Page 1
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 1/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOYCE SHANKS, Sr.
P.O. BOX 2794LONG BEACH, CA. 90801-2794
(562) 673-0623PLAINITFF IN PRO PER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
JOYCE SHANKS, Sr
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
HOUSING AUTHORTIES of LOS
ANGELES; CARMELITOS HOUSINGCOMMUNITY; SEAN ROGAN (Exec. Dir.);
LYNN ANDERSON (Property Manager)1;
and DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.
)
))
)
))
)
))
)
)))
)
PLAINTIFFS’ UNLIMITED COMPLAINT
FOR
(1) NEGLIGENCE;
(2) NEGLIGENCE ;
(3) FRAUD;
(4) INTENTIONAL TORT;
(5) WRONGFUL EVICTION
(6) BREACH OF LEASE
AGREEMENT;
(7) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
COVENANT OF GOOD FAITHAND FAIR DEALING
(8) RETAILATION
(9) DEFAMTION/LIBLE
DEMAND JURY TRIAL
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
HEREIN;
Plaintiffs hereby allege as follows:
PARTIES
1. Defendant HOUSING AUTHORTIES of LOS ANGELES is, and at all times herein
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1
Page 2
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 2/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
mentioned was, a governmental public entity business organized and existed under the laws of
the State of California, doing business in Los Angeles County, California.
2. Defendant CARMELITOS HOUSING COMMUNITY a business entity of unknown
form, doing business in Los Angeles County, California.
3. Defendant SEAN ROGAN (Exec. Dir.) is a natural person and a resident of Los Angeles
County, California.
4. Defendant LYNN ANDERSON (Property Manager) is a natural person and a resident
of Los Angeles County, California.
5. Plaintiff do not know the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as
DOES 1 through 20 (“DOE Defendants”), inclusive, and therefore sues said DOE Defendants by
fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based on such information and belief
aver that each of the DOE Defendants is contractually, strictly, negligently, intentionally,
vicariously liable and or otherwise legally responsible in some manner for the acts and
omissions described herein. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to set forth the true names and
capacities of each DOE Defendant when same are ascertained.
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based on such information and belief avers that
Defendants HOUSING AUTHORTIES of LOS ANGELES, CARMELITOS HOUSING
COMMUNITY, SEAN ROGAN (Exec. Dir.), LYNN ANDERSON (Property Manager) and
DOE Defendants 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, are and at all material times have
been, the agents, servants or employees of each other, purporting to act within the scope of said
agency, service or employment in performing the acts and omitting to act as averred herein.
HOUSING AUTHORTIES of LOS ANGELES, CARMELITOS HOUSING COMMUNITY,
SEAN ROGAN (Exec. Dir.), LYNN ANDERSON (Property Manager are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the “Defendants.”
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
2
Page 3
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 3/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. Each of the Defendants named herein are believed to, and are alleged to have been acting
in concert with, as employee, agent, co-conspirator or member of a joint venture of, each of the
other Defendants, and are therefore alleged to be jointly and severally liable for the claims set
forth herein, except as otherwise alleged.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Plaintiff is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a resident
of the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff is legally disable and has resided
at 761 E. Via Carmelitos, APT# 330, Long Beach Ca. 90805, since 2010. Plaintiff has during all this time
enjoyed a good reputation, both generally and in her occupation.
9. In the year of 2011, plaintiff attempt to apply to add addition of family members to her
lease, which is permitted by the defendants. Defendants have misrepresented that this process
take 24 months, with no intension of every allowing plaintiff to add any family member to her
lease.
10. Plaintiff also applied for a “Special Unit” because of her disability. Plaintiff was
required to submit Verification of Need for Reasonable Accommodation, an application
generated by the defendants to ascertain if the applicant is disabling as define under the law.
Plaintiff is and all time mentioned in this complaint was disabled as defined by law, in a
wheelchair and living on a 3rd floor. Plaintiff needed to be place on a lower level in order to
accommodate her disability. Although, plaintiff submitted several applications to the defendants,
but was denied a unit that would accommodate her as others that are similarly situated. The
defendants illegally denied plaintiff placement into a special unit to have been waived by
plaintiff.
