Formatted_Consolidated_Complaint.md

Formatted_Consolidated_Complaint.md

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Santos Ivan Retana and Timothy Patrick Terry,

Plaintiffs

v.

David Brubaker,

Defendant

Case No. [CASE NUMBER]

CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR RESTRAINING ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, Santos Ivan Retana and Timothy Patrick Terry, bring this consolidated complaint against Defendant, David Brubaker, alleging multiple causes of action and seeking a restraining order. In support thereof, Plaintiffs state as follows:

II. PARTIES

  1. Plaintiffs: Santos Ivan Retana, residing at 436 Dwight Street, San Francisco, CA 94134, and Timothy Patrick Terry, residing at 258 Dorland St #2, San Francisco, CA 94114.
  2. Defendant: David Brubaker, residing at 211 S Fremont St, Unit 304, San Mateo, CA 94401.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 395 and 526.
  2. Venue is proper in this County as the Defendant resides in San Mateo County and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this County.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

  1. Plaintiffs were lodgers at the property owned by Defendant, with keys and full access to the property.
  2. Plaintiffs were involved in an extensive non-structural dampening project that involved installing a floating floor system involving a 12 sheets of 3/4" OSB sheets transported and brought up 5 flights of stairs, preliminary cork layer, involving with green glue compoind between the boards, which was completed by them. This labor was part of creating a dependable bunker for Plaintiff Retana, who was estranged and in the middle of an academic disqualification.
  3. Plaintiff Retana utilized this project as a means to get readmitted to his academic program. Both Terry and Brubaker advocated for him and sent letters of recommendation for his readmission. In his letter, Brubaker stated that Plaintiff Retana was going through intense grief and needed a home, and that he would provide that home and continue to provide that home.
  4. Plaintiff Terry was a significant part of the project. His initial involvement was not on the basis of payments from Plaintiff Retana, but out of helping a friend. It was Defendant Brubaker who said he would pay both plaintiffs at the rate of $100 for six hours and would pay for it as if he had asked for this job. However, Defendant Brubaker later made it an issue that it was Retana’s initiative and used this as a reason not to pay either of them.
  5. On July 11th, Defendant choked, assaulted, and battered Plaintiff Santos Ivan Retana. Plaintiff Timothy Patrick Terry witnessed the incident through an Instagram call, during which he also recorded Defendant extorting and threatening to wrongfully claim that Plaintiff Retana assaulted him. Plaintiff Retana called the police but did not press charges because he did not think David would pursue it any further.
  6. On July 12th, Defendant threatened Plaintiffs that if they did not return the keys the day after he had battered Plaintiff Retana, he would not go on his trip to Venezuela.
  7. Subsequently, Defendant changed the locks, resulting in an illegal lockout reported on July 22.
  8. As of the date of this filing, Plaintiffs have been locked out for 31 days, and the lockout is continuing. Plaintiffs are still unable to access the property.
  9. Defendant’s actions have resulted in $6,200 in fines for the initial 31 days of lockout, and fines continue to accrue each day in violation of California Civil Code §§ 789.3© and 1940.2.
  10. Defendant has engaged in a pattern of harassment against Plaintiffs, including threats, unwarranted surveillance, physical intimidation, and asserting dominance over them.
  11. Defendant owes $8,400 for 30 days of recorded work performed by Plaintiffs, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 210 and 203. According to the California Labor Code, compensation is due on the day of termination. If not provided on that day, a penalty of $100 per day is required.
  12. Given that the plaintiffs are not contractors an agreed upon 1/3 of the rate was suggested in good faith but due to the constant oppression and malice. Plaintiffs demand the full day rate, at $140 a day as outlined by Brubaker. $8,400
  13. Failure to pay for compensation has resulted in a total of the maximum 30 days of acquired late fees. Resulting in the standard day rate as described by Defendant Brubaker at $100 plus vacation/insurance/holiday to be $140. Resulting in $4,200 each. Totaling $8,400
  14. Defendant spread false and damaging statements about Plaintiffs, harming their reputations.
  15. Defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct has intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs.
  16. Defendant threatened harm or adverse consequences unless Plaintiffs complied with certain demands, constituting extortion.
  17. Defendant breached the contract with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with its terms.
  18. Plaintiff Retana needs to travel to San Diego to continue his academic program now that he has been readmitted, and he requires assistance to do so. He cannot be delayed by the theatrical plays of the court and needs urgent relief.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I: Assault and Battery

