduction. The current owner assumes the conditions of repairs when purchasing the building. His own letters to tenants admit his liability to make repairs. But even if the intercom was not working prior to 2014, and it needed repairs or replacement, myself as a Black am entitled to such repairs under the LAMC sections above because repair and replacement is a housing service by way of the rental agreement, as stated in sections 410.03 and 410.04 above. And such entitlement of repair or replacement is a right protected under city, state and federal civil rights laws or regulations and the California and United States Constitutions.
The decision of the DFEH May 18 2016 and the owner stated actions violate my entitlement as a Black tenant to repair and replacement of the intercom under the LAMC above.
By letter to all tenants April 4, 2014, the owner thru Renfrew states, "the building is undergoing a series of necessary utility repairs and vacant apartment upgrades." This is evidence at that exact moment he has the unfettered chance to repair the intercom of apartment 9 Black tenants, but by design he chooses to injure the tenants Apt 9 by not repairing or replacing the intercom. The letter gives the name and phone number of the maintenance person "if you have concerns" but the intercom is still not repaired or replaced. As stated many times, the California civil code mandates that a new apartment owner assumes responsibility for items not repaired by a previous owner. For the DFEH or any government agency to mandate less is a violation of and obstruction of the letter and intent of owner obligations under state law.
The Alleged Words of Hi Point Apts LLC
Again I examine the discriminatory statements as noted in the DFEH self serving May 18 2016 letter:
"The Respondents asserted none of the intercoms in the building were working when they took over management, but they began installing working intercoms as tenants vacated the premises and they had a chance to renovate the empty units."
1. The words appear vague and lacking in specificity. On what dates did the owner determine the intercoms were not working? Were they not working because they were broken in each apartment, were they not working at the front of the building? Was the wiring broken and needing repair, was the wiring simply disconnected? What were tenants told about the repairs to the units? Were tenants offered a rent reduction due to the non-working intercom? On what dates did tenants vacate which units? Why did the owner skip over current tenants who could have benefitted from the intercom as housing service? Was source of income a factor to only fix the intercoms after tenants ended their tenancy? On what dates did the owner enter which apartments to make other repairs and what were those repairs? Did Governor Edmund Brown live in the building? Did Mayor Eric Garcetti live in the building? Did Kamala Harris live in the building? Who made it and why was the decision made to not repair the intercoms of the majority Black tenants?
2. How much time per unit was needed to install the new intercoms? Could the new units have been installed while tenants were living in the units?
3. Would it be safe to conclude that the owner made the decision that the majority of Black tenants at the time April 2014 were not entitled to intercom service, repair, or replacement?
4. Is it stated in any of the tenant rental agreements that they were not entitled to a working intercom because they were Black?
"They [Respondents] stated the four units with non-working intercoms, including your apartment, are occupied by long term tenants, which is why those units continue to have intercoms that do not work."
The owner cannot collect rents at this property because he has engaged in rental agreement conditions as stated by the DFEH that are not lawful because they are in conflict with the civil rights laws and housing and habitability laws.
"[t]he object of a contract must be lawful [citation]; i.e., it must not be in conflict either with express statutes or public policy. [Accordingly, i]f the contract has a single object, and that object is unlawful (whether in whole or in part), the entire contract is void." (1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts, § 420, p. 461.) "- Carter v Cohen. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California. - 2010
Jerry Brown's House of KKK.
The tenants number nine on the left side of the building are Black; their intercom has not been repaired or replaced. The tenants number one on the right side of the building are white; their intercom is new and working.
What more evidence of racism does Jerry Brown's DFEH need?
[from tenant at 1522 Hi Point St 90035]
c: via email to Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Department; Williams Realty Advisors at firstname.lastname@example.org.
[This email is redacted from the original as filed in United Stated District Court Case CV16-03236 JLS]
[Updated September 17, 2016]
State Bar Asked to Revoke Licenses of
California "Nigger" Case Attorneys
In a letter dated September 25 2016, the California State Bar is being asked to revoke the certification of attorneys linked to the Los Angeles Civil Rights case against the City of Los Angeles and Hi Point Apts, LLC.
Dubbed as the "Nigger" case because court papers state the plaintiff feels he is perceived a a "nigger" who is not to entitled to full and equal housing privileges, the state bar complaint is against attorneys Renee E Jensen , Thomas L. Watters, Martin Ageson , Robert P. Moore, Jared A Barry, Michael N. Feuer, Craig Takenaka, Kamala D. Harris, Richard J. Rojo.
The complaint states that the attorneys have enagaged in suppression of evidence after refusing to answer discovery requests, and that the attorneys have refused to take settlement offers back to their clients "promptly".
Updated September 25 2016
What is the mandatory duty stated in the FAC of the
State, County, and City?
Under CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF
RIGHTS SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public
education, or public contracting. (f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and
county, public university system, including the University of California,
community college district, school district, special district, or any other political
subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State. (g) The
remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the
injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise
available for violations of then-existing California anti-discrimination law."
| Return Home | Rep Karen Bass re Hyundai | Opposition to Sale of Property | What's New | Corrupt Los Angeles Rent Control | City LA Civil Rights Lawsuit re Hi Point Apts | Racism in America | Inside the Law Firm | California EDD Corruption |