11. The defendants had plaintiff sign a waiver the first year she signed her lease agreement
to take the 3rd floor unit because a special unit that would accommodate plaintiff would not be
available and that if plaintiff did not sign the wavier the unit would go to the next person on the
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
3
Page 4
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 4/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
list. Plaintiff was assurance that when a special unit became available she would be placed in
that special unit. One of the reason the defendants gave for its denial of the special unit, was
plaintiff singing of the wavier in 2010, however, plaintiff have signed consecutive lease
agreements annually since the singing of the 2010 where no wavier was signed by plaintiff.
12. Plaintiff after constantly being denied her requests for adding additional family
members or her requests for a special unit to accommodate her disability began to make verbal
complaints to the defendants for what she believed to be unfair treatment by the defendants. The
defendants began to retaliate against plaintiff. This retaliation came in the form of making false
statement that plaintiff had allowed her son to reside in the premises without the proper authority
and the deformation statements that plaintiff has in some form engaged in illegal drug activities
while a resident of the defendants, or relying on those false and defamation statements when
they knew were false. The defendants then published or had published the false and defamation
statements, to commence bring about an illegal eviction process against the plaintiff.
13. The defendants’ sole purpose for making or publishing the false and defamation
statements was to cause or bring about an adverse action against the plaintiff to deter her from
continuing to engage in the pursuit of either obtaining additional family members to her lease or
a special unit that would accommodating her disability.
14. The defendants did the above acts or conduct as an use, or threaten to use, force,
willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a course of conduct that interferes with the
plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of Section 1927 that would create an
apprehension of harm in a reasonable person.
15. The defendants after plaintiff continue to complain and inquire in to either obtaining
additional family members to her lease or a special unit that would accommodate her disability,
issued plaintiff with a 30 Day Notice to Quit on the false and defamation statements they
themselves had generated and subsequently file an Unlawful Detainer complaint employing the
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
4
Page 5
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 5/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
same false and defamation statements stated and published in the 30 Day Notice to Quit. This
was done because plaintiff exercised her right to either obtaining additional family members to
her lease or a special unit that would accommodate her disability. The two events occur at the
same time and in the same place; one event immediately precedes the other; the second event
appears unlikely to have happened without the first event having occurred.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
NEGLIGENCE
(AGAINST EACH OF THE F DEFENDANTS)
16. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through
15, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
17. At all times relevant herein, the Defendants, acting as Plaintiffs’ landlord, had a duty to
exercise reasonable care in presenting and relying on truthful evidence before commencing
eviction process against the plaintiff and to discharge and fulfill the other terms of the lease
agreement before the eviction of the plaintiff.
18. In taking the actions alleged above, and in failing to take the actions as alleged above, the
Defendants breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs in the knowing relying on false and
defamation statements which brought into being defendants’ serving the Plaintiff a 30 Day
notice to Quit and the filing of the unlawful detainer complaint, among other things, failing to
properly and accurately investigate information made by plaintiffs with respect to her son use of
her P.O. Box address, and filing false documents, and evicting or having plaintiff evicted form
the property on information and statement they knew was false or unfounded.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the Defendants as
set forth above, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
5
Page 6
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 6/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NEGLIGENCE
(AGAINST DEFENDANT CARMELITOS HOUSING COMMUNITY)
20. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through
19, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
21. In or around December 19, 2012, Defendants Carmelitos Housing Community served
plaintiff a 30 Day Notice to Quit, alleging that plaintiff breached several provision of the lease
agreement.
22. Defendants have acted on manufactured unfounded facts or false statements they
generated that caused plaintiff to be wrongfully evicted. Therefore, Defendant is liable under a
theory of negligence per se as they acted with 'criminal negligence' with respect to a result or to
a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when they fails to perceive a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result would occur or that such circumstance exists.
23. Additionally, Defendant Carmelitos Housing Community failed to use reasonable skill
and care in the investigation of the allegations made against plaintiff in that they failed to take
any action other than making a misrepresentation of facts and/or falsely reporting false and
misleading statements in the 30 Day Notice to Quit and in the failing of an unlawful detainer
complaint in the superior court.