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendant intentionally inflicted harmful or offensive contact upon Plaintiff Santos Ivan Retana, causing injury, in violation of California Penal Code §§ 240 and 242.

Count II: Extortion

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendant threatened harm or adverse consequences unless Plaintiffs complied with certain demands, constituting extortion.

Count III: Illegal Lockout

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendant’s actions in forcibly removing Plaintiffs from the premises without legal cause or proper notice constitute an illegal lockout under California Civil Code §§ 789.3© and 1940.2.

Count IV: Uncompensated Work

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiffs for work performed, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 210 and 203. As per the California Labor Code, compensation is due on the day of termination. If not provided on that day, a penalty of $100 per day is required.

Count V: Breach of Contract

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendant breached the contract with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with its terms.

Count VI: Harassment

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendant’s repeated and unwanted actions or conduct have created a hostile and intimidating environment for Plaintiffs.

Count VII: Libel and Defamation

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendant made false and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs, which were published to third parties and have harmed Plaintiffs’ reputations.

Count VIII: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant as follows:

  1. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
  2. Punitive damages;
  3. An order enjoining Defendant from further unlawful conduct;
  4. Costs of this action;
  5. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

VII. REQUEST FOR RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiffs request a restraining order enjoining Defendant from engaging in further harassment, threats, and any contact with Plaintiffs, and requiring Defendant to allow Plaintiffs to re-enter the property.

VIII. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 56 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

IX. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: 8/8/24

Respectfully submitted,

Santos Ivan Retana
436 Dwight Street
San Francisco, CA 94134
sretana@ucsd.edu
(650) 360-4671

Timothy Patrick Terry
258 Dorland St #2
San Francisco, CA 94114
tterry2@ccsf.edu
650-660-9621

Plaintiffs, Pro Se

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Understanding and Supporting a Friend in Crisis: Analyzing a Message from Santos

--- --- Understanding and Supporting a Friend in Crisis: Analyzing a Message from Santos Introduction When someone we care about is going through a difficult time, understanding and supporting them can be challenging. In this blog post, we’ll analyze a series of messages from Santos, who is experiencing intense emotional struggles. By dissecting the content and emotions conveyed, we can better understand how to offer meaningful support and foster a stronger, more empathetic connection. Analysis of Santos’s Messages Expectation of Engagement and Depth Santos feels their content has depth and density that deserves thorough consideration. They are frustrated with Person A’s lack of engagement, which they see as dismissive and inadequate. Feeling Manipulated and Unsupported Santos believes there has been a deliberate effort to portray them as unstable and feels that Person A has aligned with this manipulation. This perception of betrayal exacerbates their sense of isolation and m...
Read more

Conclusion

--- --- Legal Analysis of California Civil Code 789.3c: Illegal Lockouts, Eviction Procedures for Lodgers, and Associated Civil Torts Introduction Overview of California Civil Code 789.3c Definition and scope Importance in protecting tenant rights Purpose of the Research Focus on potential motions and legal provisions related to 789.3c Examination of restitution and punitive damages Emphasis on ensuring justice and solidarity in San Mateo, inspired by David Rueger’s principles Structure of the Paper Breakdown of key sections Section 1: Understanding California Civil Code 789.3c Text of the Statute Full text of Civil Code 789.3c Legislative intent behind the statute Historical Background Evolution of landlord-tenant laws in California Significant amendments and case law shaping 789.3c Key Provisions and Interpretations Definitions of “lodger” and “landlord” Specific protections against illegal lockouts Legal remedies available under the s...
Read more