24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of that information and belief allege,
that had Defendant Carmelitos Housing Community used proper skill and care in the handling of
Plaintiff’s matter, Plaintiffs would not have been wrongfully evicted from her unit and/or
causing her harm to her reputation.
25. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant
Carmelitos Housing Community as set forth above, Plaintiff’s reputation was put in such a bad
light that she was subsequently evicted from the defendants’ housing unit, resulting in general
and special damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
6
Page 7
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 7/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
FRAUD
(AGAINST EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS)
26. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through
25, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
27. The Defendant Carmelitos Housing Community engaged in a pattern and practice of
defrauding Plaintiff in that, during the life of the lease agreements after the initial 2010 lease
agreement which included plaintiff’s wavier to a special unit because no special unit ware
available at that time, misrepresented to plaintiff, that she when a special unit become available,
plaintiff would be place in that unit. Defendant Carmelitos Housing Community after the wavier
had expired failed to place plaintiff in a special unit based on Plaintiff’s signing of the 2010
wavier which they knew to have expired.
28. The Defendant Carmelitos Housing Community had actual knowledge that the Plaintiff’s
wavier to a special unit was not legally binding after the year 2010, but that the Defendant could
use the 2010 wavier to deny plaintiff a special unit. Plaintiffs in the year of 2011 made her
initial request for a special unit and were told by Defendant Carmelitos Housing Community
that the 2010 wavier was still in effect. This was a misrepresentation based on the improper,
inaccurate, and fraudulent representations as to the 2010 wavier. The Defendants also utilized
statement generated by them and known to the Defendant to be false and inaccurate such as their
allegation that plaintiff had allowed for her son to live in the premises, to deny plaintiff a special
unit and to wrongfully evict plaintiff.
29. Additionally, the Defendants concealed material facts known to them but not to Plaintiffs
regarding personal P.O. Box usage as it apply to the defendants’ practice and policies with the
intent to defraud Plaintiff.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
7
Page 8
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 8/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30. The Defendants made the above-referenced false representations, concealments and non-
disclosures with knowledge of the misrepresentations, intending to induce Plaintiffs' reliance,
which the unsuspecting Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon, resulting in damage to plaintiff, loss of
property. Plaintiffs were unaware of the true facts. Had Plaintiffs known the true facts,
Plaintiffs, among other things, would not have maintained the Defendants as her landlord, and/or
would have taken legal action immediately to prevent herm to reputation and or the wrongful
eviction.
31. As a result of the Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered compensatory,
general and special damages in an amount to proof. Additionally, the Defendants acted with
malice, fraud and/or oppression and, thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive
damages.
FOUTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL TORT
(AGAINST EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS)
32. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through
31, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
33. On or about December 19, 2012, defendants published or published and issued plaintiff a
30 Day Notice to Quit, stating that plaintiff had illegally allowed Charles Edward Moore to live
in the premises without written approval from management and in some form had engaged in
illegally drug activity.
34. On or about March 9, 2013, defendants published and/or issued plaintiff a Notice of
Decision, stating that plaintiff had illegally allowed Charles Edward Moore to live in the
premises without written approval from management and in some form had engaged in illegally
drug activity.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
8
Page 9
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 9/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35. On or about March 9, 2013, defendants published or issued plaintiff an Unlawful
Detainer Complaint, stating that plaintiff had illegally allowed Charles Edward Moore to live in
the premises without written approval from management and in some form had engaged in
illegally drug activity.
36. The 30 Day Notice to Quit, Notice of Decision, and Unlawful Detainer Complaint,
referred to plaintiff by name throughout, was made of and concerning plaintiff, and was so
understood by those who read the 30 Day Notice to Quit, a Notice of Decision, and Unlawful
Detainer Complaint that is related to her.
37. The entire statement (1) The Housing Authority is informed that at certain times during
the period of the Lease Agreement CHARLES EDWARD MOORE has been residing in the
Premises and (2) On or about November 4, 20L2, CHARLES EDWARD MOORE engaged in
drug-related criminal activity, i.e., the misdemeanor possession of marijuana while a guest,
member or other person related to the Premises is false as it pertains to plaintiff.
38. The 30 Day Notice to Quit is libelous on its face. It clearly exposes plaintiff to hatred,
contempt, ridicule and obloquy because plaintiff has not allow CHARLES EDWARD MOORE
to reside in premises nor was there any other form of additional income received by plaintiff.
39. The statements in the 30 Day Notice to Quit, Notice of Decision, and Unlawful Detainer
Complaint was seen and read on or about May 10, 2013 at the Long Beach Superior Court by
judge/Commissioner __________________________.
40. As a proximate result of the above-described publication, plaintiff has suffered loss of
lease of the premises her reputation, shame, mortification, and injury to her feelings, all to her
damage in a total amount to be established by proof at trial.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
9
Page 10
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 10/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41. The above-described publication was not privileged because it was published by
defendants with malice, hatred and ill will toward plaintiff and the desire to injure her, in that
defendants had expressed a desire to "retaliate” against plaintiff. Because of defendants' malice
in publishing, plaintiff seeks punitive damages in a total amount to be established by proof at
trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL EVICTION
(AGAINST EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS)
42. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through
41, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
43. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants have held plaintiff to
illegal or overbroad terms and or a provision of the lease agreement in that they have accrue
jurisdiction of U.S. postal services as to what mail can be received at these intuitions which none
of the Defendants in this action could legally do. Moreover, none of the Defendants in this
action were lawfully in a position to govern plaintiff incoming mail at her P.O. Box address.
Accordingly, none of the Defendants in this action had the right to hold that the use of the P.O.
Box address was in violation of the lease agreement. The plaintiff was not in violation of the
lease agreement at any time with regard to Plaintiff’s leasing of the housing unit.
44. Plaintiff further allege on information and belief that the terms or provisions was added
to the lease agreement by the defendants without notifying the Plaintiffs in writing. Therefore,
the added terms or provision is void of legal rights to enforce it.
45. Additionally, the Defendants violated California Civil Code §1940.2(a)(3) , which
prohibits a “landlord to do any of the following for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate
a dwelling: Use, or threaten to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
10
Page 11
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 11/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
course of conduct that interferes with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of
Section 1927 that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person.”
46. None of the Defendants contacted Plaintiff to discuss their amendment to the lease
agreement. Moreover, none of the Defendants explored options with Plaintiff to avoid eviction.
Additionally, none of the Defendants informed Plaintiff of the right to have a meeting as to the
amended terms and or provisions of said lease agreement. Accordingly, the Defendants did not
fulfill their legal obligation to Plaintiffs.
47. Thus, the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent conduct to begin eviction process against
plaintiff in that the Defendants did not have the legal authority to evict plaintiff for her letting
her son using of the P.O. Box address.
48. As a result of the above alleged wrongs, Plaintiffs have suffered general and special
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
BREACH OF LEASE AGREEMENT
(AGAINST EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS)
49. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through
48, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
50. Plaintiffs’ original singed lease agreement had a wavier as to the special unit, which was
valid for one year. The defendants have not obtained any other wavier when plaintiff renewed
her lease agreement thereafter annually.
51. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants have held plaintiff to
illegal or overbroad terms and or a provision of the lease agreement in that they have accrue
jurisdiction of U.S. postal services as to what mail can be received at these intuitions which none
of the Defendants in this action could legally do. Moreover, none of the Defendants in this
action were lawfully in a position to govern plaintiff incoming mail at her P.O. Box address.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
11
Page 12
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 12/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, none of the Defendants in this action had the right to hold that the use of the P.O.
Box address was in violation of the lease agreement. The plaintiff was not in violation of the
lease agreement at any time with regard to Plaintiff’s leasing of the housing unit.
52. Plaintiff further allege on information and belief that the terms or provisions was added
to the lease agreement by the defendants without notifying the Plaintiffs in writing. Therefore,
the added terms or provision is void of legal rights to enforce it.
53. Additionally, the Defendants violated California Civil Code §1940.2(a)(3) , which
prohibits a “landlord to do any of the following for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate
a dwelling: Use, or threaten to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a
course of conduct that interferes with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of
Section 1927 that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person.”
54. None of the Defendants contacted Plaintiff to discuss their amendment to the lease
agreement. Moreover, none of the Defendants explored options with Plaintiff to avoid eviction.
Additionally, none of the Defendants informed Plaintiff of the right to have a meeting as to the
amended terms and or provisions of said lease agreement. Accordingly, the Defendants did not
fulfill their legal obligation to Plaintiffs.
55. The Defendants breached the lease agreement by applying terms and or provisions to it,
the result of which led to the Defendants eventually evicting plaintiff from the housing unit on.
56. As a proximate result of Defendants' breaches, Plaintiffs have suffered compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
SEVEN CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
(AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS)
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
12
Page 13
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 13/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through
56, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
58. Every lease agreement imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in
its performance and its enforcement. This implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
requires that no party will do anything that will have the effect of impairing, destroying, or
injuring the rights of the other party to receive the benefits of their agreement. The covenant
implies that in all contracts each party will do all things reasonably contemplated by the terms of
the contract to accomplish its purpose. This covenant protects the benefits of the contract that
the parties reasonably contemplated when they entered into the agreement.
59. Alternatively, if the following lease agreement after the 2010 lease agreement and wavier
of the special unit was validly and properly assign to Defendants, the Defendants did not act in
good faith and did not deal fairly with Plaintiff in connection with the 2011 and 2012 lease
agreements, that is, the defendants never obtain waivers of the special unit demanded by the
plaintiff, even though there ware proof of the non-existing of any waivers as to the 2011 and
2012 lease agreement.
60. The Defendants enjoyed substantial discretionary power affecting the rights of Plaintiff
during the events alleged in this Complaint. They were required to exercise such power in good
faith.
61. The Defendants engaged in such conduct to deny Plaintiff of the right to a special unit
housing community and to subsequently have plaintiff evicted from the property altogether.
These actions were a bad faith breach of the lease agreement between Plaintiffs and the
Defendants which show that they had no intention of performing the contract, consisting of the
2011 and 2012 lease agreements and wavier of the special unit, in good faith.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
13
Page 14
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 14/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
62. Defendants willfully breached their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with
Plaintiff when defendants continued to hold the 2010 wavier to a special unit valid in order to
deny plaintiff a special unit and then commence eviction process because plaintiff began to
complain about defendants’’ action being unfair.
63. As a result of the Defendants’ breaches of this covenant, Plaintiffs have suffered general
and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
RETAILATION
(AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS)
64. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through
63, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein
65. That plaintiff Joyce Shanks was eligible for special unit that would accommodate her
disabilities and eligible to add additional family members to her lease agreement.
66. That plaintiff in 2011 after her initial 2010 wavier to a special unit had expired, began to
submit her request to be removed from the 3rd floor unit and to place in a ground unit that would
allow plaintiff to utilize her motorized wheelchair and any other apparatus that would be
afforded to her under ADA.
67. That defendants created and or misrepresented facts they knew was false to have plaintiff
evicted from the housing unit, or caused plaintiff to be evicted on terms and provisions of the
lease agreement that did not exist under the lease agreement between defendants and the
plaintiff.
68. That plaintiff’s request to be removed from the 3rd floor unit and to be place in a ground
unit that would allow plaintiff to utilize her motorized wheelchair and any other apparatus that
would be afforded to her under ADA was a motivating reason for defendants evicting or having
plaintiff evicted for the housing unit.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
14
Page 15
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 15/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
69. That plaintiff was harmed by being denied the special unit that she was entitled to
likewise , plaintiff further suffer harm in that she ware subsequently evicted from the housing
unit.
70. That defendants’ retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff harm.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
DEFAMTION/LIBLE
(AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS)
71. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through
70, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein
72. Plaintiff is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a
resident of the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff is legally disable
and has resided at 761 E. Via Carmelitos, APT# 330, Long Beach Ca. 90805, since 2010.
Plaintiff has during all this time enjoyed a good reputation, both generally and in her occupation.
73. Defendant Sean Rogan (Exec. Dir.); Lynn Anderson (Property Manager), is an individual
and is now, and at all time mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles County,
California.
74. Defendant Lynn Anderson (Property Manager), is an individual and is now, and at all
time mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
75. Defendant Housing Authorities of Los Angeles and Carmelitos Housing Community , is
now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in California in Los
Angeles County California.
76. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that
at all times mentioned in this complaint, defendants were the agents and employees of their
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
15
Page 16
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 16/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
codefendants and in doing the things alleged in this complaint were acting within the course and
scope of such agency and employment.
77. On or about December 19, 2012, defendants published or issued plaintiff a 30 Day
Notice to Quit, stating that plaintiff had illegally allowed Charles Edward Moore to live in the
premises without written approval from management and in some form had engaged in illegally
possession of marijuana.
78. On or about March 9, 2013, defendants published or issued plaintiff a Notice of
Decision, stating that plaintiff had illegally allowed Charles Edward Moore to live in the
premises without written approval from management and in some form had engaged in illegally
possession of marijuana.
79. On or about March 9, 2013, defendants published or issued plaintiff an Unlawful
Detainer Complaint, stating that plaintiff had illegally allowed Charles Edward Moore to live in
the premises without written approval from management and in some form had engaged in
illegally possession of marijuana.
80. The 30 Day Notice to Quit, Notice of Decision, and Unlawful Detainer Complaint,
referred to plaintiff by name throughout, was made of and concerning plaintiff, and was so
understood by those who read the 30 Day Notice to Quit, a Notice of Decision, and Unlawful
Detainer Complaint
81. The entire statement (1) The Housing Authority is informed that at certain times during
the period of the Lease Agreement CHARLES EDWARD MOORE has been residing in the
Premises and (2) On or about November 4, 20L2, CHARLES EDWARD MOORE engaged in
drug-related criminal activity, i.e., the misdemeanor possession of marijuana while a guest,
member or other person related to the Premises is false as it pertains to plaintiff.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
16
Page 17
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 17/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
82. The 30 Day Notice to Quit is libelous on its face. It clearly exposes plaintiff to hatred,
contempt, ridicule and obloquy because plaintiff has not allow CHARLES EDWARD MOORE
to reside in premises nor was there any other form of additional income received by plaintiff.
83. The statements in the 30 Day Notice to Quit, Notice of Decision, and Unlawful Detainer
Complaint was seen and read on or about May 10, 2013 in the Long Beach Superior Court by
Judge/Commissioner ____________________________.
84. As a proximate result of the above-described publication, plaintiff has suffered loss of
lease of the premises her reputation, shame, mortification, and injury to her feelings, all to her
damage in a total amount to be established by proof at trial.
85. The above-described publication was not privileged because it was published by
defendants with malice, hatred and ill will toward plaintiff and the desire to injure her, in that
defendants had expressed a desire to "retaliate” against plaintiff. Because of defendants' malice
in publishing, plaintiff seeks punitive damages in a total amount to be established by proof at
trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants and each of them, jointly
and severally, as follows:
1. For a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties, specifically that the
Plaintiff’s eviction was wrongful.
2. For compensatory, special, general and punitive damages according to proof
against all Defendants.
3. Pursuant to Cal. Civil Code § 1940.2, that all Defendants, their successors,
agents, representatives, employees, and all persons who act in concert with them be permanently
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
17
Page 18
7/30/2019 Joyce's Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/joyces-complaint 18/18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
enjoined from committing any acts in violation of §1940.2, including, but not limited to, the
violations alleged herein.
4. For civil penalties pursuant to statute, restitution, injunctive relief and reasonable
attorneys fees according to proof.
5. For reasonable costs of suit and such other and further relief as the Court deems
proper.
DATED: _____ By: ____________________________
JOYCE SHANKS, Sr.
Plaintiff In Pro Per
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT