Vagle V Archstone ASN Warner Center Paint Carpet Cleaning Security Deposits ASN Emeryville Equity Residential PDF

EXHIBIT 2
Page 147
Case 2:14-cv-03476-RGK-AJW Document 1-3 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 124 Page ID #:149
1
Pursuant to the Court's October 8, 2013 order, Plaintif Jennifr Vagle ("Plaintif') and
2
Defndant ASN Waer Center LLC ("Defndant") submit the fllowing joint status report in
3
preparation fr the further status conference scheduled fr November 1, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.
4
5 I. DISPUTED DISCOVERY
6 On October 8, the Court vacated until frther notice all further briefing on Plaintiffs
7 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests fr Admission (Set One), Motion to Compel
8
Further Reponses to Requests fr Production of Documents (Set One), Motion to Compel Further
9 Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Motion to Compel Further Responses to
10 Special Interogatories (Set One), and Defndant's Motion to Compel Fmiher Discover
11 Reponses. The Court ordered the parties to continue to meet and confer on the disputed
12 discovery and submit a joint status report identifying which discovery items are still in dispute.
13
The Court acknowledged that the parties would retain their respective rights to further briefng
14 (i.e. opposition brief and reply brief) on teir motions to compel.
15
A. Plaintiffs Discover
16
1. Class Contact Infrmation (Special Interrogatory No. 1)
17 The parties were unable to reach an agreement on Plaintiffs request fr the class contact
18 infrmation relative to ASN W amer Center, LLC. The parties wish to discuss this matter with
19
the Court at the November 1 stats conference.
20
21
2. Class Infrmation on Security Deposits at Archstone Warner Center
(Special Interrogatories Nos. 2-17, 22)
22 Defnse counsel has produced this inforation to Plaintifs counsel. Plaintif reserves
23 the right to review te document production befre determining whether to withdraw her motion
24 to compel futher responses on these discovery items.
25 Ill
26 Ill
27 I I I
28
JOIT STATUS RPORT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 148
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
3. Complaints and Small Claims Lawsuits (Special Interrogatories Nos.
18-21; Requests fr Production Nos. 2-5)
The parties have agreed to continue to meet and confer on these discovery items after
Plaintif has had time to review te data produced by Defndant related to class information on
security deposits at the Archstone Waer Center apartment community.
4. Identifcation of Other Archstone Apartments Using the Same
Standardized Forms (Special Interrogatories Nos. 24, 26, 28, 30, 32,
34, 36, 38, 40; Requests fr Admission Nos. 1-10; Form
Interrogatory No. 17.1)
Plaintif has agreed to withdraw these requests and modif this discovery into a single
request fr the identifcation of other Archstone apartment communities with access to the
Operations Manual already produced by Defndant. Based on this modifcation, and without
waiver of any objections, Defndant has agreed to respond this modifed request.
5. Full Identifcation of Witnesses (Special Interrogatories 29, 31, 33,
34, 37, 39, 54, 57, 60, 63, 76; Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1, 15.1,
17.1)
The parties have agreed to continue to meet and confr on these discovery items after
Plaintif further researches the legal issues related to these discovery items.
6. Archstone's Website (Special Interrogatory No. 65)
Plaintif has agreed to modify this discovery item so it is not limited to an entity that
maintained, updated or operated the website at w .archstoneapartments.com. Based on this
modifcation, and without waiver of any objections, Defndant has agreed to respond this
modifed request.
7. Training Materials and Documents (Special Interrogatories 66-72)
Plaintif has agreed to withdraw these requests and modify this discovery into a single
request that seeks the identifcation of taining materials that were used at the Archstone Warner
Center apartment commllity. Based on this modifcation, and without waiver of any objections,
Defndant has agreed to respond this modifed request.
2
JOIT STA1S RPORT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 149
. '
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
8. Archstone's Three Guarantees (Special Interrogatories 7375)
Plaintiff has ageed to witdraw these discovery items.
B. Defndant's Discovery
1. Witness Identity and Ifrmation (orm Interrogatory No. 12.1)
Te paies were unable to reach an ageement on Defendant's form interogatory request
fr the identit of witesses and related contact information. The paies wish to discuss this
matter wit the Court at the November 1 status conference.
2. Facts Supporting Requests fr Admission Denials (orm Interrogator
17.1 as it relates to Requests fr Admission Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11)
Te paties were unable to reach an agreement on Defndant's For Interogatory No.
17.1 as it relates to Requests fr Admission Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. The parties wish to
discuss this matter with the Court at the November 1 status confrence.
Date: October 28, 2013 R. RX PARRIS LAW FIRM
Date: October 28, 2013 LLP
osw 804029148 .1
3
JOIT STATUS REPORT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 150
CHRISTOPHER J. HEALEY (SBN 105798)
chealey@mckennalong.com
2 JAIKARAN SINGH (SBN 201355)
j singh@mckennalong.com
3 McKENA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
4 San Diego, Califria 92101-3372
Telephone: 619.236.1414
5 Facsimile: 619 .232.8311
6 Attorneys for Defndant
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
12
13
14
v.
Plaintiff,
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware
15 limited liability corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,
16
17
Defndant.
Case No. BC480931
PROOF OF SERVICE
Assigned for All Purposes to:
Hon. William F. Highberger
Dept. 307
18 I, Geralynn D. Vidmar, declare under penalty of perjury that I am over the age of eighteen
19
years, that I am not a party to the above-refrenced action, and that I am employed in the State of
20
California, County of San Diego, where the within-mentioned service occurred. My business
21
address is 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, California 92101; telephone number (619)
22 236-1414.
23 On November 8, 2013, I caused to be served the following document(s):
24
1. NOTICE OF RULINGS FROM JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
25
on the interested parties in this action by:
26
27
28
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
SAN DIEGO
LEXISNEXIS SERVICE LIST VIEWABLE ONLINE
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 151
1 XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Complying with Code of Civil Procedure 1010, I caused
such document(s) to be Electronically Filed and Served through the LexisNexis System for
2 the above-entitled case. Upon completion of transmission of said document(s), a filing
receipt is issued to the fling party acknowledging receipt, filing and service by the
3 LexisNexis system. A copy of the LexisNexis filing receipt page will be maintained with
the original document(s)in our ofice.
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
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califoria that the
fregoing is true and correct.
Executed at San Diego, Califoria on November 8, 2013.
Geralvnn D. Vidmar
usw 803757570.5
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
2
SAN DIEGO
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 152
CHRISTOPHER J. HEALEY (SBN 105798)
2 JAIKARAN SINGH (SBN 201355)
jsingh@mckennalong.com
3 McKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
4 San Diego, Califoria 92101-33 72
Telephone: 619.236.1414
5 Facsimile: 619.232.8311
6 Attoreys for Defendant
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC
CONFORMED COPY
ORIGINAL FILED
Su1wrio1 Co1n OfCiiliforui;i
Cn11111 Of Lo Angtlts
NOV 0 8 2013
.John A. Clarke, Executive Oficer/Clerk
By: Robin Sanche, Deputy
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
12
13
14
v.
Plaintiff,
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware
15 limited liability corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,
16
Defendant.
17
Case No. BC48093 l
PROOF OF SERVICE
Assigned for All Purposes to:
I-Ion. William F. Hig
h
berger
Dept. 307
18 I, Geralynn D. Vidmar, declare under penalty of petjury that I am over the age of eighteen
19 years, that I am not a party to the above-refrenced action, and that I am employed in the State of
20 California, County of San Diego, where the within-mentioned service occurred. My business
21 address is 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, California 92101; telephone number (619)
22 236-1414.
23 On November 8, 2013, I caused to be served the following document(s):
24
1. NOTICE OF RULINGS FROM JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
25 on the interested parties in this action by:
26
27
28
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
$AN DIEGO
LEXISNEXIS SERVICE LIST VIEW ABLE ONLINE
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 153
1 XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Complying with Code of Civil Procedure 1010, I caused
such document(s) to be Electronically Filed and Served through the LexisNexis System for
2 the above-entitled case. Upon completion of transmission of said document(s), a filing
receipt is issued to the fling party acknowledging receipt, filing and service by the
3 LexisNexis system. A copy of the LexisNexis filing receipt page will be maintained with
the original document(s)in our ofice.
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
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califoria that the
fregoing is true and correct.
Executed at San Diego, Califoria on November 8, 2013.
Geralvnn D. Vidmar
usw 803757570.5
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
2
SAN DIEGO
PROOF OF SERVICE
SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
FOR COURT USE ONLY
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
CASE NUMBER:
(Nmero del Caso):
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, la direccin y el nmero de telfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
, Deputy Clerk, by
(Adjunto) (Secretario)
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
as an individual defendant. 1.
2.
3. on behalf of (specify):
CCP 416.10 (corporation)
CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
CCP 416.40 (association or partnership)
under:
4. by personal delivery on (date):
FormAdopted for Mandatory Use
J udicial Council of California
SUMMONS
Code of Civil Procedure 412.20, 465
SUM-100
Page 1 of 1
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):

these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 das, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versin. Lea la informacin a
continuacin
Tiene 30 DAS DE CALENDARIO despus de que le entreguen esta citacin y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefnica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y ms informacin en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede ms cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacin, pida al secretario de la corte
que le d un formulario de exencin de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le
podr quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin ms advertencia.
other (specify):
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatin use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
CCP 416.60 (minor)
CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO EST DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
The name and address of the court is:
(El nombre y direccin de la corte es):
DATE:
(Fecha)
SUM-100 [Rev. J uly 1, 2009]
[SEAL]
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
remisin a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o ponindose en contacto con la corte o el
colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
cualquier recuperacin de $10,000 ms de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesin de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation, ASN
WARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, and ASN
LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive
J ENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE
PONCE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated
BC480931 Los Angeles County Superior Court
Central Civil West
600 South Commonwealth Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90005
R. Rex Parris, Esq. (SBN 96567); Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. (SBN 239541) (661) 949-2595 (661) 949-7524
Kitty Szeto, Esq. (SBN 258136); J ohn M. Bickford, Esq. (SBN 280929)
R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 10th Street West, Lancaster, California 93534
THIRDAMENDED
54504572
Nov052013
03:51PM
EXHIBIT 2
Page 154
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 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR J URY TRIAL

R. Rex Parris, Esq. (SBN 96567)
Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. (SBN 239541)
Kitty Szeto, Esq. (SBN 258136)
J ohn M. Bickford, Esq. (SBN 280929)
R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 10th Street West
Lancaster, California 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Facsimile: (661) 949-7524

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

J ENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE
PONCE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated;

Plaintiffs,

v.

Delaware limited liability corporation, ASN
WARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, and ASN
LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive;

Defendants.
Case No. BC480931

CLASS ACTION

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

(1) Violations of Civil Code section
1950.5
(2) Unjust Enrichment
(3) Violation of Business and
Professions Code sections
17200 et seq.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

EXHIBIT 2
Page 155
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

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 410.10 and Article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution.
2. This court has jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants have
sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avail themselves
of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over them by the
California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
3. Venue is proper in this court because Defendants maintain offices, have
agents, and transact business in Los Angeles County. At all material times mentioned
herein, Plaintiffs resided in Los Angeles County.
4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the
amount in controversy with respect to Plaintiffs individual claims is less than $75,000.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff J ENNIFER VAGLE (Plaintiff VAGLE) is, and at all times
mentioned herein was, an individual residing in Los Angeles County, in the State of
California. Plaintiff VAGLE brings this action on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public.
6. Plaintiff GEORGE PONCE (Plaintiff PONCE) is, and at all times
mentioned herein was, an individual residing in Los Angeles County, in the State of
California. Plaintiff PONCE brings this action on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public.
7. Defendant ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC (Defendant ASN WARNER
CENTER) is a limited liability corporation formed under the laws of the State of
Delaware, having its principle place of business at 9200 E Panorama Circle, Suite 400,
Englewood, Colorado, 80112.
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
EXHIBIT 2
Page 156
Case 2:14-cv-03476-RGK-AJW Document 1-3 Filed 05/06/14 Page 10 of 124 Page ID
#:158
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

2

8. Defendant ASN LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC (Defendant ASN
LONG BEACH) is a limited liability corporation formed under the laws of the State of
9. Defendant ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC (Defendant
ARCHSTONE) is a limited liability corporation formed under the laws of the State of
10. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued
herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sued said Defendants by such
fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Third Amended Complaint to allege the true
names and capacities of DOES 1 through 100 when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed
and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of these fictitiously named defendants,
participated or acted in concert with Defendant ASN WARNER CENTER, Defendant
ASN LONG BEACH, and Defendant ARCHSTONE and are therefore responsible in
some manner for the acts, occurrences, and/or omissions alleged herein, and have
thereby proximately caused damages to Plaintiffs, and are liable to Plaintiffs by reason
of the facts alleged herein.
11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all
times herein mentioned, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100 are the agents, partners,
successors, or employees of each other, and, in doing the things complained of herein,
are acting within the course and scope of such agency, partnership, succession, or
employment. All acts and omissions alleged to have been done by Defendants were
done with the consent, knowledge and ratification of all other Defendants.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that there
exists, and at all times herein mentioned there existed, a unity of ownership between the
Defendants such that any individuality or separateness between them has ceased and
each of them is the alter ego of the others. Defendants share essentially identical
EXHIBIT 2
Page 157
#:159
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

3

ownership and officers, share the same corporate headquarters, and utilize the services
of the same employees. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of
Defendants, and each of them, would, under the circumstances, sanction fraud and/or
promote injustice.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Defendant ARCHSTONE
13. Defendant ARCHSTONE manages and operates approximately 70 multi-
unit apartment complexes throughout the State of California. These apartment
complexes operate under the collective name Archstone.
14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
Defendant ARCHSTONE markets its California apartment complexes through, among
other things, its websitearchstoneapartments.com. The website claims that Archstone
is a recognized leader in apartment operations with a portfolio concentrated in many of
the most desirable neighborhoods in the nation. [Archstones] communities reside in
Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Seattle and
Boston metropolitan areas, to name a few. Backed by industry-leading customer
service guarantees, Archstone strives to provide great apartments and great service to
[its] customers. The website also has a feature that allows prospective tenants to
[l]ease apartments online, anytime. To rent an apartment, all a tenant need[s] is an
Internet connection and about 15 minutes.
Defendant ARCHSTONE maintains another residents website called
myarchstone.com, which allows any of the tenants residing at its California apartment
complexes to, among other things, pay their rent online, submit and track service
requests, and find community forms and policies.
employees at Defendant ARCHSTONEs California apartment complexes are
uniformly trained and employed by Defendant ARCHSTONE. Defendant
EXHIBIT 2
Page 158
#:160
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

4

ARCHSTONE claims that [j]obs at Archstone run the gamut from corporate positions
at [their] Denver headquarters to positions throughout the United States at [their]
apartment communities and regional offices. It also claims to provide formal and
informal training. This includes on-boarding training, which is a multi-week
program that combines classroom, online and structured on-the-job activities to build
the skills and confidence needed to interact with customers and deliver outstanding
service. With regards to its property managers, Defendant ARCHSTONE has created
a unique leadership development series to help [their] managers improve their existing
leadership skills and build new ones. The program begins with a multi-day highly
interactive session focused on driving performance and building teams. Managers from
across the country have the opportunity to interact with peers while learning from
executive sponsors. Collaborative opportunities continue in both face-to-face and
online environments.
17. Defendant ARCHSTONE monitors and regulates its employees to ensure
that they comply with its uniform policies and procedures. For example, [e]very
quarter, [Archstone] selects [its] Circle of Excellence winners, which are [its] top
performing associates at [its] apartment properties. Every year, each region holds a
celebration to recognize these winners and many of [Archstones] local associates
attend.
Plaintiff VAGLEs Experience at Archstone Warner Center
18. On or about August 16, 2009 to about August 15, 2010, Plaintiff VAGLE
leased an apartment unit at Archstone Warner Center, located at 21200 Kittridge Street,
Woodland Hills, California, 91303. Archstone Warner Center was legally owned by
Defendant ASN WARNER CENTER, but was managed by Defendant ARCHSTONE.
19. Defendant ARCHSTONE required Plaintiff VAGLE to pay a $399.00
standard security deposit, a $400.00 pet deposit and, and $50.00 deposit for a second set
of keys, for a total security deposit of $849.00.
/ / / /
EXHIBIT 2
Page 159
#:161
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

5

20. On or about August 15, 2010, Plaintiff VAGLE vacated her apartment
unit, leaving it clean and in the same condition it was at the inception of her tenancy,
subject to reasonable wear and tear.
21. On or about August 25, 2010, Defendant ARCHSTONE provided
Plaintiff VAGLE with a Statement of Deposit, withholding $362.13 of her $849.00
deposit. Of the $362.13 withholding, the following deductions, totaling $282.27, that
are the subject of this lawsuit:
a. $80.00 for apartment cleaning;
b. $60.00 for carpet cleaning; and
c. $142.27 for painting.
22. After Plaintiff VAGLEs lease expired, Plaintiff VAGLE spoke to
individuals who also leased apartment units managed by Defendant ARCHSTONE, all
of whom were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and carpet
cleaning/replacement at the end of their tenancies even though they left their apartment
units clean and in the same condition it was at the inception of their tenancies, subject
to reasonable wear and tear.
Plaintiff PONCEs Experience at Archstone Long Beach Harbor
23. On or about November 28, 2010 to about November 27, 2011, Plaintiff
PONCE leased an apartment unit at Archstone Long Beach Harbor, located at 1609
Ximeno Ave, #154, Long Beach, CA 90804. Archstone Long Beach Harbor was
legally owned by Defendant ASN LONG BEACH, but was managed by Defendant
ARCHSTONE.
24. Defendant ARCHSTONE required Plaintiff PONCE to pay a $99.00
security deposit.
25. On or about November 27, 2011, Plaintiff PONCE vacated his apartment
unit leaving it clean and in the same condition it was at the inception of his tenancy,
subject to reasonable wear and tear.
/ / / /
EXHIBIT 2
Page 160
#:162
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

6

26. On or about December 4, 2011, Defendant ARCHSTONE provided
Plaintiff PONCE with a Statement of Deposit, withholding the entirety of his $99.00
deposit and charging him an additional $273.74, totaling $372.74. Of the $372.74
charge, the following deductions, totaling $300.00, are the subject of this lawsuit:
a. $80.00 for apartment cleaning;
b. $60.00 for carpet cleaning; and
c. $160.00 for painting.
27. On or about December 31, 2011, Plaintiff PONCE complained about these
charges to Defendant ARCHSTONE in writing and attached pictures of his apartment
unit the day he moved out showing that he left his apartment clean and in the same
condition it was at the inception of his tenancy, subject to reasonable wear and tear. He
requested that the charges be dropped and that Defendant ARCHSTONE return his
$99.00 deposit.
28. On or about J anuary 9, 2012, Defendant ARCHSTONE responded to
Plaintiff PONCEs complaint, agreeing, as a courtesy, to waive the $80.00 apartment
cleaning fee. The other charges remained.
29. Plaintiff PONCE refused to pay these other charges. Consequently,
Defendant ARCHSTONE sent his bill to collections sometime in early to mid-2012.
Putative Class Members Experiences
30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that their
experiences mirror those of the other ex-tenants of apartment communities managed
and operated by Defendant ARCHSTONE. Plaintiffs have searched the internet and
discovered that mostif not allof the apartment communities managed and operated
by Defendant ARCHSTONE have negative reviews left by ex-tenants alleging that they
were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement
at the end of their lease, even though they left their apartment clean and in the same
condition it was at the inception of their tenancy, subject to reasonable wear and tear.
/ / / /
EXHIBIT 2
Page 161
#:163
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

For example:
1

(a) Archstone Aurora HillsAgoura Hills, CA:
Upon moving out, I had the carpets cleaned, walls painted and
patched, and the entire apartment was spotless. Archstone charged
me for paint, carpets cleaned and shampooed, carpet patched when
no stains were there, and a total clean of the apartment totaling
over $500 when the deposit is only $299..this place is a rip-of.
They do not care about you they only care about how much money
they make off each individual.
Posted 4/12/2012 by Denese P.
(b) Archstone Aliso ViejoAliso Viejo, CA:
Archstone apparently has a policy of charging cleaning, painting
and carpet cleaning on move out no matter the actual condition of
the property. Upon move out, I cleaned the rugs with a
professional machine, cleaned the kitchen and bath completely,
and cleaned and repainted as needed. The apartment was seen by
Carolyn who commented that it was cleaner than when I moved
in. Despite this, I was charged for full cleaning, carpet cleaning
and repainting. This was ridiculous. It strikes me as dishonest.
Posted 6/16/2008 by lindaandpeter
(c) Archstone CalabasasCalabasas, CA:
They charge you $180 for painting no matter what, no prorated
fee based on wear-and-tear, nothing. On top of that my mom and
I spent the better part of a weekend completely cleaning the place
out. I mean spotless, and they still charged me $100 for cleaning,
saying that if it wasnt done Professionally they charge you.
Woulda been nice to know this before I cleaned my fingers to the
bone.
Posted 2/24/2006 by Anonymous
/ / / /

1
These reviews represent only a small sample of the negative reviews found by
Plaintiffs. The number of negative reviews Plaintiffs have found number in the hundreds.
Plaintiffs make these allegations as support for their good faith belief that Defendant
ARCHSTONE has a systematic policy and procedure of always charging for apartment
cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement at the end of every tenancy,
regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 162
#:164
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

8

(d) Archstone City PlaceLong Beach, CA:
I traveled during the week and was gone a lot of the weekend, so
the place was basically untouched and spotless, and at the end of
my rent they charged me cleaning and carpet clean (i was
supposed to get a free one), took the rest of the $500 deposit.
Posted 10/4/2011 by Casey J.
(e) Archstone CupertinoCupertino, CA:
Wait till you move out they try to charge you for painting,
cleaning, and rug cleaning at a cost of over $500.
Posted 7/29/2009 by Diane U.
(f) Archstone Del Mar HeightsSan Diego, CA
Lets not forget the amount of money I had to pay to move out. I
was told by the inspector that my apartment was in absolutely
PERFECT condition upon final inspection. Yet, they still forced
me to pay their ridiculous fees to 1) professionally clean the
apartment 2) professional carpet clean the apartment and 3)
professionally repaint the apartment.
Posted 4/16/2012 by Jackie K.
(g) Archstone Del Mar StationPasadena, CA
The day after I moved everything out of my apartment I hired my
loyal cleaning lady to do a deep and thorough cleanse of the
apartment. The place didnt have a speck in it. I received a bill 3
weeks later for $1,100.00 in move out costs. $80 for a
professional cleaning, which would be impossible to fathoms
what was cleaned and $900 for new carpet.
Posted 4/27/2012 by YANYARKER
(h) Archstone Emerald ParkDublin, CA:
They made illegal deductions to my security deposit. Its nice
that they paint the unit for new tenants, but the security deposit
isnt a fund for the landlord to return a unit to brand-new
condition. They also apparently try to charge a set $100 cleaning
fee to each departing tenant. Talk to your lawyer about Cal. Civ.
Code 1950.5 (online at http//legalinfo.ca.gov) and he or she is
likely to tell you that in your circumstances charging for painting
is illegal when only ordinary wear and tear is present, and
EXHIBIT 2
Page 163
#:165
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

9

charging a set cleaning fee without accounting for actual tasks
and time spent cleaning is also illegal. The law was passed in
2003, apparently Archstones standard screw-the-tenant
procedures havent caught up with the law.
Posted 9/9/2012 by Tim M.
(i) Archstone EmeryvilleEmeryville, CA:
My only real complaint is that when I moved out they tacked on
a bunch of random fees and I ended up paying $350. I am a very
careful, neat person who takes care of her things, so to be
charged 100 for professional cleaning-well ok, but not a random
100 for a paint job and then another 150 that I was never told
about. Moving out I felt ripped off.
Posted 7/11/2012 by Nicole S.
(j) Archstone EscondidoEscondido, CA:
We spent hours cleaning the apartment up to get it looking
spotless. The place looked better than when we moved in. When
they came to look at it the guy said it was one of the best cleaned
apartments that hed seen. He charged us $95 general clean, $50
carpet clean, and $85 for touch up paint. More than half our
deposit to do almost no cleaning. If you move in here, dont
expect to get your deposit back.
Posted on 3/16/2012 by Anonymous
(k) Archstone Fox PlazaSan Francisco, CA:
Upon moving out I was charged a $120 cleaning fee and $220 to
paint my unit. My unit was kept in perfect condition, I am a
clean freak. My $199 move in deposit turned into a bill.
Everyone be prepared to pony up money when you leave because
they charge everyone to clean and repaint, no matter what
Posted on 4/27/2009 by Anonymous
(l) Archstone Freemont CenterFreemont, CA:
Expect to pay for a moveout clean and professional carpet care.
Posted 9/21/2008 by Tom G.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 164
#:166
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

10

(m) Archstone GlendaleGlendale, CA:
Before I moved out, I had to sign a notice to vacate within 30
days of the move-out date, in person. This was a little annoying
for someone who travels a lot. After that, they sent me a whole
page of cleaning instructions. . . . So Archstone expects you to
follow most or all of these instructions, but they charge you at
least $80.00 for apartment cleaning always, on top of at least $60
for carpet cleaning. What was the point of me cleaning the
apartment then?
Posted 11/25/2011 by Lori Y.
(n) Archstone HaciendaPleasanton, CA:
I only paid a 99 dollar deposit, but when I moved out, I was
really disappointed. I thought I was going to get it all back. I
lived there for a year and there was typical wear and tear on the
carpet and walls, but no major stains, no major holes in the walls,
etc. The day I turned in my keys, I had cleaned out the
microwave/fridge/oven/stove so that they looked brand new. I
not only vacuumed, but also steam cleaned the carpets, and filled
the 3 nail holes that were in the wall with putty. When you move
into a big apartment like this where it not a privately owned, but
an actual national corporation, you expect that the walls will have
a fresh coat of paint, the carpets will be clean, etc. This is
because when you move out, they run a fresh coat of paint on the
walls and they clean the carpets. I already cleaned the carpets,
but still expected them to do it again. Literally, when I moved
out, the apartment (aside from some wall scuffs) looked exactly
how it did when I moved in. So why did I get a bill from them?
Apparently, you arent supposed to even vacuum when you move
out because they charge you an arm and leg to move out. On my
itemized bill, I had a carpet cleaning package that I had to pay
for, they said that the paint should last for X numbers of years so
they charged me for the excess years. So, if I would have stayed
for 2 years, I would have had to pay less even though there
would be more wear on the walls. Whatever.
Posted 4/20/2012 by Michelle M.
(o) Archstone La JollaLa Jolla:
When we were about to move out, the manager told us that we
were responsible for hundreds of dollars to paint the walls, clean
the carpets, and clean the entire apartment for the next tenant,
EXHIBIT 2
Page 165
#:167
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

11

regardless of the fact that we left the apartment clean and without
damages. Had there been damages, they would have charged us
more. Even though the rental lease clearly stated that the deposit
was supposed to be returned unless there were damages, with the
exception of regular wear and tear, the manager insisted that
regular wear and tear wasnt allowed. He said that all tenants
had to pay to prepare the apartment for the next tenant.
(p) Archstone La MesaLa Mesa, CA
When I moved out I left the place in outstanding conditions;
However, they are charging me for a new carpet, cleaning and
painting. At the end I owe them money.
(q) Archstone Las FloresRancho Santa Margarita, CA:
Our apartment was cleaned from top to bottom before we moved
out and somehow we got slapped with a bill for over $300 for
supposed repairs.
(r) Archstone Marina del ReyMarina del Ray, CA:
We just moved out, and we though our whole $800.00 security
deposit was coming back to us we left our apartment in
PERFECT condition. We received $48.00 back. Why do you
ask? They told us they had to air out the carpet and repaint the
walls to refresh them.
Posted 11/11/2010 by Ryan S.
(s) Archstone Placentia PlacePlacentia, CA:
They dont tell you but no matter what EVERYONE has to pay
$300.00 when you move out to cover painting and cleaning. No
Choice! Only one worker told us this. They dont tell you when
you move it. So dont count on your deposit back, ITS
AUTOMATIC.
Posted 1/13/2012 by Lisa P.
/ / / /
EXHIBIT 2
Page 166
#:168
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

12

(t) Archstone RiversideRiverside, CA:
Our company rented an apartment here for one year. It was only
occupied three to four nights a week -- never during the day and
never on weekends. When we gave up the lease, they tried to
charge us for full unit painting ($150) and carpet cleaning ($40).
Under California law, this falls under normal wear and tear.
When we complained, the manager, knowing the apartment was in
virtually the same condition as when we moved in, decided he
could let us off the hook for the carpet cleaning, but he would still
have to charge us $50 for hanging drapes in the bedroom and
dining room. Thats $12.50 per drilled hole.
Posted 10/13/2011 by Krusticle
(u) Archstone Sierra Del OroCorona, CA:
Very expensive upon moveout! My son lived here with his dog
that caused some damage. WE TOOK FULL
RESPONSIBILITY! Upon moveout we HIRED A
PROFESSIONAL contractor to repaint interior of apartment (not
damaged!) and to fix a piece of wood (4 in x 1 ft) on the patio that
had been damaged. THEY CHARGED US FOR PAINT and
repair after we had already fixed. In addition, we had carpets
professionally cleaned. THEY CHARGED US FOR AN ENTIRE
ROOM OF NEW CARPET! The carpet did NOT need to be
replaced! I received a bill for 600.00! I WOULD NEVER
RECOMMEND! Unprofessional, expensive.
Posted 9 months ago by Google User
(v) Archstone TerracinaOntario, CA:
My final bill had the following charges (in addition to the
expensive utilities):
DMG Complete Apt Clean..$95.00
DMG Full Paint Clean.$90.00
I was charged a full paint clean, even though my apartment and
the paint were spotless. The unit had just been painted one year
prior to me renting it. I made no blemishes or marks on the walls,
either. The property manager told me I would get my deposit
back, provided the unit was left as it was when she inspected it.
This was a total LIE!
Posted 5/14/2012 by David S.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 167
#:169
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

13

(w) Archstone Ventura ColonyVentura, CA:
[T]hey charge you move out costs no matter how well you take
care of the apartment they charge you to clean paint and shampoo
the carpets.
(x) Archstone Walnut CreekWalnut Creek, CA:
My wife & I lived there for only 2.5 months and left it
immaculately clean (better than when we moved in actually).
She spent 8 hours cleaning EVERY detail in our 600sf apartment
to ensure we would get out cleaning deposit back. Later we
talked to one of the receptionists who said we shouldnt have
bothered because they always charge $100 for a professional
cleaning service, NO MATTER how well you cleaned. Sure
enough, we were charged the $100. Also, we asked different
office personnel three times what paint we could use to dab over
the 10-15 small spackle holes where we hung pictures. They
refused to give us a paint color and said it would have to be
professionally painteddespite the fact that on the check-out
sheet it says to paint any spots needing it. We received our bill
today and they charged us $250 for a FULL repainting of the one
bedroom apartment (of which I guarantee you didnt
happenthe place was immaculate).
Posted 3 months ago by Google User
(y) Archstone Willow GlenSan Jose, CA:
When we moved out we had the apt professionally cleaned, and
the carpets professionally cleaned They tried to charge us over
$500 for cleaning and painting, and we had to submit our
pictures and receipts to have them take the money off and change
the amount owed.
Posted 6/24/2008 by blu232118
(z) The Lofts at Albert ParkSan Rafael, CA:
Deposityou will never see it again. In addition, additional
$375 is charged to you after cleaning the apartment repainting
the walls white even though I lived there for four years.
Posted 11/11/2011 by BEWARE B.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 168
#:170
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

14

Defendant ARCHSTONEs Uniform Systematic Policies and Procedures
31. Based on their personal experiences and the experiences of other class
members, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants
has a systematic policy and procedure of: (1) charging its tenants for apartment cleaning
and painting and carpet cleaning or replacement at the end of every tenancy regardless
of the actual condition of the apartment unit; and (2) making such charges in order to
prepare the rental unit for the next tenancy and labeling them as turn-over costs.
32. Defendant ARCHSTONEs unlawful policy and procedure of always
charging for apartment cleaning and painting and carpet cleaning or replacement at the
end of every tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit, is done in
bad faith and without cause and subjects Defendants to statutory damages in addition to
actual damages under Civil Code section 1950.5.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
33. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and thus, seeks class certification under Code of Civil Procedure
section 382.
34. The proposed class is defined as follows:
All persons, except those who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code
section 1161, who leased an apartment in California managed by
Defendant ARCHSTONE and were charged for apartment cleaning
and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement in violation of
Civil Code section 1950.5 within four years prior to the filing of
Plaintiff VAGLEs original Complaint up to final judgment.
35. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek to certify the following two subclasses:
a. All persons, except those who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code
section 1161, who leased an apartment at Archstone Warner Center
and were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5
EXHIBIT 2
Page 169
#:171
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

15

within four years prior to the filing of Plaintiff VAGLEs original
Complaint up to final judgment.
b. All persons, except those who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code
section 1161, who leased an apartment at Archstone Long Beach
Harbor and were charged for apartment cleaning and painting
and/or carpet cleaning or replacement in violation of Civil Code
section 1950.5 within four years prior to the filing of Plaintiff
VAGLEs original Complaint up to final judgment.
36. In addition, or in the alternative, to the above-defined Class, Plaintiffs
reserve the right to establish subclasses as appropriate to facilitate the effective
management of the Class; however, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based
thereon allege, that the Class as defined above is both objectively and easily identifiable
through Defendant ARCHSTONEs and its California apartment complexes business
records.
Class is ascertainable and there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation:
a) Plaintiffs are unable to state the exact number of Class Members
without discovery of Defendant ARCHSTONEs and its California
apartment complexes business records; however, Plaintiffs are
informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Class
Members are so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is
impracticable;
b) Plaintiffs are members of the Class, and subclasses, they seek to
represent, and Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the
other Class Members. The leases and other documents used by
Defendant ARCHSTONE at its California apartment complexes are
all standardized and Defendant ARCHSTONE has the same
obligations to Plaintiffs and the other Class Members with respect
EXHIBIT 2
Page 170
#:172
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

16

to when charges can be made for apartment cleaning and painting
and/or carpet cleaning or replacement. Plaintiffs claim against
Defendant ARCHSTONE for unfair competition are also typical of
the Class Members. Plaintiffs have suffered actual injury and have
lost money as a result of Defendant ARCHSTONEs unfair
competition. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and
based thereon allege, that the nature of the damages and their
causation will be the same for Plaintiffs and the other Class
Members;
c) Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
interests of the class because: (1) Plaintiffs have retained
experienced litigation counsel with significant experience in class
action litigation and counsel will adequately represent the interests
of the class; (2) Plaintiffs and their counsel are aware of no
conflicts of interests between Plaintiffs and absent Class Members;
and (3) Plaintiffs are knowledgeable concerning the subject matter
of this action and will assist counsel in the prosecution of this
action; and
d) Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that a
class action provides a fair and efficient method of adjudicating
this controversy and is superior to other available methods of
adjudication in that (1) neither the size of the class, nor any other
factor, make it likely that difficulties will be encountered in the
management of this action as a class action; (2) the prosecution of
separate actions by individual Class Members or the individual
joinders of all Class Members in this action is impracticable, and
would create a massive and unnecessary burden on the resources of
the courts, and could result in inconsistent adjurations, while a
EXHIBIT 2
Page 171
#:173
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

17

single class action can determine, with judicial economy, the rights
of each member of the Class; (3) because of the disparity of
resources available to Defendants verses those available to
individual Class Members, prosecution of separate actions would
work a financial hardship on many Class Members; (4) there is no
plain, speedy, or adequate remedy available to Class Members
other than by maintenance of this class action because the damages
to each Class Member is relatively modest compared to the costs of
litigating the issues in this action, making it economically
unfeasible to pursue remedies other than in a class action; and (5)
the conduct of this action as a class action conserves the resources
of the parties and the Court system and protects the rights of each
members of the class and meets all due process requirements as to
fairness to all parties. A class action is also superior to the
maintenance of these claims on a claim by claim basis because all
of the claims arise out of the same circumstances and course of
conduct.
38. There are common questions of law and fact as to the class members that
predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The following common
questions of law or fact, among others, exists as to the members of the class:
a. Whether Defendants have a systematic policy and procedure of
always charging for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement at the end of a tenants tenancy regardless
of the actual condition of the apartment unit;
b. Whether always charging for apartment cleaning and painting
and/or carpet cleaning or replacement at the end of a tenants
tenancy regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit
violates Civil Code section 1950.5;
EXHIBIT 2
Page 172
#:174
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

18

c. Whether Defendants have a systematic policy and procedure of
reducing these charges when a tenant complains about being
charged;
d. Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class Members are entitled to
statutory damages of up to twice the amount of their Security
Deposits, in addition to actual damages pursuant to Civil Code
section 1950.5; and
e. Whether Defendants systematic policy and procedure of charging
for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or
replacement at the end of a tenants tenancy regardless of the actual
condition of the apartment unit constitutes an unfair and unlawful
business practice under Business and Professions Code sections
17200 et seq.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Civil Code section 1950.5)
(Against Defendants and DOES 1100)
39. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, repeat and
incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 38, and
each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth
herein.
40. Given the standardized and unitary methods by which Defendant
ARCHSTONE manages and operates its California apartment complexes, Defendant
ARCHSTONE was Plaintiffs and the other Class Members landlord within the
meaning of Civil Code section 1950.5.
Defendants at all relevant times herein, have been violating Civil Code section 1950.5
through its systematic uniform policies and procedures.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants systematic policies and
procedures that violate Civil Code section 1950.5, Plaintiffs and the Class Members
EXHIBIT 2
Page 173
#:175
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

19

have been damaged in an amount equal to the unlawful charges made for apartment
cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement. Plaintiffs and the Class
Members are entitled to restitution of this amount.
Defendants assess these charges in bad-faith, and therefore Plaintiffs and the Class
Members are entitled to statutory damages of up to twice the amount of their Security
Deposits, in additional to actual damages, as provided for by Civil Code section 1950.5.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
herein.
45. Defendants have unjustly enriched themselves by automatically charging
Plaintiffs and the Class Members for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement, regardless of the actual condition of their apartment units, in
violation of Civil Code section 1950.5. Under the circumstances it would be unjust for
Defendants to retain this money.
46. These sums in equity and good conscience should be returned to Plaintiffs
and the Class Members. As such, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to the
imposition of a constructive trust on all sums that rightfully belong to them.
47. Plaintiffs and the Class Members are therefore entitled to restitution of
this money unlawfully retained.
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
EXHIBIT 2
Page 174
#:176
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

20

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.)
herein.
49. The acts and practices engaged in by Defendants and described herein
constitute unlawful and unfair business practices, in that said conduct is immoral,
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to Plaintiffs, the Class
Members, and the general public. Accordingly, such conduct violates Business and
Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.
50. Defendants conduct as described herein is unlawful in that it
automatically charges for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or
replacement at the end of a tenants tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of the
apartment unit in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5.
51. Defendants conduct is also unfair under this section in that it
automatically charges for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or
replacement at the end of a tenants tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of the
apartment unit in violation of both its standardized leases and Civil Code section
1950.5.
52. Defendants conduct also constitutes unfair and deceptive business
practices by intentionally misleading tenants into believing they will not be charged for
apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement if, at the end of
their tenancy, their apartment units are returned in the same condition as existed at the
beginning of the tenancy, subject to reasonable wear and tear.
/ / / /
/ / / /
EXHIBIT 2
Page 175
#:177
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

21

53. Plaintiffs and the putative class members are therefore entitled to
restitutionary disgorgement from Defendants of the unlawfully withheld portions of
their Security Deposits.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other members of the
public similarly situated, pray for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and
severally, as follows:
1. For an order certifying the proposed class under Code of Civil Procedure
section 382;
2. That Plaintiffs be appointed as the representative of the Class;
3. That counsel for Plaintiffs be appointed as Class Counsel;
4. The Defendants provide to Class Counsel, immediately upon its
appointment, the names and most current contact information (addresses
and telephone numbers) of all the putative Class Members;
5. For prejudgment interest on the unlawful charges;
6. For actual damages caused by Defendants violation of Civil Code section
1950.5;
7. For statutory damages of twice the amount of the security deposits
pursuant to Civil Code section 1950.5;
8. For restitutionary disgorgement of the unlawful charges and prejudgment
interest;
9. For attorneys fees and costs of suit herein;
10. For the imposition of a constructive trust of all sums rightfully belonging
to Plaintiffs and the Class Members.
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
EXHIBIT 2
Page 176
#:178
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

22

11. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Dated: November 5, 2013 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM

By:
Alexander R. Wheeler
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
EXHIBIT 2
Page 177
#:179
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

23

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the members of the public similarly
situated, hereby demand a trial by a jury.

Dated: November 5, 2013 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM

By:
Alexander R. Wheeler
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
and the Putative Class
EXHIBIT 2
Page 178
#:180
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

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: R. Rex Parris Law Firm 43364 10
th
Street West,
Lancaster, CA 93534. On the below-mentioned date, I served the within document/s:

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth
below on this date.

by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es)
set forth below.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at Lancaster, addressed as set forth
below.

by transmitting via e-mail the document(s) listed above to the e-mail address set forth
below on this date.

X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE

X By electronically serving the document(s) described above via LexisNexis File &
Serve on all parties appearing on LexisNexis File & Serve service list as well as via E-Mail
directly to the following:

MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
Christopher J . Healey, Esq.
J aikaran Singh, Esq.
jsingh@mckennalong.com
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-2960
Facsimile: (619) 744-3682

Executed on November 5, 2013 at Lancaster, California.

X I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.

EXHIBIT 2
Page 179
#:181
54457925
Oct282013
02:15PM
EXHIBIT 2
Page 180
#:182
1 R. ex arris Lsq. (SBN 96567)
Alexander R. Wheeler sq B2J9541)
2 KiUy zeto Esq. (SBN 25J
Johll M. Bickford, L(S N 28092)
3 R. REX 1ARRISLAWIR
1336110th Street West
1 Lancaster, Califria 93534
Telephone: 66J)949-2595
5 Facsimile: 66J949-7524
6 Attoreys fr Plaintif and the Putative Class
7 Christopher J. Real e

Esq. (SBN |O5798)
Jaikaran in Esq. 1SBN 20iJ55
8 mCbNNAO ALDRID1
6O0West Broadwa), Suite 26OO
9 a Diego, LA921O1-3372
Telephone: 619)236-11J1
10 acsrmile: 619615-5321
11 Attoreys fr Defndant ASN Warer Center, LLC
12
b1HOHLO1HO11H1 bA11O1 LA111OH1A
13
14
1OHH1LO1P1YO1 1Ob APl111b- LV11Y1b1 LO1HHOb1
15 JENIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated;
16
17
18
Plaintif,
v.
ASN WARER CENTER, LLC, a
19
Delaware limited liability corporation, and
20
DOES 1through100, inclusive;
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defndants.
Case No. BC480931
LLASSACTION
JOINTbTATUSHPORT
Date: November 1,2013
Time: 1.30p.m.
Dept.: 3O7
Assigned fr All Purposes to the Honorable
William F. Highberger, Department 3O7|
Jury Trial Date: None Set
Complaint Filed: March 11,2O12
JOIT STATUS REPORT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 181
#:183
1 Pursuant to the Court's October 8, 2013 order, Plaintif Jennifr Vagle ("Plaintiff') and
2 Defndant ASN Waer Center LLC ("Defndant") submit the fllowing joint status report in
3 preparation fr the further status conference scheduled fr November 1, 2013 at 1 :30 p.m.
4
5 I. DISPUTED DISCOVERY
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On October 8, the Court vacated until further notice all further briefng on Plaintiffs
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests fr Admission (Set One), Motion to Compel
Further Reponses to Requests fr Production of Documents (Set One), Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Defndant's Motion to Compel Further Discovery
Reponses. The Court ordered the parties to continue to meet and confer on the disputed
discovery and submit a joint status report identifying which discovery items are still in dispute.
The Court acknowledged that the parties would retain their respective rights to further briefng
(i.e. opposition briefs and reply briefs) on their motions to compel.
A. Plaintiffs Discover
1. Class Contact Infrmation (Special Interrogatory No. 1)
The parties were unable to reach an agreement on Plaintiffs request fr the class contact
infrmation relative to ASN Warer Center, LLC. The parties wish to discuss this matter with
the Court at the November 1 status conference.
2. Class Infrmation on Security Deposits at Archstone Warner Center
(Special Interrogatories Nos. 2-17, 22)
Defnse counsel has produced this information to Plaintifs counsel. Plaintif reserves
the right to review the document production befre determining whether to withdraw her motion
to compel further responses on these discovery items.
Ill
Ill
Ill
JOIT STATUS REPORT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 182
#:184
1
2
3. Complaints and Small Claims Lawsuits (Special Interrogatories Nos.
18-21; Requests fr Production Nos. 2-5)
3 The parties have agreed to continue to meet and confer on these discovery items after
4
Plaintif has had time to review the data produced by Defndant related to class infrmation on
5 security deposits at the Archstone Waer Center apartment community.
6
4. Identifcation of Other Archstone Apartments Using the Same
7
Standardized Forms (Special Interrogatories Nos. 24, 26, 28, 30, 32,
8
34, 36, 38, 40; Requests fr Admission Nos. 1-10; Form
9
Interrogatory No. 17.1)
10 Plaintif has agreed to withdraw these requests and modif this discovery into a single
11 request fr the identifcation of other Archstone apartment communities with access to the
12
Operations Manual already produced by Defndant. Based on this modifcation, and without
13 waiver of any objections, Defndant has agreed to respond this modifed request.
14
5. Full Identifcation of Witnesses (Special Interrogatories 29, 31, 33,
15
34, 37, 39, 54, 57, 60, 63, 76; Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1, 15.1,
16
17.1)
17
The parties have agreed to continue to meet and confr on these discovery items after
18 Plaintif further researches the legal issues related to these discovery items.
19
6. Archstone's Website (Special Interrogatory No. 65)
20
Plaintif has agreed to modify this discovery item so it is not limited to an entity that
2 1
maintained, updated or operated the website at w.archstoneapartments.com. Based on this
22
modifcation, and without waiver of any objections, Defndant has agreed to respond this
23 modifed request.
24
7. Training Materials and Documents (Special Interrogatories 6672)
25
Plaintif has agreed to withdraw these requests and modify this discovery into a single
26
request that seeks the identifcation of taining materials that were used at the Archstone Warner
27
Center apartment community. Based on this modifcation, and without waiver of any objections,
28 Defndant has agreed to respond this modifed request.
2
JOIT STATUS REPORT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 183
#:185
' ...
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
8. Archstone's Three Guarantees (Special Interrogatories 7375)
Plaintif has ageed to withdraw these discover
y
items.
B. Defendant's Discovery
1. Witness Identity and Infrmation (orm Interrogatory No. 12.1)
Te parties were unable to reach a ageement on Defndant's frm interogatory request
fr the identity of witnesses ad related contact inormation. The paties wish to discuss this
matter with the Court at the November 1 status conference.
2. Facts Supporting Requests fr Admission Denials (Form Interrogatory
17.1 as it relates to Requests fr Admission Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11)
The paies were unable to reach an agreement on Defndant's Form Interogatory No.
17.l as it relates to Requests fr Admission Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. The parties wish to
discuss this matter with the Cour at the November 1 status confrence.
Date: October 28, 2013
Date: October 28, 2013
usw 804029148.l
R. RX PARS LAW FIRM
B
y
:
r k
Attoreys fr P aintif and
the Putative Class
LLP
3
JOIT STATUS REPORT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 184
#:186
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I a a resident of the State of Califria, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: R. Rex Paris Law Firm 43364 10
th
Street West,
Lancaster, CA 93534. On the below-mentioned date, I served the within document/s:
JOINT STATUS RPORT
by transmitting via fcsimile the document(s) listed above to the fx number(s) set forth
below on this date.
_ by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address( es)
set frth below.
_ by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon flly
prepaid, in United States mail in the State of Califria at Lancaster, addressed as set frth
below.
_ by transmitting via e-mail the document(s) listed above to the e-mail address set frth
below on this date.

__ BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE
___ By electronically serving the document(s) described above via LexisNexis File &
Serve on all parties appearing on LexisNexis File & Serve service list as well as via E-Mail
directly to the fllowing:
MCKNNA LONG & ALDRDGE LLP
Christopher J. Healey, Esq.
chealeckennalong.com
Jaikaran Singh, Esq.
j singh@mckennalong.com
San Diego, Califria 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-2960
Facsimile: (619) 744-3682
Executed on October 28, 2013 at Lancaster, Califria.
X I declare uder penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califria that the above
is true and correct.
1 PAUL HASTINGS LLP
HOWARD M. PRIVETTE (SB# 137216)
2 NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS (SB# 253588)
BETH MUELLER (SB# 278283)
3 515 South Flower Street
Twenty-Fifth Floor
4 Los Angeles, CA 9007 1-2228
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
5 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
6 Attorneys for Defendants
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS INCORPORATED;
7 ARCHSTONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
(CALIFORNIA) INCORPORATED; SMITH FOUR,
8 INC.; and SMITH TWO, INC.
9
10
252012
JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself CASE NO. BC480931
W,
Rftq
3)4
13
and all others similarly situated,
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TO
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;
15 vs.
16 ARCHSTONE BUILDERS [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
INCORPORATED, a Delaware
17 corporation; ARCHSTONE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT (CALIFORNIA) Orig. Response Date: September 26, 2012
18 INCORPORATED, a Delaware New Response Date: September 28, 2012
corporation; SMITH FOUR, INC. dlb/a
19
Archstone-Smith Four, Inc., a Delaware Dept: 307
corporation; and SMITH TWO, INC. dlb/a Judge: Hon. William F. Highberger
20
Archstone-Smith Two, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1 through 100,
21
inclusive,
22 Defendants.
23
24
25
26
LEGAL_US_W # 72865191.2
STIP. TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 185
#:187
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
HOWARD M. PRIVEflE (SB# 137216)
NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS (SB# 253588)
BETH MUELLER(SB# 278283)
515 South Flower Street
Twenty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
Attorneys for Defendants
ARCHSTONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
INC.; and SMITH TWO, INC.
JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself
Plaintiff,
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
corporation; ARCHSTONE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT (CALIFORNIA)
corporation; SMITH FOUR, INC. dlb/a
Archstone-Smith Four, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and SMITH TWO, INC. d/b/a
Archstone-Smith Two, inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. BC48093 1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOJD TO
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;
Dept: 307
Judge: Hon. William F. Highberger
28
LEGAL US W #72865191,2
Sep2 201
03:54PM
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALWORNIA
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
vs.
[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
Orig. Response Date:
New Response Date:
September 26, 2012
September 28, 2012
STIP, TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TO FlRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 186
#:188
1
STIPULATION
2 Defendants Archstone Builders Incorporated, Archstone Property Management
3 (California) Incorporated, Smith Four, Inc., and Smith Two, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) and
4 plaintiff Jennifer Vagle (Plaintiff), acting through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and
5 agree to the following:
6 WHEREAS, on August 8, 2012 the Court sustained Defendants Demurrers with
7 leave to amend and granted Defendants Motion to Strike with leave to amend;
8 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on August22,
9 2012;
10 WHEREAS, Defendants response to the FAC is currently due on September 26,
11 2012;
12 WHEREAS, Defendants Motion to Quash Notices of Deposition and For A
13 Protective Order Staying Discovery, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony; and
14 Defendants Motion for Sanctions are fully briefed and set for hearing on September 26, 2012, at
15 9:00a.m.;
16 WHEREAS, Defendants have requested a brief extension of time to respond to the
17 FAC following the hearing on September 26, 2012;
18 WHEREAS, Plaintiff has agreed to grant a two-day extension of time to respond
19 to the FAC, through and including September 28, 2012;
20 /7/
21 /1/
22 /7/
23 /7/
24 /7/
25 /1/
26 III
27 /7/
28
LEGAL US W# 72865191.2
EXHIBIT 2
Page 187
#:189
1 WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT, as to
2 those Defendants who have been served, their time to answer, demur, move, or otherwise respond
3 to the FAC shall be extended through and including September 28, 2012. Defendants are not
4 waiving, and this Stipulation and Order shall not prejudice, Defendants right to assert any and all
5 arguments and defenses they may have with respect to the FAC and the alleged causes of action
6 therein.
7
DATED: September 25, 2012 PAUL HASTINGS LLP
NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS
11
12
(CALIFORNIA) INCORPORATED; SMITH FOUR
13
14
DATED: September 25, 2012 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
By_________________________________
Y SZETO
18
Attorneys for Plainti
19 V
20
V
21
22
23
24
V
25
V
26
27
28
LEGAL_US_W # 72865191.2
-2-
STIP. TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT V
EXHIBIT 2
Page 188
#:190
1
[PROPOSED1 ORDER
2 The Court having reviewed the Parties Stipulation to Extend Defendants Time to
3 Respond to the First Amended Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY
4 ORDERED THAT:
5 As to those Defendants who have been served, their time to answer, demur, move,
6 or otherwise respond to the FAC shall be extended through and including September 28, 2012.
7 Defendants are not waiving, and this Stipulation and Order shall not prejudice, Defendants right
8 to assert any and all arguments and defenses they may have with respect to the FAC and the
9 alleged causes of action therein.
10
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated:
__________________ ____________________________________
Honorable William F. Highberger
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL_US_W 72865191.2
_3_
EXHIBIT 2
Page 189
#:191
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
)
ss:
3 CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND COU11TY OF
LOS ANGELES
4
5 I am employed in the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles, State
of California. I am over the age of 18, and not a party to the within action. My business
6 address is 515 South Flower Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-
2228.
7
On September 25, 2012, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
8
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST
9 AMENDED COMPLAINT;
[PROPOSEDI
ORDER THEREON
10
on the interested parties as follows:
11
R. Rex Parris, Esq. (rrparrisrrexparris.com)
12
Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
(awheeler@rrexparris.com)
Kitty Szeto, Esq.
(kszeto@rrexparris.com)
13
R.RexParriLawFirm
14
15 Phone: (661) 949-2595
Fax: (661) 949-7524
VIA LEXIS NEXIS FILE & SERVE:
17 . . .
By posting directly on the LexisNexis File and Serve website at
18
http://fi1eandserve.lexisnexis.com.
19
20
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the above is true and correct.
21
Executed on September 25, 2012, at Los Angeles, California.
24 ,/Maggie Icart
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 190
#:192
;
Q
v
C
,
t
.
2
n
I
m
f
T
l
I
f
l
r
.
,
.
r
t
4
t
b
.
4
O
0
c
z
-
Q
.
y
,
c
e
t
f
l
I
t
f
l
I
D
f
i
n
m
a
.
H
S
EXHIBIT 2
Page 191
#:193
Icart, Maggie J.
From: LexisNexis File & Serve <TransactionReceipt@fileandserve.lexisnexis.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:56 PM
To: Icart, Maggie J.
Subject: Case: BC480931; Transaction: 46645106 Transaction Receipt
To: Maggie Icart
Subject: Transaction Receipt
This email is to confirm receipt of your documents. The transaction option you selected was Serve Only - Public. The
details for this transaction are listed below.
Court: CA Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Case Name: Vagle, Jennifer vs Archstone Builders Inc et al
Case Number: BC480931
Transaction ID: 46645106
Document Title(s):
Stipulation to Extend Defendants Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint; [Proposed] Order Thereon (5
pages)
Authorized Date/Time: Sep 25 2012 3:54PM PDT
Authorizer: Nicholas James Begakis
Authorizers Organization: Paul Hastings LLP-Los Angeles
Sending Parties:
Archstone Builders Inc
Archstone Property Management
Smith Four
Smith Two
Served Parties:
California Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Vagle, Jennifer
Thank you for using LexisNexis File & Serve.
Questions? For prompt, courteous assistance please contact LexisNexis Customer Service by phone at 1-888-529-7587
(24/7).
1
EXHIBIT 2
Page 192
#:194
LexisNexis File & Serve Transaction Receipt
Page 1 of2
Transaction ID:
Submitted by:
Authorized by:
Authorize and file on:
46645106
Maggie Icart, Paul F-tastings LLP-Los Angeles
Nicholas James Begakis, Paul Hastings LLP-Los Angeles
Sep 25 2012 3:54PM PDT
Division/Courtroom: N/A
Case Class: Civil-Vagle vs Archstone Builders Inc (BC480931)
Case Type: General Civil
Transaction Option: Serve Only - Public
Billing Reference: 77991.00004
Read Status for e-service: Not Purchased
Documents List
1 Document(s)
Attached Document, 5 Pages Document ID: 51694153
Document Type: Access: Statutory Fee: Linked:
Stipulation Secure Public $0.00
Document title:
Stipulation to Extend Defendants Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint; [Proposed] Order Thereon
Exrand All
[El Sending Parties (12)
Party
Attorney Firm Attorney Type
Party
Type
Begakis, Nicholas Paul Hastings LLP-Los Attorney in
Archstone Builders Inc Defendant
James Angeles Charge
Archstone Builders Inc Defendant Privette, Howard M
Paul Hastings LLP-Los Attorney in
Angeles Charge
Archstone Builders Inc Defendant Mueller, Beth
Angeles Charge
Archstone Property
Defendant
Management James Angeles Charge
Archstone Property
Defendant Privette, Howard M
Management
Angeles Charge
Archstone Property
Defendant Mueller, Beth
Management
Angeles Charge
Smith Four Defendant
Smith Four Defendant Privette, Howard M
Angeles Charge
Smith Four Defendant Mueller, Beth
Angeles Charge
Smith Two Defendant
Smith Two Defendant Privette, Howard M
Angeles Charge
Smith Two Defendant Mueller, Beth
Angeles Charge
El Recipients (4)
El Service List (4)
https:!/w3 .fileandserve . lexi snexis.comlWebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSu... 9/25/2012
EXHIBIT 2
Page 193
#:195
Page 2 of 2
Delivery
Party Party Type Attorney Firm
Attorney
Method
Option
Type
California Superior California Superior Court-Los
Interested Highberger, Attorney in E
Service Court County of Los
Party William F
Angeles County-Central Civil
charge Service
Angeles
West Courthouse
Attorney in E
Service Vagle, Jennifer Plaintiff Szeto, Kitty R Rex Parris Law Firm
Charge Service
Attorney in E
Wheeler,
R Rex Parris Law Firm
Service Vagle, Jennifer Plaintiff
Alexander R Charge Service
Attorney in E
Bickford, John
R Rex Parris Law Firm
Service Vagle, Jennifer Plaintiff
M
Charge Service
Fi Additional Recipients (0)
Case Parties
About LexisNexis Terms & Conditions Privacy Customer Support - 1-888-529-7587
LexisNexis
Copyright 2012 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
https ://w3 .fileandserve. 1exisnexis.comJVebServer/WebPages/Fi1eAndServe/prcReviewSu... 9/25/2012
EXHIBIT 2
Page 194
#:196
12
PAUL HASTfNGS LLP
Twenty-Fifth Floor
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC;
(CALIFORNIA) NC.; SMITH TWO, NC.;
and SMITH FOUR, INC.
cQ1v 1
F
SEp
282012
John
3
OW
L4ECCF/
Clerk
Plaintiff,
Delaware limited liability corporation;
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
corporation, SMITH FOUR, iNC. dlb/a
corporation; SMITH TWO, INC., d/b/a
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. BC48093 1
DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF HEARING
ON DEMURRERS; AND
DEMURRERS TO FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
[Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
Declaration of Nicholas J. Begakis and
Exhibits A-C, and Request for Judicial
Notice filed separately]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
vs.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date:
Time:
Dept:
Judge:
November 20, 2012
9:00 a.m.
307
DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRERS AND DEMURRERS TO FAC
EXHIBIT 2
Page 195
#:197
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
Twenty-Fifth Floor
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
(CALIFORNIA) INC.; SMITH TWO, INC.;
and SMITH FOUR, INC.
Plaintiff,
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
corporation, SMITH FOUR, INC. dlb/a
corporation, and DOES I through 100,
inclusive,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF hEARING
ON DEMURRERS; AND
COMPLAINT
[Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
Exhibits A-C, and Request for Judicial
Notice filed separately
November 20, 2012
9:00 a.m.
307
Sep28 2O1
04:O2PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. BC480931
vs.
Date:
Time:
Dept:
Judge:
EXHIBIT 2
Page 196
#:198
1 TO PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, at 9:00 a.m. on November 20, 2012, or as soon
3 thereafter as this matter may be heard before the Honorable William F. Highberger in Department
4 307 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, located at 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los
5 Angeles, California 90005, Defendants Archstone Communities, LLC, Archstone Builders
6 Incorporated, Archstone Property Management (California) Incorporated, Smith Four, Inc., and
7 Smith Two, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), and each of them, will and hereby do request that
8 the Court sustain their Demurrers to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (FAC) in this action,
9 and to each purported cause of action alleged therein, and order the dismissal of the FAC and
10 such causes of action as against each of them, with prejudice. The Demurrers are made pursuant
11 to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10(e) on the grounds that each cause of action
12 alleged in the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
13 The Demurrers are based on the FAC; this Notice of Hearing on Demurrers and attached
14 Demurrers; the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, Declaration
15 of Nicholas J. Begakis and Exhibits A-C in support hereof, all filed and served concurrently
16 herewith; the pleadings, records and files in this action including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs
17 Opposition to Defendants Motion to Quash Deposition Notices, filed on August 15, 2012, and
18 the Courts rulings on Defendants Demurrers to Plaintiffs Complaint and Motion to Strike, as
19 reflected in the Notice of Ruling filed on August 9, 2012; the reply papers filed in support of the
20 Demurrers; and upon all other argument and matters as may be permitted in support of the
21 Demurrers prior to the Courts ruling.
22
23
24
By:
HOWA M. PR VETTE
25
Attorneys for Defendants ARCHSTONE
COMMUNITIES, LLC; ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
26
INCORPORATED; ARCHSTONE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT (CALIFORNIA) INC.; SMITH TWO
27
INC.; and SMITH FOUR, INC.
28
1
EXHIBIT 2
Page 197
#:199
DEMURRERS TO COMPLAINT
1
_____________________________________________________________
2 Defendants Archstone Communities, LLC, Archstone Builders Incorporated, Archstone
3 Property Management (California) Incorporated, Smith Four, Inc., and Smith Two, Inc.
4 (collectively, Defendants), and each of them, hereby demur to the First Amended Complaint
5 (FAC) filed by Plaintiff on the following grounds:
6 Demurrers of Each Defendant to First Cause of Action for Violations of Civil Code 1950.5
7 1. The purported First Cause of Action for Violations of California Civil
8 Code
1950.5 fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
9 430.10(e).
10 Demurrers of Each Defendant to Second Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment
11 2. The purported Second Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment fails to state
12 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
430.10(e).
13
Demurrers of Each Defendant to Third Cause of Action for Violation of Business and
14
Professions Code 17200, et seq.
15
3. The purported Third Cause of Action for Violation of Business and
16
Professions Code
17200, et seq. fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

17
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
430.10(e).
18
DATED: September 28, 2012 PAUL
19
20
21
22
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC; ARCHSTONE
23
BUILDERS INCORPORATED; ARCHSTONE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (CALIFORNIA) INC.;
24
SMITH TWO, INC.; and SMITH FOUR, INC.
25
26
LEGAL US W # 72888975.2
27 - -
28
-2-
HOW M. PRIVETTE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 198
#:200
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
)
)
ss:
3 CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES
4
2228.
7
8
DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRERS; AND
9 DEMURRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
10 on the interested parties as follows:
11 R. Rex Parris, Esq. (rrparrisrrexparris.com)
12
Kitty Szeto, Esq.
13
R. Rex Parris Law Firm
14
Phone: (661) 949-2595
15 Fax: (661) 949-7524
16
17
http://fileandserve.lexisnexis.com.
18
19
20
21
aggie Icart
24
/
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 199
#:201
1
i
4
c
r
C
:
;
;
;
-
E
I
I
:
S
E
7
I
I
S
i
I
EXHIBIT 2
Page 200
#:202
Icart, Maggie J.
From: LexisNexis File & Serve <Transaction Receipt@fileandserve.lexisnexis.com>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 4:05 PM
To: Icart, Maggie J.
Subject: Case: BC480931; Transaction: 46719230 Transaction Receipt
To: Maggie Icart
Subject: Transaction Receipt
This email is to confirm receipt of your documents. The transaction option you selected was Serve Only - Public. The
details for this transaction are listed below.
Transaction ID: 46719230
Document Title(s):
Defendants Notice of Hearing on Demurrers; and Demurrers to First Amended Complaint (4 pages)
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants Demurrers to the First Amended Complaint
(21 pages)
Defendants Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrers to First Amended Complaint (4 pages)
Declaration of Nicholas J. Begakis in Support of Defendants Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrers
(41 pages)
Authorized Date/Time: Sep 28 2012 4:02PM PDT
Authorizer: Nicholas James Begakis
Authorizers Organization: Paul Hastings LLP-Los Angeles
Sending Parties:
Archstone Builders Inc
Archstone Property Management
Smith Four
Smith Two
Served Parties:
California Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Vagle, Jennifer
Thank you for using LexisNexis File & Serve.
Questions? For prompt, courteous assistance please contact LexisNexis Customer Service by phone at 1-888-529-7587
(24/7).
1
EXHIBIT 2
Page 201
#:203
LexisNexis File & Serve Transaction Receipt
Page 1 of2
Transaction ID:
Submitted by:
Authorized by:
Authorize and file on:
46719230
Maggie Icart, Paul Hastings LLP-Los Angeles
Nicholas James Begakis, Paul Hastings LLP-Los Angeles
Sep 28 2012 4:02PM PDT
Court:
CA Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Division/Courtroom: N/A
Case Class: Civil-Vagle vs Archstone Builders Inc (BC480931)
Case Type: General Civil
Transaction Option: Serve Only - Public
Billing Reference: 77991.00004
Read Status for e-service: Not Purchased
Documents List
4 Document(s)
Notice Secure Public $0.00
Document title:
Defendants Notice of Hearing on Demurrers; and Demurrers to First Amended Complaint
Related Document ID: 51804844
Memorandum Secure Public $0.00
Document title:
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants Demurrers to the First Amended Complaint
Request Secure Public $0.00
Document title:
Defendants Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrers to First Amended Complaint
Affidavit Secure Public $0.00
Document title:
Declaration of Nicholas J. Begakis in Support of Defendants Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrers
Expand All
[El Sending Parties (12)
Party
Party
Type
Attorney Firm Attorney Type
Archstone Builders Inc Defendant
Archstone Builders Inc Defendant Privette, Howard M
Angeles Charge

Archstone Builders Inc Defendant Mueller, Beth
Angeles Charge
Archstone Property
Defendant
Management James Angeles Charge
Archstone Property
https :I/w3 .fileandserve. lexisnexis.com/WebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSu... 9/28/2012
EXHIBIT 2
Page 202
#:204
Page 2 of 2
Management Defendant Privette, Howard M Angeles Charge
Archstone Property
Defendant Mueller, Beth
Management
Angeles Charge
Smith Four Defendant
Smith Four Defendant Privette, Howard M
Angeles Charge
Smith Four Defendant Mueller, Beth
Angeles Charge
Smith Two Defendant
Smith Two Defendant Privette, Howard M
Angeles Charge
Smith Two Defendant Mueller, Beth
Angeles Charge
S Recipients (4)
S Service List (4)
Delivery
Party Party Type Attorney Firm
Attorney
Method
Option
Type
California Superior
Interested Highberger,
California Superior Court-Los
Attorney in E
Service Court County of Los
Party William F
Angeles County-Central Civil
Charge Service
Angeles
West Courthouse
Service Vagle, Jennifer Plaintiff Szeto, Kitty R Rex Parris Law Firm
Attorney in E
Charge Service
Wheeler,
Service Vagle, Jennifer Plaintiff R Rex Parris Law Firm
Attorney in E
Alexander R Charge Service
Bickford, John
Service Vagle, Jennifer Plaintiff R Rex Parris Law Firm
Attorney in E
M
Charge Service
El Additional Recinients (0)
El Case Parties
lose,
About LexisNexis
I
Terms & Conditions
I
Privacy I Customer Support - 1-888-529-7587
LexisNexis
Copyright 2012 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
https ://w3 .fileandserve lexisnexis .comlWebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSu... 9/28/2012
EXHIBIT 2
Page 203
#:205
PAUL HASTiNGS LLP
Twenty-Fifth Floor
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
(CALIFORNIA) INCORPORATED;
SMITH FOUR, INC.; and SMITH TWO, INC.
CASE NO. BC480931
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS DEMURRERS TO THE
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
[Notice of Hearing on Demurrers and
Demurrers, Request for Judicial Notice, and
Exhibits A-C filed separately]
Plaintiff,
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
corporation, ARCHSTONE PROPERTY
corporation, SMITH FOUR, iNC. d/b/a
corporation, SMITH TWO, iNC. d/b/a
Archstone-Smith Two Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendants.
27
28
CoPY
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
vs.
Date:
Time:
Dept:
Judge:
November 20, 2012
9:00 a.m.
307
MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 204
#:206
-
-
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
Twenty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 9007 1-2228
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
(CALIFORNIA) INCORPORATED;
SMITH FOUR, INC.; and SMITH TWO, iNC.
Plaintiff,
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
corporation, SMITH FOUR, INC. d/b/a
corporation, SMITH TWO, INC. d/b/a
Archstone-Srnith Two Inc., a Delaware
inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. BC480931
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS DEMURRERS TO THE
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Demurrers, Request for Judicial Notice, and
Exhibits A-C filed separately]
Sep28 201
04:O2PM
I
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
vs.
Date: November 20, 2012
Time:
Dept:
9:00 a.m.
307
MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINI
EXHIBIT 2
Page 205
#:207
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
Page
3
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1
4
5 II. PLAINTIFFS ALLEGATIONS
3
6
III. STANDARD ON DEMURRER
4
7
8 IV. PLAINTIFFS FAILURE TO NAME HER LANDLORD IS FATAL TO HER CLAIM
UNDER CIVIL CODE SECTION 1950.5
4
9
10 V. PLAINTIFF CANNOT STATE A CLAIM FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT
6
11
VI. PLAINTIFF CANNOT STATE A CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE UCL
6
12
A. Existence of a Likelihood of Deception is Properly Resolved on Demurrer
8
13 B. Plaintiff Cannot Allege Unfair Conduct Under the UCL
9
14
C. Plaintiff Cannot Allege Unlawful Conduct Under the UCL
10
D. Plaintiff Cannot Allege Fraudulent Conduct Under the UCL
10
15
16 VII. PLAINTIFFS ALTER EGO, MANAGEMENT, AND AGENCY THEORIES ARE
WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT
11
17
A. Plaintiff Fails to Adequately Plead Alter Ego Liability
11
18 B. Plaintiffs Management and Agency Cannot Create A Claim
13
19
VIII. CONCLUSION
15
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 2
Page 206
#:208
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Page(s)
3 CAsEs
4 Action Apartment Ass ii v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd.,
94 Cal. App. 4th 587 (2001)
5
Arnold v. Browne,
6
27 Cal. App. 3d386 (1972)
12
C & HFoods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co.,
8
163 Cal.App.3d 1055 (1984)
4
9 Cel-Tech Commc ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.,
20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999)
7
10
Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp.,
93 Cal. App. 4th 363 (2001)
9
12
Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co.,
13
23Cal.4th163(2000)
8
14
Crawford v. Farmers Group, Inc.,
160 Cal. App. 3d 1164 (1984)
10
15
Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
16
144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006)
9
17
Durell v. Sharp Healthcare,
18
183 Cal. App. 4th 1350 (2010)
8
19
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Super. Ct. (The People),
2 Cal. 4th 377 (1992)
10
20
Goldrich v. Natural YSurgical Specialties, Inc.,
21
25 Cal. App.4th772(1994)
7
22
Holland v. Morse Diesel mt 1, Inc.,
23
86 Cal. App. 4th 1443 (2001)
4
24
Indep. Cellular Tel., Inc. v. Daniels &Assocs.,
863 F. Supp. 1109 (N.D. Cal. 1994)
10
25
Khouryv. Malys of Cal., Inc.,
26 l4Cal.App.4th612(1993)
2,6,10
27
28
11
MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEM1JRRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 207
#:209
1
(continued)
Page(s)
2
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003)
8, 9, 10
Laird v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.,
68 Cal. App. 4th 727 (1998)
14
5
Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
6 lO5Cal.App.4th496(2003)
10,11
7
Lazar v. Super. Ct. (Rykoff-Sexton, Inc.),
8
12 Cal. 4th 631 (1996)
6
Leek v. Cooper,
194 Cal. App. 4th 399 (2011)
12, 13
10
Medix Ambulance Serv. v. Super. Ct. (Collado),
11
97Ca1.App.4th109(2002)
5,12
12 Melchior v. New Line Prods., Inc.,
13
106 Cal. App. 4th779 (2003)
6
Mesler v. Bragg Mgmt. Co.,
14
39Cal.3d290(1985)
12
15
Olson v, Cohen,
16
lO6Cal. App. 4th 1209 (2003)
9
17 People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc.,
211 Cal. App. 3d 119 (1989)
8
18
People v. McKale,
19
25Ca1.3d626(1979)
10
20
People v. Toomey,
21
157 Cal. App. 3d 1(1984)
8, 9
22
Prata v. Super. Ct. (Bank One, NA),
91 Cal. App. 4th 1128 (2001)
7
23
Rollins Burdick Hunter ofS. Cal., Inc. v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., Inc.,
24
206 Cal. App. 3d 1(1988)
14
25
Serv. by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co.,
26
44 Cal. App. 4th 1807 (1996)
4
27
Shvarts v. Budget Group, Inc.,
81 Cal. App. 4th 1153 (2000)
4,8, 10
28
111
MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMLJRRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 208
#:210
1
(continued)
Page(s)
2
Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
93 Cal. App. 4th700 (2001)
8
Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Sonora Union High Sch. Dist.),
83 Cal. App. 4th 523 (2000)
12, 13, 14
5
Swartz v. KPMG LLP,
6 476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007)
7
7
Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
8
2Cal.App.4th153(1991)
6,7
Vasey v. Cal. Dance Co.,
70 Cal. App. 3d 742 (1977)
12
10
STATUTES
11
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

17200, etseq
passim
12
Cal. Civ. Code

430.10(e)
4
13
Cal. Civ.Code 1161
3
14
15
Cal. Civ. Code

1950.5
passim
16
Cal. Civ. Code

1950.5(b)
4, 5
17
Cal. Civ. Code

1950.5(e)
s
18
Cal. Civ. Code

1950.5(1)
2,4
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iv
MEM. OF POiNTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEIVRJRRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 209
#:211
1 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2 Plaintiff Jennifer Vagle (Plaintiff) once again attempts to bring statutory claims under
3 California Civil Code section 1950.5 (Section 1950.5) and Business and Professions Code
4 section 17200, et seq. (the UCL), alleging that $282.27 of her security deposit was improperly
5 withheld for cleaning her apartment upon the conclusion of her lease at Archstone Warner Center.
6 However, disregarding the clear instruction of the Court when it sustained demurrers to her
7 original complaint, Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (FAC) once again intentionally fails to
8 name her landlord as a defendant.
9 As a result, the FAC is equally as defective as the original complaint, and Defendants
10 demurrers should be sustained this time, with prejudice. Plaintiff simply cannot bring to Court
11 what is a quintessential landlord-tenant dispute and then refuse to name her landlord as a
12 defendant. This is not a case where Plaintiff is unable to identify her landlord. Exhibit A to the
13 FAC, which Plaintiff alleges to be a copy of her lease (the Lease), plainly names ASN Warner
14 Center, LLC, as the landlord. But Plaintiff apparently has no interest in suing her landlord.
15 Instead, Plaintiff has admitted in prior filings before this Court that she considered almost 200
16 Archstone corporate entities as (in her view) potential defendants in this case. (See Opposition
17 to Defendants Motion to Quash Deposition Notices, filed August 15, 2012, at 13:15-17 (Exhibit
18 A to the Declaration of Nicholas J. Begakis (Begakis Decl.)).) She then singled out these
19 five Defendants as the likely creators and implementers of Archstones California LLC
20 apartment communities. (Id. at 13:19-24.) How? She selected these Defendants based on the
21 fact that these entities are the only Archstone entities in California that do not appear to be
22 associated with any particular LLC apartment community, and that each of these Defendants
23 share the same corporate contact identified on Archstones corporate website. (Id. at 13:24-26.)
24 Based on this, and this alone, Plaintiffs counsel has therefore reasoned that it is very likely that
25 these entities are somehow responsible for the [alleged] policies and procedures in place at
26 Archstones LLC apartment communities. (Id. at 14:1-3.)
27
Defendants are Archstone Communities, LLC, Archstone Builders Incorporated, Archstone
28
Property Management (California), Incorporated, Smith Two, Inc. and Smith Four, Inc.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 210
#:212
1 Setting aside the stunning lack of factual support for this speculative leap, it simply would
2 not matter even if any of the Defendants were somehow responsible for setting security deposit
3 policies and procedures for Archstone Warner Center. The Civil Code places responsibility for
4 following the law governing security deposits squarely on the landlord and allows claims for
5 alleged violations to be brought against a landlord or the landlords successors in interest...
6 See Cal. Civ. Code
1950.5(1). Here, Plaintiff has sued these Defendants precisely because they
7 are not her landlord because they do not appear to be associated with any particular LLC
8 apartment community. Under the circumstances, then, no claim will lie under Section 1950.5.
9 Similarly, Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the UCL, because she fails to allege any facts
10 showing that any of these Defendants engaged in any unfair, unlawful or fraudulent conduct. See
11 Khoury v. Malys of Cal., Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619 (1993) (A plaintiff alleging unfair
12 business practices under [Section 17200] must state with reasonable particularity the facts
13 supporting the statutory elements of the violation.).
14 Plaintiff tries to mask the shortcomings of her allegations by taking these five randomly-
15 selected Defendants and re-naming them collectively as ARCHSTONE (a definition that
16 excludes Plaintiffs landlord as well as the other of the almost 200 Archstone entities identified
17 by Plaintiff). (See FAC,
12.) She then proceeds to ascribe to this single monolithic defendant

18 all of the alleged ills at Archstone apartment communities throughout the State. But this
19 ARCHSTONE is a construct of Plaintiffs imagination, and nothing more, a device used in an
20 effort to avoid having to connect each Defendant to Plaintiffs landlord and to her alleged claims
21 against her landlord. In sustaining the demurrers to Plaintiffs original complaint, the Court
22 recognized that Plaintiffs efforts to plead an alter ego theory were insufficient to state a claim,
23 and there are no material changes in that regard between that complaint and the FAC. As the
24 Court previously noted, it may be frustrating to think you cant just do a shotgun pleading at the
25 begin[ing] and look for your proof later. But from a professional point of view its sometimes
26 better to make more modest pleading first and see where facts take you. (Aug. 8, 2012 Hrg. Tr.
27 on Demurrer at 7:27-8:4; Ex. B to Begakis Deci.) Plaintiff declined, once again, to follow the
28 latter route in drafting her FAC. Accordingly, Defendants demurrers should be sustained.
2
MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 211
#:213
1 II. PLAINTIFFS ALLEGATIONS
2 Plaintiff alleges that she leased an apartment at Archstone Warner Center from August 16,
3 2009 through August 15, 2010. (FAC
25.) Attached as Exhibit A to the FAC is what Plaintiff

4 alleges to be a copy of her Lease. Plaintiff contends that she paid a security deposit in the amount
5 of $399.00, a $400.00 pet deposit and a $50 deposit for a second set of keys (Plaintiff refers to
6 these amounts collectively as her Security Deposit). (FAC
27.)
7 According to the Lease, ASN Warner Center, LLC, as the owner of Archstone Warner
8 Center and Plaintiffs landlord, would return the Security Deposit within 21 days of the Lease
9 End Date (as defined in the Lease). (FAC, Ex. A at 5,
8.2.) The Lease further provides that the

10 Security Deposit would be returned if inter alia, the tenant observed all covenants and
11 obligations of the Lease; the tenant is not in default; the apartment is clean and in the same
12 condition it was on the Lease Begin Date (as defined in the Lease); and there is no rent owed.
13 (Id.) The Lease explicitly provides that the landlord may withhold sums for purposes that include
14 repairing damages to the apartment, cleaning the apartment, paying final utility bills, and
15 remedying any defaults under the Lease. (Id.)
16 Plaintiff alleges that she vacated the apartment on August 15, 2010. (FAC
28.) On
17 August 25, 2010, well within the 21-day time period set forth in both the statute and the Lease,
18 Plaintiff was provided with a Statement of Deposit showing a withholding of $362.13. (Id.
29.)
19 Of this amount, Plaintiff contests the retention of only $282.27, representing deductions of $80.00
20 for apartment cleaning; $60.00 for carpet cleaning; and $142.27 for painting. (Id.)
21 Plaintiff alleges that ARCHSTONE which does not include her landlord, ASN Warner
22 Center, LLC has a systematic policy and procedure of charging tenants for apartment cleaning,
23 painting and carpet cleaning and failing to provide adequate explanations for the monies
24 withheld. (IcL
32.) On this basis, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons except those
25 who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code section 1161, who entered into written residential rental
26 agreements with ARCHSTONEs California apartment complexes and were charged for
27 apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement within the last four years.
28 (Id.J35.)
3
MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEM1JRRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 212
#:214
1 III. STANDARD ON DEMURRER
2 A demurrer to a complaint will be sustained if the complaint does not state facts sufficient
3 to state a cause of action. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
430.10(e). While the court must accept all facts

4 properly pled as true, [t]he court does not
[]
assume the truth of contentions, deductions or
5 conclusions of law. Shvarts v. Budget Group, Inc., 81 Cal. App. 4th 1153, 1157 (2000).
6 Further, facts not alleged [in the complaint] are presumed not to exist. C & HFoods Co. v.
7 Hartford Ins. Co., 163 Cal. App. 3d 1055, 1062 (1984). Facts appearing in exhibits attached to
8 the complaint are given precedence over contradictory allegations in the complaint. Holland v.
9 Morse Diesel Intl, Inc., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1443, 1447 (2001) (superseded by statute on other
10 grounds by White v. Cridlebaugh, 178 Cal. App. 4th 506 (2009)). Where there is no reasonable
11 probability that the defects in a complaint can be cured by amendment, a court may properly
12 sustain a demurrer without leave to amend. Serv. by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 44 Cal. App.
13 4th 1807, 1812 (1996).
14 IV. PLAINTIFFS FAILURE TO NAME HER LANDLORD IS FATAL TO HER
15 CLAIM UNDER CIVIL CODE SECTION 1950.5
16 Plaintiff cannot sustain her purported First Cause of Action for alleged violation of
17 Section 1950.5. The primary relief sought by Plaintiff through this cause of action and the rest
18 of the FAC - is restitution of alleged unlawful charges made for apartment cleaning and
19 painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement. (FAC,
42.) By its express terms, Section

20 1950.5 establishes certain legal rights and obligations of residential tenants and landlords in the
21 State of California with respect to security deposits, including the propriety of post-lease
22 deductions for apartment cleaning, painting, etc. See Cal. Civ. Code
1950.5(b). And the statute

23 is clear on its face that a tenants claim for a violation of the statute lies specifically against his or
24 her landlord or the landlords successors in interest[.] Cal. Civ. Code
1950.5(1).
25 Here, the Lease attached to the FAC reveals that Plaintiffs landlord was ASN Warner
26 Center, LLC not any of the five Defendants named in this case. (See FAC, Ex. A at 1.) And
27 there is no factual allegation, nor could there be, that any of these Defendants is a successor in
28
4
MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES N SUPPORT OF DEMLIRRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 213
#:215
1 interest to ASN Warner Center, LLC, which is an active entity doing business in the State of
2 California. 2Consequently, this claim will not lie against any of the Defendants. 3
3 Plaintiff cannot plead around the statute by trying to assert alter ego allegations. 4There
4 is no authority for plaintiffs unsupported argument that the doctrine of alter ego somehow
5 obviates compliance with
U
statutory requirements. Medix Ambulance Serv. v. Super. Ct.
6 (Collado), 97 Cal. App. 4th 109, 116 (2002). In Medix, the plaintiff brought statutory
7 employment claims against a number of defendants, including certain defendants that she failed
8 to name in her administrative charges as required by statute. Id. at 113. Plaintiff attempted to
9 cure this defect by alleging that the previously unnamed defendants were the alter egos of her
10 employer (which had been previously named). Id. The Court rejected this argument, noting that
11 the statute allowed claims against only certain defendants and that the alter ego allegations did not
12 obviate the statutory requirement. Id. at 116. The same is true here.
13 Furthermore, even if Plaintiff had named her actual landlord as a defendant, she could not
14 sustain her claim in this case. Section 1950.5 establishes that [t]he landlord may claim of the
15 security i.e., reduce the security deposit by any amount reasonably necessary to
16 compensate the landlord for various issues enumerated in Section 1950.5(b). Cal. Civ. Code
17
1950.5(e). Specifically, the landlord may use the security deposit to compensate for a tenants
18 defaults in the payment of rent; to repair damages to the premises exclusive of ordinary wear and
19 tear; to clean the premises upon the termination of the tenancy; and to remedy the tenants future
20 defaults. Id.
1950.5(b); see also Action Apartment Ass n v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 94
21 Cal. App. 4th 587, 600 (2001) (listing circumstances in which [l]andlords may use a security
22
2
See Begakis Decl., Ex. C (jrintout from California Secretary of State records). The Court may
23 properly take judicial notice of this public filing.
24
Similarly, there can be no claim under Section 1950.5 on behalf of members of the putative
class. In particular, given that Plaintiff selected these Defendants because they are not
25
associated with any particular LLC apartment community, Defendants were not the landlords
for any other members of the putative class.
26
Even if they could be applied to a claim for violation of Section 1950.5, as described below in
27
more detail and as recognized by the Court in sustaining the demurrers to Plaintiffs original
complaint, Plaintiffs alter ego allegations in this case are patently insufficient to state a claim
28
against Defendants.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 214
#:216
1 deposit). Here, Plaintiffs own allegations reveal that the amounts withheld from her security
2 deposit fall squarely within the terms of the statute, which permit the landlord to use the funds for
3 cleaning. (See FAC
29.) Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged that ASN Warner Center, LLC acted in
4 any improper manner or that it did not use the funds for the stated and entirely legal purpose
5 of cleaning the apartment. Under the circumstances, Plaintiffs claim for violations of Section
6 1950.5 cannot be sustained.
7 V. PLAINTIFF CANNOT STATE A CLAIM FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT
8 Plaintiffs purported Second Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment fails for the simple
9 reason that it is not a legally cognizable cause of action. Unjust enrichment describes a remedy,
10 not a cause of action. See Meichior v. New Line Prods., Inc., 106 Cal. App. 4th 779, 793 (2003)
11 ([T]here is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment.). In any event, there are no
12 factual allegations showing how any of these Defendants was unjustly enriched by a security
13 deposit paid by Plaintiff to her landlord, ASN Warner Center, LLC. As a result, and because
14 Plaintiff pleads no other valid cause of action against Defendants, the Court should dismiss
15 Plaintiffs purported Second Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment.
16 VI. PLAINTIFF CANNOT STATE A CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE UCL
17 Plaintiffs purported Third Cause of Action does not state a cognizable claim under the
18 UCL. As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs UCL claim sounds in fraud and must therefore satisfy the
19 heightened pleading standard. See Khoury, 14 Cal. App. 4th at 619 (A plaintiff alleging unfair
20 business practices under [Section 17200] must state with reasonable particularity the facts
21 supporting the statutory elements of the violation.).
22 Here, Plaintiff does not allege that any of these five Defendants made any statements,
23 representations, or promises of any kind, let alone allege the particular facts required to plead the
24 who, what, when, where and how necessary to assert claims sounding in fraud. See Lazar v.
25 Super. Ct. (Rykoff-Sexton, Inc.), 12 Cal. 4th 631, 645 (1996). Indeed, a plaintiffs burden in
26 asserting a fraud claim against a corporation is even greater. The requirement of specificity in a
27 fraud action against a corporation requires the plaintiff to allege the names of the persons who
28 made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what
6
EXHIBIT 2
Page 215
#:217
1 they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
2 2 Cal. App. 4th 153, 157 (1991).
3 The only statements or representations identified with any semblance of particularity in
4 the FAC are set forth in the Lease attached to the FAC as Exhibit A. (See FAC 26 & Ex. A.)
5 However, as noted above, the only parties to that Lease are Plaintiff and an entity called ASN
6 Warner Center LLC not any of the five Defendants named in the FAC. (See FAC, Ex. A at 1,)
7 Plaintiff fails to identify a single misrepresentation made by ASN Warner Center, LLC,
8 much less any of the five Defendants, that could possibly support a claim of fraud. 5The only
9 additional allegations added since the Court last found Plaintiffs allegations insufficient to
10 support a fraud claim are statements made by unidentified tenants (none of which can be
11 attributed ASN Warner Center, LLC or Defendants). (See FAC
31.) Plaintiff also fails to

12 allege, as she is obligated to do, the manner in which any purported misrepresentations were
13 made (e.g., in-person, by telephone, etc.). Tarmann, 2 Cal. App. 4th at 157. As a result, it is
14 impossible to determine what was said or by whom or in what manner. Goldrich v. Natural Y
15 Surgical Specialties, Inc., 25 Cal. App. 4th 772, 783 (1994). Plaintiffs vague and conclusory
16 allegations fall far short of the heightened pleading requirement applicable to her claims.
17 Moreover, the allegations of the FAC simply could not support a cognizable UCL claim.
18 The UCL provides that: unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or
19 fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.. .
20 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
17200. The statute is disjunctive, and, as a result, the statute is

21 violated where a defendants act or practice is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent. See Frata v. Super.
22 Ct. (Bank One, NA), 91 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 1137 (2001). Although the unfair competition laws
23 scope is sweeping, it is not unlimited. Cel-Tech Commc ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20
24 Cal. 4th 163, 182 (1999).
25
26
The importance of attributing specific misrepresentations to each defendant is heightened
27
where, as here, there are several defendants allegedly involved in the alleged fraud. Cf Swartz v.
KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2007) (the plaintiff must identify the role of each
28
defendant in the alleged fraudulent scheme).
EXHIBIT 2
Page 216
#:218
1 As the California Supreme Court stated in Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co.,
.2 23 Cal. 4th 163, 173 (2000), the UCL is not an all-purpose substitute for a tort or contract
3 action. Similarly, in Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 93 Cal. App. 4th 700, 7 19-20
4 (2001), the court stated that the concept of what constitutes an unfair business practice is
5 limited. As the court noted in Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134,
6 1147 (2003), the legislature did not intend (Ito provide courts with unlimited equitable powers
7 under the UCL. Moreover, a plaintiff in a UCL case is always required to establish a likelihood
8 of deception of the public to maintain his or her claims. See id. at 1151(2003); People v.
9 Toomey, 157 Cal. App. 3d 1, 16 (1984); People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 211 Cal. App. 3d
10 119, 131 (1989).
11 A. Existence of a Likelihood of Deception is Properly Resolved on Demurrer
12 California authority allows for the resolution of unfair competition claims at the pleading
13 stage. For example, the court in Shvarts , upheld the trial courts decision to sustain a demurrer
14 on the grounds that the defendants conduct did not constitute an unfair business practice.
15 Shvarts, 81 Cal. App. 4th at 1155. In Shvarts, the plaintiff challenged Budget Group, Inc.s
16 practice of assessing allegedly unfair fuel charges as part of a car rental contract. Id. at 1156.
17 The complaint alleged that refueling charges included in rental contracts constituted an unfair,
18 unlawful or fraudulent business practice in violation of the UCL. Id. Defendant demurred on the
19 grounds that plaintiffs claims under the UCL failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
20 of action. Id. The trial court, and the Court of Appeal, found that the rental contract clearly set
21 forth the terms of the agreement and could not, therefore, be unfair. Id. at 1160.
22 The Shvarts court resolved a pleading challenge considering all three prongs of the UCL.
23 Specifically, upon review of the challenged business practices, the court noted that:
24
We cannot conclude here that the public is likelyto be deceived.
Each of the three payment options is clearly printed, in boldface, in
25
the rental agreement provided to appellants at the time of rental.
We conclude that appellants have failed to plead facts which
26
will support an unfair competition claim.
27 Id. at 1160. Shvarts is not an anomaly; California courts routinely resolve unfair competition
28 claims at the pleading stage. See, e.g., Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1350
8
EXHIBIT 2
Page 217
#:219
1 (2010) (affirming trial courts dismissal of Section 17200 claims without leave to amend);
2 Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006) (affirming trial courts
3 dismissal of 17200 claim without leave to amend based on failure to plead likelihood of
4 deception); Olson v. Cohen, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1214-16 (2003) (affirming dismissal of
5 Section 17200 claim); Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp., 93 Cal. App. 4th 363, 374-75 (2001) (same).
6 For example, in Chavez, the plaintiff purchased a household appliance from a retailer and
7 then filed a complaint alleging that the retailer and the manufacturer conspired to maintain
8 minimum resale prices for certain appliances. Chavez, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 367. The defendants
9 demurred to the complaint on the grounds that their conduct was not unlawful or unfair. Id. at
10 3 67-68. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs UCL claim was defective because the alleged
11 conduct did not violate [a statute], threaten an incipient violation of the law, or violate the policy
12 or spirit of the law. Id. at 368. The trial court agreed and sustained the defendants demurrer
13 without leave to amend. Id. at 366. In upholding the trial courts decision to dismiss the action at
14 the pleading stage, the appellate court found that the defendants conduct was not unlawful or
15 unfair as a matter of law. Id. at 375.
16 This case presents an analogous situation. Even accepting the allegations of the FAC as
17 true (to the extent they are not contradicted by the Lease), neither Plaintiff nor any putative class
18 members were likely to be deceived (or actually were deceived) by any act alleged in the FAC.
19 The Lease sets forth, in detail, the circumstances under which monies will be withheld from a
20 security deposit, all of which are consistent with Section 1950.5. As a result, the Court should
21 dismiss Plaintiffs claims.
22 B. Plaintiff Cannot Allege Unfair Conduct Under the UCL
23 Plaintiffs subjective interpretation of the Lease and any related communications do not
24 support a claim under the unfair prong of the UCL. The universal test to determine what conduct
25 will constitute a violation of the unfair prong of the UCL is whether the public is likely to be
26 deceived. Toomey, 157 Cal. App. 3d at 16; Korea Supply, 29 Cal. 4th at 1151.
27 Here, the Lease clearly set forth ASN Warner Center, LLCs valid policies concerning the
28 withholding of security deposits. (Compare FAC, Ex. A, with Cal. Civ. Code
1950.5.) Just as
9
MEM. OF POfNTS AND AUTHORITIES TN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 218
#:220
1 in Shvarts, the written agreement does not evince any intent to deceive Plaintiff, and no UCL
2 claim may lie as a result.
3 C. Plaintiff Cannot Allege Unlawful Conduct Under the UCL
4 Pursuant to the UCL, an unlawful business practice or act is anything that can properly
5 be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law. People v. McKale,
6 25 Cal. 3d 626, 634 (1979). The UCL thus borrows violations from other laws and treats them
7 as unlawful practices that are independently actionable under the UCL. Farmers Ins. Exch. v.
8 Super. Ct. (The People), 2 Cal. 4th 377, 383 (1992). Plaintiffs must, however, specifically allege
9 what underlying law was violated. Khoury, 14 Cal. App. 4th at 619 (dismissal proper because
10 complaint identifies no particular section of the statutory scheme which was violated and fails to
11 describe with any reasonable particularity the facts supporting violation). Courts routinely
12 dismiss UCL claims where the party has failed to establish a predicate violation of the underlying
13 law. See, e.g., Indep. Cellular Tel., Inc. v. Daniels & Assocs., 863 F. Supp. 1109, 1118 (N.D. Cal.
14 1994) (UCL claim dismissed based on courts finding that defendants were not subject to the
15 licensing requirement that was the gravamen of the complaint); Crawford v. Farmers Group, Inc.,
16 160 Cal. App. 3d 1164, 1168, 1171(1984) (no UCLcause of action where conduct did not fall
17 within the statutes definition of a retail installment sale).
18 Plaintiffs claim under the unlawful prong relies wholly upon alleged violations of Section
19 1950.5. Because, as set forth above, Plaintiff fails to establish the elements of a Section 1950.5
20 claim, her claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL must also fail.
21 D. Plaintiff Cannot Allege Fraudulent Conduct Under the UCL
22 Plaintiff has not alleged, and cannot allege any representations that were likely to deceive
23 the public. Plaintiff must plead facts, which taken as true, establish that the public are likely to
24 be deceived by the representations regarding security deposits. See Korea Supply, 29 Cal. 4th at
25 1151. This Court can determine whether the public is likely to be deceived by those
26 representations as a matter of law. See Shvarts, 81 Cal. App. 4th at 1158.
27 The decision in Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (2003), is
28 instructive. Lavie involved a UCL claim brought by a consumer who developed an ulcer
10
EXHIBIT 2
Page 219
#:221
1 allegedly in connection with his ingestion of an over-the-counter pain product. Id. at 500-01.
2 The consumer brought a class action against the companies that developed, manufactured, and
3 marketed the product, claiming that the defendants marketing campaign for the pain product was
4 misleading. Id In finding that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived, the court held:
5 [T]he standard to be applied in assessing whether the conduct or
advertisement violates the UCL is whether it is likely to deceive
6
the consumer. Likely to deceive implies more than a mere
7
possibility that the advertisement might conceivably be
misunderstood by some few consumers viewing it in an
8
unreasonable manner. Rather, the phrase indicates that the ad is
such that it is probable that a significant portion of the general
9
consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in
the circumstances could be misled.
10
ii
Id. at 508 (internal citations omitted).
12
The FAC here is devoid of any facts establishing why a reasonable consumer would be
13
misled by any representations in this case (indeed, as set forth above, she utterly fails to allege the
14
requisite who, what, when, where and how about any representations at all). Plaintiff simply
15
alleges in the vaguest terms that tenants were somehow misled into believing that they would not
16
be charged for painting and cleaning. (FAC
52.) No reasonable consumer would interpret the

17
materials referenced in the FAC in such a fashion. The Lease clearly indicates that certain
18
monies may be withheld for such purposes as cleaning, final utility bills, repairs, or to correct any
19
defaults under the Lease. (See FAC, Ex. A at 5,
8.2.) Plaintiff fails to offer any explanation as

20
to how she was misled by these statements, much less how a reasonable consumer would be
21
misled. Plaintiffs reading of the Lease and related communications is strained and unreasonable.
22
Plaintiff cannot, therefore, state a claim under the fraudulent prong of the UCL.
23
VII. PLAINTIFFS ALTER EGO, MANAGEMENT, AND AGENCY THEORIES ARE
24
WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT
25
A. Plaintiff Fails to Adequately Plead Alter Ego Liability
26
The amendments to Plaintiffs FAC are superficial and fail to offer any basis for haling
27
these Defendants into court, which is particularly true with regard to Plaintiffs purported alter
28
ego theory of liability. As a threshold matter, as discussed above, alter ego allegations do not
11
EXHIBIT 2
Page 220
#:222
1 save Plaintiffs claims. Medix, 97 Cal. App. 4th at 116. In any event, her alter ego allegations
2 lack merit.
3 Ordinarily, a corporation is regarded as a legal entity, separate and distinct from its
4 stockholders, officers and directors, with separate and distinct liabilities and obligations. Sonora
5 Diamond Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Sonora Union High Sch. Dist.), 83 Cal. App. 4th 523, 538 (2000).
6 [Tjhe corporate form will be disregarded only in narrowly defined circumstances and only
7 when the ends of justice so require. Mesler v. Bragg Mgmt. Co., 39 Cal. 3d 290, 301 (1985)
8 (emphasis added). In order to proceed on an alter ego theory, the proponent must establish both a
9 unity of interest between the corporation and the alter ego and that failure to disregard the
10 corporate entity would lead to an inequitable result. Leek v. Cooper, 194 Cal. App. 4th 399, 411
11 (2011) (citing Arnold v. Browne, 27 Cal. App. 3d 386, 394 (1972)). In order to successfully plead
12 an alter ego theory, a complaint must allege sufficient facts to show a unity of interest and
13 ownership, and an unjust result if the corporation is treated as the sole actor. Id. at 415 (citing
14 Vasey v. Cal. Dance Co., 70 Cal. App. 3d 742, 749 (1977) (emphasis added)). Moreover, in order
15 to properly establish a unity of interest more than simple common characteristics or
16 commonalities is necessary; plaintiff must establish pervasive control. See Sonora Diamond
17 Corp., 83 Cal. App. 4th at 541 (noting vicarious liability was inappropriate upon a showing of
18 merely interlocking directors, and oversight over the other company). Here, Ms. Vagles
19 allegations do not come close to meeting this standard.
20 For example, in Leek, plaintiffs alleged employment discrimination claims against a car
2l dealership and sought to impose liability on the sole stockholder of the dealership. Id. at 406.
22 While the case was decided on summary judgment, the Court of Appeal noted that it was
23 essentially a pleading case and examined the issue of whether the complaint sufficiently alleged
24 an alter ego theory. Id. at 406, 412-15. The court found that allegations that the stockholder was
25 the sole owner of the dealership and made all of the dealerships business decisions as well as
26 allegations that all defendants were the agents, servants and employees of their co-defendants
27 were insufficient to support proceeding on an alter ego theory. Id. at 415 (noting that the
28
12
EXHIBIT 2
Page 221
#:223
1 complaint did not allege facts showing a unity of interest and inequitable result from treatment of
2 the corporation as the sole actor).
3 In this case, Ms. Vagles allegations do not even rise to the level of those that were found
4 insufficient in Leek. The sum total of Ms. Vagles allegations is that Defendants either directly
5 or through [their] corporate affiliates own and manage multi-unit apartment conirnunities
6 throughout the state (FAC
14); there is a unity of ownership amongst Defendants because

7 they allegedly share an address and utilize the services of some overlapping employees (FAC
8 15); the apartment communities (none of which is a Defendant) fly under the same
9 ARCHSTONE banner and logo, (FAC
18); and, Archstone apartment communities (none of

10 which is a Defendant) use standardized leases and share a website (FAC
J
20-2 1). These
11 allegations utterly fail to show the requisite unity of interest between each Defendant and
12 Plaintiffs landlord, ASN Warner Center, LLC, that might possibly support an alter ego claim
13 by Plaintiff.
14 In any event, to support an alter ego theory of liability, a plaintiff must do far more than
15 try to establish a unity of interest amongst the parties alleged to be alter egos. It is imperative that
16 the plaintiff establish that some manifest inequity or injustice would result from enforcement of
17 the corporate form. See Sonora Diamond Corp., 83 Cal. App. 4th at 539. The alter ego doctrine
18 does not guard every unsatisfied creditor of a corporation but instead affords protection where
19 some conduct amounting to bad faith makes it inequitable for the corporate owner to hide behind
20 the corporate form. Difficulty in enforcing a judgment or collecting a debt does not satisfy this
21 standard. Id. Here, Plaintiff not only fails to establish the requisite unity of interest, but she
22 makes no effort whatsoever to show any inequity or injustice that could possibly result from
23 respecting the corporate form in this case.
24 B. Plaintiffs Management and Agency Theories Cannot Create a Claim
25 Plaintiff attempts to salvage her alter ego claims by including allegations regarding
26 management and agency, neither of which supports her decision to sue these Defendants.
27 In particular, Plaintiffs reliance on a purported management theory of liability is not
28 supported by the law. Plaintiff apparently bases this allegation on the Courts prior observation
13
EXHIBIT 2
Page 222
#:224
1 that, in cases where the facts establish a basis for suing a management company as well as a
2 property owner, the management company. . . if it comes to how they do things they may have
3 responsibility for a tort. (See Trans. at 6:24-28, Begakis Deci. Ex. B (emphasis added).) But
4 Plaintiff has twisted this observation into authority for a new form of alter ego liability, where the
5 requisite facts showing a unity of interest can simply be replaced with the pleading of a single
6 magic word management. Plaintiffs confused creativity, however, cannot salvage her
7 claims. The management theory of liability is supported in the FAC by nothing more than a
8 conclusory allegation that is identical to the alter ego allegation that the Court found insufficient
9 when it was alleged in the original Complaint: [Defendants], either directly or through its
10 corporate affiliates, has been engaged in the business of owning, developing, managing,
11 maintaining and leasing approximately 70 multi-unit apartment complexes throughout the State of
12 California, including but not limited to the premises formally [sic] rented by Plaintiff. (FAC
13
14.) Putting aside the fact that Plaintiff makes this allegation despite having been presented
14 with ample evidence to the contrary (see Defs. Mot. for Sanctions), there is no authority
15 supporting the imposition of liability on an entity that Plaintiff does not allege had any direct
16 involvement in the day-to-day management of a property based on a management theory.
17 Plaintiffs theory of agency liability is similarly flawed. Plaintiff bears a heavy burden
18 if she intends to establish that Defendants are agents of each other and/or that ASN Warner
19 Center, LLC is an agent of one or more of the Defendants. Corporate entities are presumed to
20 have separate existences, and the corporate form will be disregarded only when the ends ofjustice
21 require this result. Lairdv. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 727, 737 (1998). In order
22 to do so, she must show more than mere representation that is, she must show that Defendants
23 exercise excessive control over ASN Warner Canter, LLC (and/or each other) such that the
24 alleged agents are mere instrumentalities of the principal(s). Id. at 741. See also Sonora
25 Diamond Corp., 83 Cal. App. 4th at 542 (noting that corporate entities are often financially
26 related and share characteristics such as interlocking directors, but that such facts do not justify a
27 finding of agency) (citing Rollins Burdick Hunter ofS. Cal., Inc. v. Alexander & Alexander
28
14
MEM. OF POTNTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 223
#:225
1 Servs., Inc., 206 Cal. App. 3d 1, 9 (1988)). Here, Plaintiffs agency allegation is nothing more
2 than a conclusory, boiler-plate recitation of the concept of agency:
3
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at
all times herein mentioned, [the named Defendants] and [the named
4
Defendants] California apartment complexes, are the agents,
partners, successors, or employees of each other, and, in doing the
5
things complained of herein, are acting within the course and scope
6
of such agency, partnership, succession, or employment.
7
(FAC
16.) Plaintiffs boilerplate agency allegations are insufficient to state a claim against
8
Defendants that have no relationship to her claims.
9
VIII. CONCLUSION
10 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court sustain their
11
Demurrers, without leave to amend.
12
14
By:_____________
HOWARD M. PRIVETTE
15
Attorneys for Defendants ARCHSTONE
16
COMMUNITIES, LLC; ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
INCORPORATED, ARCHSTONE PROPERTY
17
MANAGEMENT (CALIFORNIA) INCORPORATED;
SMITH FOUR, INC. dlb/a/ Archstone-Smith Four, Inc.;
18
and SMITH TWO, iNC. d/b/a Archstone-Smith Two, Inc.
19
20
21
LEGAL U5_W # 72827319.4
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
EXHIBIT 2
Page 224
#:226
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
)
)
ss:
)
LOS ANGELES
)
4
2228.
7
8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
9 DEFENDANTS DEMIJRRERS TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
on the interested parties as follows:
11 R. Rex Parris, Esq. (rrparris@rrexparris.com)
12
Kitty Szeto, Esq.
13
14
Phone: (661) 949-2595
15 Fax: (661) 949-7524
16
17
http://fileandserve.lexisnexis.com.
18
19
20
21
OIaggie Icart
24
/
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 225
#:227
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
Twenty-Fiflh Floor
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
SEP
282012
LOS
ANGELES
St)PEPJOR
COtj
Plaintiff,
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
corporation; SMITH TWO, INC., d!b/a
inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. BC48093 1
DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
COMPLAINT
Demurrers, Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, and Declaration of Nicholas J.
Begakis and Exhibits A-C]
November 20, 2012
9:00 a.m.
307
27
28
LEGAL U5_W # 72893621.1
copy
ORI
C
i
FILED
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
vs.
Date:
Time:
Dept:
Judge:
DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERS
EXHIBIT 2
Page 226
#:228
28
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
BETH MUELLER (SB# 27g283)
Twenty-Fifth Floor
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
BUILDERS iNCORPORATED; ARCHSTONE
SMITH TWO, iNC.; and SMITH FOUR, INC.
JENNiFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself
Plaintiff,
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
inclusive,
LEGALJJS_W1 72893621.1
Defendants.
CASE NO. BC48093 I
COMPLAINT
INotice of Hearing on Demurrers and
Authorities, and Declaration of Nicholas J.
Begakis and Exhibits A-C]
Sep 28
04:O2PM
I
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
vs.
Date:
Time:
Dept:
Judge:
November 20, 2012
9:00 a.m.
307
EXHIBIT 2
Page 227
#:229
1 Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 452(c), (d) and (g), and California Rule of
2 Court 3.1306(c), Defendants Archstone Communities, LLC, Archstone Builders Incorporated,
3 Archstone Property Management (California) Incorporated, Smith Four, Inc., and Smith Two Inc.
4 (collectively, Defendants), hereby respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of the
5 following in connection with Defendants Demurrers:
6 Exhibit A Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Sanctions attached as Exhibit 1 to
7 the Declaration of Nicholas J. Begakis filed concurrently herewith.
8 Exhibit B The Reporters Transcript of Proceedings of the hearing on Defendants Demurrers
9 and Motion to Strike which took place on August 8, 2012 attached as Exhibit 2 to
10 the Declaration of Nicholas J. Begakis filed concurrently herewith.
11 Exhibit C A printout that retrieved from the California Secretary of State Business Portal
12 website (http://kepler.sos.ca.gov) on September 28, 2012, listing ASN
13 Warner Center, LLC as an active limited liability company doing
14 business in the State of California.
15 This Request for Judicial Notice is made on the grounds that this Court, in considering a
16 demurrer, may take judicial notice of court records. Cal. Evid. Code
452(d); Bank ofAmerica

17 v. Dept. ofMental Hygiene, 246 Cal. App. 2d 578, 581 (1966) (trial court can take judicial notice
18 of court records on demurrer). Additionally, this Court may take judicial notice of the records
19 available on the California Secretary of States website regarding the status of business entities.
20 Cal. Evid. Code
452 (c), (g); see also El Escorial Owners Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc., 154
21 Cal. App. 4th 1337, 1350 (2007) (taking judicial notice of the Franchise Tax Boards
22 determination that a corporation was in good standing.)
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL_US_W # 72893621.1
EXHIBIT 2
Page 228
#:230
1 Defendants have provided Plaintiffs with sufficient notice of this Request for Judicial
2 Notice pursuant to Section 453(a) of the California Evidence Code. Based on the foregoing,
3 Defendants respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of the matters referenced
4 above.
5
DATED: September 28, 2012 PAUL HAST LLP
By:__________
8
NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS
9
10
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (CALIFORNIA) iNC.;
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL_U5W# 72893621.1
-2..
EXHIBIT 2
Page 229
#:231
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
)
)
ss:
)
LOS ANGELES
)
4
6
address is 515 South Flower Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071..
2228.
7
8
DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
9 DEMURRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
10 on the interested parties as follows:
11 R. Rex Parris, Esq. (rrparrisrrexparris.com)
12
Kitty Szeto, Esq.
13
433 64 10th Street West
14
Phone: (661) 949-2595
15
Fax: (661) 949-7524
16
17
http://fileandserveiexisnexis.com.
18
19
20
21
22
23
,yIaggie Icart
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 230
#:232
14
15
16
PAUL HASTfNGS LLP
Twenty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 9007 1-2228
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
CASE NO. BC480931
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS J.
BEGAKIS IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRERS
Authorities, and Request for Judicial Notice
filed separately]
November 20, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Dept:
Plaintiff,
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
corporation, SMITH FOUR, INC. dlb/a
corporation, SMITH TWO, INC. d!b/a
inclusive,
Defendants.
27
28
LEGAL_USW# 72893305.1
copy
RILE
I
Sp 212012
8PEi&
COURT
) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
vs.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Date:
Time:
307
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS ISO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 231
#:233
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
NICHOLAS J, BEGAKIS (SB# 253588)
Twenty-Fifth Floor
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
INC.; and SMITH TWO, rNC.
Plaintiff,
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS
corporation, SMITH TWO, iNC. d/bla
inclusive,
CASE NO. BC48093 1
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS J.
BEGAKIS IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRERS
November 20, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Dept:
28
LEGAL US W # 72893305.1
Sep 28 201
04:O2PM
I
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
vs.
Date:
Time:
307
Defendants.
REPLY DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS ISO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 232
#:234
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS
1
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2 I, Nicholas J. Begakis, hereby declare, and state as follows:
3 1. I am an associate at the law firm of Paul Hastings LLP, counsel of record
4 for Defendants Archstone Builders Incorporated, Archstone Property Management (California)
5 Incorporated, Smith Four, Inc., and Smith Two, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) in the above
6 entitled matter. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California. I have personal
7 knowledge of the facts set forth below and if called as a witness, I would and could competently
8 testify thereto.
9 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Jennifer
10 Vagle s Opposition to Defendants Motion for Sanctions filed on September 13, 2012.
11 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Reporters
12 Transcript of Proceedings of the hearing on Defendants Demurrers and Motion to Strike which
13 took place on August 8, 2012.
14 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a printout that
15 retrieved from the California Secretary of State Business Portal website (htttp://kepler.sos.ca.gov)
16 on September 28, 2012, listing ASN Warner Center, LLC as an active limited liability company
17 doing business in the State of California.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
19 foregoing is true and correct.
20 Executed this 28th day of September, 2012, at Los Angeles, California.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL_U5_W # 72893305.1
-2-
Nicholas J. Begakis
DECLARATION OF NTCHOLAS J. BEGAKIS IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 233
#:235

Exhibit A
EXHIBIT 2
Page 234
#:236
1 R. Rex Panis, Esq. (SBN 96567)
Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. (SBN 239541)
Sep 132 12
2 Kitty Szeto, Esq. (SBN 258136)
John M. Bickford, Esq. (SBN 280929)
3 R. REx PAruus LAWFIRM
4 Lancaster, California 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
5 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
7
8
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CIVIL WEST COURTHOUSE
10
11 JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself and all) Case No.: BC480931
others similarly situated;
)
12
)
CLASs ACTION
Plaintiff
)
13
)
PLAINTIFF JENNIFER VAGLEs
v.
)
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION
14
)
FOR SANCTIoNs UNDER C.C.P. 128.7
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES LLC, a
)
15 Delaware limited liability corporation,
)
Date: September 26, 2012
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS INCORPORATED,)
Time: 9:00 a.m.
16 a Delaware corporation, ARCHSTONE )
Dept.: 307
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT )
17
(CALIFORNIA) INCORPORATED, a
) [Assigned for All Purposes to the
Delaware corporation, SMITH FOUR, iNC.
)
Honorable William F. Highberger,
18
d!b/a Archstone-Smitb Four, Inc., a Delaware
)
Department 307]
corporation, SMITH TWO, INC. dlb/a
)
19
Archstone-Smith Two, Inc. a Delaware
)
Complaint Filed: March 14, 2012
) Jury Tnal Date: None Set
20
inclusive;
)
21
Defendants.
3
22
)
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAumFFs OPPosmoN TO DEINDTs 128.7 MoTIoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 235
#:237
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
2
3
INTRODUCTION
1
FACTUAL AI\W) PROCEDURALHISTORY
1
A. Plaintiffs Expeence with chstone
1
B. Plaintiffs Complaint
2
8
C. The Initial Status Conference
3
9
D. Archstones Contention Discovery
3
10
E. Plaintiffs PMKNotices
4
12
F. Archstone Serves Plaintiff With Its 128.7 Motion
5
13
G. Archstones Pleading Challenges
5
14
15
H. Plaintiff Responds to Archstones Contention Discovery
6
16
I. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint
6
17
Sanctions Motion Still Filed
7
18
19
ARvIENT
7
20 I. STANDARDUNDERSECTION 128.7
7
21
II. PLAu4Tjs FAC HAS RENDERED ARCHSTONES 128.7 MoTIoN
22 AGAllsT PLAINTrFFs ORIGINAL C0MPLAmrF MOOT
8
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTiFFs OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS 128,7 MOTION
EXHIBIT 2
Page 236
#:238
1 TABLE OF CoNTENTs
2
PAGE
3
ifi. PLAmTwFs FAC DOES NOT VIoLATE SEcTIoN 128.7
9
A. Alter-Ego Liability
10
.5
6
B. Alternative Theories of Liability
12
7
1. Management Theoiy ofLiability
12
8
2. Agency Theoiy ofLiability
13
9
C. Plaintiffs Does Not Have to Accept as True Archstones
10
Unsupported and Self-Serving Declaration
14
11
IV. ALTERNATWELY, ARCHSTONE S REQUEST FOR $80,000 IN
12
ATTORNEYs FEEs IS UNSUPPORTED AND GROSSLY ExcESSivE
15
13
CONCLUSION
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
PLAINTwEs OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTs 128.7 MOTION
EXHIBIT 2
Page 237
#:239
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIEs
PAGE)
2
CALiForNTA CASES
3
Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co.
4
(1962)2lOCal.App.2d825
11,12
6
Banks v. Hathaway, Perrett, Webster Flowers & Chrisman
(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 949
9
Boclcrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc.
8
9
(1999)2lCal.4th71
8,10
10
Doe v. City of Los Angeles
(2007) 42 Cal.4th 531
11
Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates
12
13
(1991)235Ca1.App.3d1220
10
Levy v. Slum
14
15
(2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 625
8
Malovec v. Hamrell
16
17
(1999) 70 Cal.App.4th434
9
18
Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Superior Court
19
(1971) l5Cal.App.3d405
11
Stark v. Cocker
20
(1942)20 Cal.2d 839
10
21
Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
22
23
(1994)25 Cal.App.4th 1269
11
Zoran Corp. v. Chen
24
25
(2010) 185 Cal.App.4th799
10
26
27
28
111
PLAINTIFFs OPPOSITION TO DEFEANTs 128.7 MOTION
EXHIBIT 2
Page 238
#:240
1
TABLE OF AuTH0RmEs
2
PAG
FEDERAL CASES
3.
Buster v. Greisen
4
(9thCir. 1997) 104F.3d 1186
8
6
Calloway v. Marvel Entertainment Group
(2dCir.1988)854F.2d1452
8
Christian v. Mattel Inc.
8
(9thCir.2002)286F.3d1118
8
io
STATUTES
Civ. Proc.,
128.7, subd. (c)(1)

9
12
Evid. Code,
500
8
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iv
PLAINTIFFS OPPOsITIoN TO DEFENL rrs 128.7 MoTION
EXHIBIT 2
Page 239
#:241
1
SUMMARY OF OPPOSITION
2 Archstones 1litigation strategy is simple: (1) claim that Plaintiff Jenifer Vagle (Plaintiff)
3 named the wrong Defendants; (2) refuse to tell Plaintiff who the right defendant(s) is/are; (3) refuse to
4 allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery on whether Defendants are indeed improper, yet simultaneously
5 propound discovery on P1aintiff and (5) threaten Plaintiff with $80,000 in sanctions if she refuses to go
6 along with this plan. This is who Plaintiff is dealing with.
7 Archstone purports to bring its now moot 128.7 motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs counsel
8 fail[ed] to conduct a reasonable inquiry before naming Defendants in this action and fail[ed] to
9 consider evidence that Defendants are not appropriate parties to this action. (Notice at
p.
1:1113.)
10 Specifically, Archstone alleges that Plaintiffs contentions that Defendants may somehow be liable as
11 alter egos of her landlord are completely baseless. (Mot. at 7:2122.) Of course, this isnt true.
12 Plaintiffs FAC alleges numerous evidentiaiyfacts that support her allegatiofi that Archstones
13 California apartment complexes are the alter-egos of the named Defendants. (See e.g., FAC,
J
1724.)
14 Plaintiffs unprecedented factual detail makes Archstones claim that her contention is baseless
15 laughable. But, in any event, even if Plaintiff does not have a sufficient basis to allege alter-ego (which
16 she does), Plaintiff pleads two additional theories of liability (management and agency) that render the
17 named Defendants liable for the acts alleged in Plaintiffs FAC. Simply because Plaintiff cannotprove
18 her claims at the pleading stage is not valid grounds for 128.7 sanctions. For these reasons, Archstones
19 128.7 motion should be denied.
20
21 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL ifiSTORY
22 A. Plaintiffs Experience with Archstone
23 From August 16, 2009 to August 15, 2010, Plaintiff leased an apartment from Archstone Warner
24 Center (a.k.a. ASN Warner Center LLC), one of Archstones approximately 70 apartment complexes in
25 California. (FAC,
25 [attached as Exhibit A]; see also icL,
14.) As a condition of her tenancy,

26
________________________
27
.Archstone and Defendants hereafter refer collectively to Archstone Builders Incorporated,
28 Archstone Property Management (California); Smith Four, Inc. d!b/a Archstone-Smith Four, Inc., and
Smith Two, dlb/a Archstone-Smith Two, Inc.
1
PLAINTIFFs OPPOSITION TO DEFaNu.rs 128,7 MOTION EXHIBIT 2
Page 240
#:242
1 Plaintiff was required to pay an $849.00 security deposit (id.,
27), which she was told would be

2 returned to her at the end of her lease if, among other things, she left her apartment unit clean and in the
3 same condition it was at the inception of her tenancy, subject to reasonable wear and tear (id.
26(d)).
4 Although Plaintiff fully complied with this requirement (id.
28), Archstone still withheld $80.00 for

5 apartment cleaning, $60 for carpet cleaning, and $142.27 for painting at the end of her lease (id.
29).
6 After she was charged, Plaintiff spoke with other ex-Archstone tenants who leased apartments
7. from some of Archstones other California apartment complexes.. (FAC,
30.) Each ex-tenant told her

8 that they had also been charged for cleaning and painting and the end of their tenancies even though the
9 had also left their apartments clean and in the same condition it was when they moved in. (Ibid.)
10 Additionally, Plaintiff searched the internet and discovered that mostif not allof Archstone s
11 California apartment complexes have negative reviews left by ex-tenants claiming that they were also
12 charged similar cleaning and painting fees, even though they returned their apartments in the same
13 condition they were when they moved in. (See, e.g., id.,
31.)
14
15 B. Plaintiffs Complaint
16 Based on these facts, Plaintiff filed this putative class action on March 17th, alleging that
17 Archstone s California apartment complexes have a systematic policy and procedure of always charging
18 their tenants for cleaning and painting at the end of every tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of
19 the apartment unit. (See Compl.,
16 {attached and Exhibit B].) Because Plaintiffs allegation concern

20 each of Archstone s California approximately 70 apartment complexes, Plaintiff named as defendants
21 four Archstone entities she believes are responsible for the state-wide systematic policy and procedure.
22 (See id,
6.) This allegation is based on the fact that these Archstone entities are the only Archstone
23 entities in California that do not appear to be an Arcbstone California apartment complex, and therefore
24 are the only entities that could be responsible for the statewide policy.
25 Based on this general allegation, Plaintiffs Complaint named six causes of action: (1) Violations
26 of Civil Code section 1950.5; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Unjust Enrichment; (4) FraudIntentional
27 Misrepresentation; (5) FraudConcealment; and (6) Violations of Business and Professions Code
28 sections 17200 et seq. (See Comp1., 2356.)
2
PLAINTIFFs OPPosmoN TO DEFENDANTs 128.7 MonoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 241
#:243
1 C. The Initial Status Conference
2 On June 6th, the Court issued an Initial Status Conference Order, which ordered the parties to
3 prepare a Joint Initial Status Conference Report. In that report, Archstone took the position that
4 Plaintiff has no relationship with any of the Defendants because [n]one of the Defendants named in
5 the Complaint was the Plaintiffs landlord and Plaintiff never entered into an agreement with any of
6 the Defendants. (Bickford Deci., Ex. C at
p.
5:612.) Plaintiff noted that liability was based on the
7 fact that Defendants own, maintain, manage, and control numerous apartment buildings throughout the
8 State of California through its LLC[] [apartment complexes]. (Id., Ex. C at
p.
3:1719.) Plaintiff
9 specifically stated that proof of this control may be discovered by way of deposition testimony from
10 Defendants Person(s) Most Knowledgeable regarding their organizational structures and relationship
11 with its LLCs. (Id., Ex. C atp. 3:2123.)
12 At the June 26th Initial Status Conference, the parties reiterated their respective positions, and
13 the Court granted Plaintiff leave to conduct discovery to determine whether the named Defendants were
14 the proper parties to the lawsuit. (See Begakis Decl., Ex. A.) In a letter to Plaintiffs counsel,
15 Archstones counsel confirmed the parties understanding that discovery was lifted solely for Plaintiff to
16 establish that the named Defendants are proper parties:
17 As you know, at the Initial Status Conference held on June 26, 2012, the Court was
reluctant to allow any discovery prior to the hearing on Defendants demurrers and
18
motion to strike. Ultimately, however, the Court allowed Plaintiff to serve targeted
19
discovery to the extent deemed necessary for Plaintiff to prepare her opposition to
Defendants pleadings challenges.
20
21 (Id.,Ex.B.)
22
23 D. Archstones Contention Discovery
24 After the Initial Status Conference, Defendant Archstone Builders Incorporated served Plaintiff
25 with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for
26 Production. (Begakis Decl.,
3.) Besides the Form Interrogatories, Archstones discovery relates to

27 Plaintiffs information and belief regarding her claim that the named Defendants are responsible for
28 the policies and procedures at Archstones California apartment complexes. (Ibid.) It also requested
3
PLArIrnFFs OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTs 128.7 MoTIoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 242
#:244
1 information concerning Plaintiffs allegation that Archstone has a systematic policy and procedure of
2 automatically charging for cleaning and painting at the end of every tenancy, regardless of the actual
3 condition of the apartment unit. (Ibid.) Citing Archstone s counsels own summary of what occurred at
4 the Initial Status Conference, Plaintiff timely objected on the ground that such discovery was premature
5 because discovery was lifted solely for Plaintiff to establish that the named Defendants are proper
6 parties to the lawsuit. (Bickford Deci.,

5.)
7
8 E. Plaintiffs PMK Notices
9 On July 6th, Plaintiff provided Archstone s counsel with draft PMK Notices and Demands for
10 Production of Documents. (Bickford Deci.,

6.) As explained in the parties Joint Initial Status
11 Conference Report and at the Initial Status Conference, the draft PMK notices sought testimony
12 regarding each of the named Defendants corporate structure, principle business activates, location of its
13 business operations in California, organizational structure of its business operations in California, and
14 each of the named Defendants legal, fiscal, and business relationship with all parent, sister, and
15 subsidiary corporations and limited liability companies. (Ibid.) The draft notices also requested
16 documents, including all documents reflecting the named Defendants organizational structure, all
17 organizational charts, and all documents reflecting the organizational structure of location of each of the
18 named Defendants business operations in California. (Ibid.)
19 On July 10th, Archstones counsel responded to these draft notices, claiming that the notices
20 were overbroad and unduly burdensome. (Begakis Decl., Ex. B.) When Plaintiffs counsel asked
21 whether this response was an outright refusal to produce deponents based on the same arguments raised
22 in [Aichstones] demurrer, Archstones counsel vaguely responded that their position [was] set forth
23 in [their] letter. (Bickford Decl., Ex. D.) Therefore, that same day, Plaintiff properly served the PMK
24 Notices on Arhcstone and scheduled the depositions for the earliest time allowable under the Code of
25 Civil Procedure. (Begakis Decl., Exs. CF.)
26 Only July17th, Archstone s counsel contacted Plaintiffs counsel, reiterated its belief that the
27 named Defendants are improper parties to the lawsuit, and offered to meet and confer regarding less
28 intrusive means of discovery. (Begakis Decl., Ex. G.) Plaintiffs counsel accepted this offer, and the
4
PLAnrrrFFs OPPOSITION TO DEFErmArs 128.7 MoTIoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 243
#:245
1 parties met and conferred by phone on July 24th. (Bickford DecL,

8.) During the telephone
2 conference, Archstones counsel offered to provide unidentified evidencewhich it now characterizes
3 as a declaration 2that the named Defendants are not proper parties to this action. (Ibid.) However,
4 Archstone s counsel threatened that this information would oniy be provided on the condition that
5 Plaintiff withdrew her PMK Notices. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs counsel explained that they could not agree to
6 withdraw the Notices until after they had reviewed Archstone s evidence and determined whether it
7 provided a sufficient basis to dismiss the named Defendants. (Ibid.) Archstones counsel refused, calle
8 Plaintiffs theory of the case simplistic, and repeatedly claimed that ASN Warner Center LLC is the
9 only entity that could be properly named as a Defendant. (Ibid.)
10 On August 3rd, Archstone filed a motion to quash Plaintiffs PMK Notices. And, on August 7th,
11 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the same notices. Both motions are scheduled to be heard on the same
12 day as Archstones 128.7 Motion.
13
14 F. Archstone Serves Plaintiff With Its 128.7 Motion
15 On August 6th (two days before the hearing on Archstones pleading challenges), Archstone
16 served Plaintiff with its 128.7 Motion, alleging that Plaintiff fail[ed] to conduct any reasonable inquiry
17 before naming Defendants in this action and fail[ed] to consider evidence that Defendants are not
18 appropriate parties to this action. (Bickford Dccl., Ex. E.)
19 On August 14th, Archstone served Plaintiff with an amended 128.7 Motion. The amended
20 motion is practically identical to Archstone s original motion. The only difference is that Archstone
21 warns that it will now seek $80,000 (not a typo) in attorneys fees, which it claims represents the fees
22 and costs incurred by Defendants in this action. (Notice at
p.
1:910.)
23
24 G. Archstones Pleading Challenges
25 On August 8th, the court sustained Archstone S demurrers to Plaintiffs complaint and granted its
26 motion to strike class allegations with leave to amend. (Bickford Dccl., Ex. F.) In its order, the court
27
28
2
Presumably, the declaration that .Archstones counsel referred to is the self-serving Declaration
of Robert C. Lund, Jr., which Archstone filed in support of their Motion to Quash.
5
PLAnrrns OPPOSITION TO DEFENDArs 128.7 MoTIoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 244
#:246
1 noted that Plaintiff will need to either drop the current defendants or expand upon the present pleading
2 if she hopes to assert a valid basis for holding these defendants liable for ASN Warner Center LLCs
3 conduct as landlord. (Ibid.) During the hearing, the court also commented on alternative theories of
4 liability in addition to alter-ego. It noted:
5 [I]n the running of real estate . . . a management company may have substantial
responsibility for what happens day-to-day in a property[. S]o if somebody slips in a
6
banquet hole [sic], you may.. . sue the owner of the fee simple, but you may also choose
to sue the owner of the management company, who was the first to get the banana peel up
in a timely fashion Thats to say different people will have different interests in a
8 piece of real estate, but they may not [sic] bona fide, separate defendants or co
defendants. There may be some theories where it is perceived to be joint and several tort
liability without it necessarily being alter ego.
10 (kL, Ex. G at
pp.
5:24 6:14.) Importantly, contrary to Archstones position that discovery was
11 opened solely for Plaintiff to establish that the named Defendants are proper parties, the court
12 clarified that discovery was lifted in a plenary fashion at the Initial Status Conference, subject
13 to the courts determination of what is reasonable discovery in the context of the early
14 beginning of a class action. (Id., Ex. G atp. 4:2228.)
15
16
H. Plaintiff Responds to Archstones Contention Discovery
17 Pursuant to the courts clarification on August 8th, Plaintiff treated Archstones contention
1. discovery as being served on that day, and served Archstone timely substantive responses on September
19 7th. (Bickford Deci.,
12.) Archstone, on the other hand, has continued to challenge Plaintiffs PMK
20 notices.
21
22
I. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint
23 On August 22nd, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC). In addition to adding a
24 named Defendant (Archstone Communities LLC), Plaintiffs FAC contains three theories of liability
25 that render the named Defendants liable for the systematic policy and procedure of always charging for
26 cleaning and painting at the end of every tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of the apartment
27 unit. (FAC,
J
1416.)
28
6
PLAINTuFs OPPOSITION TO DEFEInTs 128.7 MoTIoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 245
#:247
1 First, pursuant to the courts suggestion, Plaintiff alleges that the named Defendants, either
2 directly or through [their] corporate affiliates, [have] been engag[ing] in the business of owning,
3 developing, managing, maintaining, and leasing approximately 70 multi-unit apartment complexes
4 throughout the State of California, including but not limited to the premises formerly rented by
5 Plaintiff (FAC,
14.) Second, that there exists, and at all times herein mentioned there existed, a
6 unit of ownership between [the named Defendants] and the [named Defendants] California apartment
7 complexes such that any individuality or separateness between themhas ceased and each of them is the
8 alter ego of the others. (Id.,
15.) And third, that at all times herein mentioned, [the named
9 Defendants] and [the named Defendants] California apartment complexes, are the agents, partners,
10 successOrs, or employees of each other, and, in doing the things complained of herein, are acting within
11 the course and scope of such agency, partnership, succession, or employment. (Id.
,J
16.)
12 Although not necessary under Californias liberal pleading standard, Plaintiffs FAC provides
13 ample factual support for her three theories of liability. She also provides evidence supporting her claim
14 that Archstones California apartment complexes have a systematic policy and procedure of always
15 charging for apartment cleaning and painting at the end of every tenancy, regardless of the actual
16 condition of the apartment unit.
17 Finally, Plaintiffs FAC reduces the number of causes of action alleged from six to three: (1)
18 Violations of Civil Code section 1950.5; (2) Unjust Enrichment; and (3) Violations of Business and
19 Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. (See FAC
J
3953.)
20
21 J. Sanctions Motion Still Filed
22 Despite the fact that the Court sustained Archstone s demurrers to Plaintiffs complaint and
23 granted its motion to strike class allegations with leave to amend, and despite the fact that Plaintiff filed
24 an FAC that remedies any purported defects in her original complaint, Archstone filed its amended
25 128.7 motion on September 4th.
26 III!
27 /1/I
28 /1/I
7
PLAiNTIFFs OPPosITIoN TO DEFENDANrs 128.7 MonoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 246
#:248
1 ARGUMENT
2 I. LEGAL STANDARD UNDER SECTION 128.7
3 Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, the signature of an attorney on a pleading filed
4 with the court reflects his certification that the pleading is not being presented for an improper purpose;
5 the legal contentions are warranted by law; and the allegations and factual contentions have evidentiary
6 support or are likely to have such support after a reasonable opportunity to further investigate. (Levy v:
7 Slum (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 625, 636.) Pursuant to section 128.7, sanctions may not be imposed unless
8 the court finds, after applying the standard of objective reasonableness, that counsel or a party violated
9 that provision. (Blockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (1999) 21 CaI.4th 71, 82 (Blockrath).)
10 Where the factual contentions ofa complaint are the primary focus of a 128.7 motion, the court
11 must conduct a two-prong inquiry to determine (1) whether the complaint is legally or factually
12 baseless from an objective perspective, and (2) if the attorney has conducted a reasonable and
13 competent inquiry before signing and filing it. (Christian v. Mattel Inc. (9th Cir. 2002) 286 F.3d
14 1118, 1127, citing Buster v. Greisen (9th Cir. 1997) 104 F.3d 1186, 1190.) In determining whether to
15 impose sanctions, the court must resolve all doubts in favor of the pleadings signer. (Calloway v.
16 Marvel Entertainment Group (2d Cir. 1988) 854 F.2d 1452, 14691470, revd. on other grounds (1988)
17 854 F.2d 1452.) The court should presume that plaintiffs were aware of their duty to pursue their claims
18 in good faith, and, in the absence of contrary evidence, that they did so. (See Bockrath v. Aldrich
19 Chemical Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 83 (Bockrath).) Thus, the party moving for sanctions under
20 section 128.7 bears the burden of proving that section 128.7 has been violated. (See ibid.; accord, Evid.
21 Code,

500.)
22
23 JI. PLAINTIFFS FAC HAS RENDERED ARCI{STONES 128.7 MoTIoN. AGAINST PLAINTIFFS
24 ORIGINAL COMPLAINT MooT.
25 The safe harbor provision of section 128.7, subdivision (c)(l) provides.
26 Notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with
or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, or any other
27
period as the court may prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention,
28
allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.
8
PLAINTIFFs OpposmoNTO DEFEND.m-rs 128.7 MorioN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 247
#:249
1 (Civ. Proc.,

128.7, subd. (c)(1).) The purpose of the 30day safe harbor provision is to permit the
2 offending party to avoid sanctions by withdrawing the improper pleading during the safe harbor period.
3 [Citation.] This permits a party to withdraw a questionable pleading without penalty, thus saving the
4 court and the parties time and money litigating the pleading as well as the sanctions request. (Banks
5 v. Hathaway, Perrett, Webster Flowers & Chrisman (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 949, 953, quoting Malovec
6 v. Hamrell (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 434, 441.)
7 Here, Archstones 128.7 motion challenges Plaintiffs original complaint. But, as explained
8 above, the court sustained Archstone s demurrers to Plaintiffs complaint and granted its motion to
9 strike class allegations with leave to amend. Two weeks later, Plaintiff filed her FAC. Nevertheless,
10 Archstone still filed its 128.7 motion against Plaintiffs original complaint. This makes no sense. The
11 pleading that Archstone challenges (the original complaint) has been replaced by another pleading (the
12 FAC), and as explained below, the FAC has remedied any purported section 128.7 violation Archstone
13 accuses Plaintiffs counsel of committing. If Archstone wishes to file a 128.7 motion, it should be
14 directed at the operative pleading in this case (the FAC), not Plaintiffs original complaint.
15
16 ifi. PLAINTIFFS FAC DOES NOT VIOLATE SECTION 128.7
17 Archstone claims that Plaintiffs counsel should be sanctioned $80,000 for allegedly fail[ing] to
18 conduct a reasonable inquiry before naming Defendants in this action and failing to consider evidence
19 that Defendants are not appropriate parties to this action. (Notice at
p.
1:1113.)
Specifically,
20 Archstone alleges that Plaintiffs contentions that Defendants may somehow be liable as alter egos of
21 her landlord are completely baseless. (Mot. at 7:2122.) There are several problems with Archstones
22 claim.
23 First, and most importantly, contrary to Archstones claim, the operative pleading alleges
24 numerous facts that support Plaintiffs allegation that Archstones California apartment complexes are
25 the alter-egos of the named Defendants. (See e.g., FAC,
J
1724.) Thus, Archstones claim that
26 Plaintiff has no information supporting [her] alter ego claim is simply not true. (Mot. at
p.
9:17.)
27 Second, even if Plaintiff doesnt have a sufficient basis to allege alter-ego (which she does), Plaintiff
28 pleads two additional liability theories that render the named Defendants responsible for the allegations
9
Pipjwmps OPPosmoN TO DEFEmANTs 128.7 MOTION
EXHIBIT 2
Page 248
#:250
1 in Plaintiffs FAC. (See FAC,
J
14, 16.) Adopting the courts suggestion that real estate is often
2 managedby a party that is not the legal owner, Plaintiff has alleged that the named Defendants are the
3 de facto managers of Archstones California apartment complexes, and are therefore responsible for
4 their systematic policies and procedures, including the policy of automatically charging for cleaning and
5 painting at the end of every tenancy regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit. (FAC,

6 15.) She has also alleged that Archstones California apartment complexes are the agents of the named
7 Defendants and that the policy of always charging is done with the consent, knowledge and ratification
8 of the named Defendants. (Id,

16.) Finally, Plaintiff is not obligated to b.lindlyaccept the allegations
9 in Archstones self-serving declaration, especially when the great weight of Plaintiffs investigations
10 suggest otherwise. For these reasons, the court should deny Archstones 128.7 motion.
11
12 A. Alter-Ego Liability
13 The sole basis for Archstones 128.7 motion is that Plaintiff allegedly has no information
14 supporting her alter-ego claim. (See Mot. at 9:17.) But, as her FAC makes very clear, Plaintiffs
15 investigation uncovered numerous facts that support her belie[f] that evidence has been or is likely to
16 be found raising a reasonable. . . probability that Archstones California apartment complexes are the
17 alter-egos of the named Defendants. (Bockrath, supra, 21 Cal.4th at
p.
82.)
18 Whether a party is liable under an alter-ego theory is normally a question of fact. (Zoran
19 Corp. v. Chen (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 799,. 810 (Zoran), citing Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas
20 CenterAssociates (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1248.) After all, [t]he conditions under which the
21 corporate entity may be disregarded, or the corporation be regarded as the alter ego of the stockholders,
22 necessarily vary according to the circumstances in each case inasmuch as the doctrine is essentially an
23 equitable one and for that reason is particularly within the province of the trial court. (Ibid., italics
24 omitted, quoting Stark v. Cocker (1942) 20 Cal.2d 839, 846.) Thus, in order to allege alter-ego, a
25 plaintiff need only allege that (1) there is such a unity of interest that the separate personalities of the
26 corporations no longer exist; and (2) inequitable results will follow if the corporate separateness is
27 respected. (Ibid, quoting Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1285
28 (Tomaselli).)
10
PLAINTWF s OPPosITIoN TO DEFEiuANTs 128.7 MoTIoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 249
#:251
1 Plaintiffs FAC alleges just this. She claims:
2 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that there exists, and at all
times herein mentioned there existed, a unity of ownership between [the named
Defendants] and [the named Defendants] California apartment complexes such that any
4
individuality or separateness between them has ceased and each of them is the alter ego
of the others. [The named Defendants] and [the named Defendants] California
5 apartment complexes, share essentially identical ownership and officers, share the same
corporate headquarters, and utilize the services of the same employees. Adherence to the
6
fiction of the separate existence of [the named Defendants] and [the named Defendants]
7
California apartment complexes would, under the circumstances, sanction fraud andior
promote injustice.
8
9
(FAC,Jl5.)
10
Although not required, Plaintiff also provided evidentiary facts to support her alter-ego
11
allegation. (See Doe v. City ofLos Angeles (2007) 42 CaL4th 531, 550 [a complaint is sufficient if it
12
alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts].) She alleges:
13 The named Defendants and Archstones California apartment complexes share the same
14
principle place of business. (See FAC,
J
610, 17; see also Roman Catholic Archbishop v.
15
Superior Court (1971) 15 CaLApp.3d 405, 411(Roman) [use of the same offices a factor].)
16 The named Defendants and Archstones California apartment complexes share the same officers
17
and directors. (See FAC,
19; see also Tomaselli, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at

p
1285, fn.l2
18
[common officers and directors a factor].) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Robert C. Lund
19
is a Group Vice President of at least one of ARCHSTONE S California apartment complexes,
20
ASN Warner Center (aka Archstone Warner Center), and at least two of the named defendants
21
ARCHSTONE BUILDERS INCORPORATED and SMITH TWO, INC. (See FAC,
19.)
22 The named Defendants and Archstone s California apartment complexes holds itself out as a
23
unitary entity. (See FAC,
J
2 122; see also Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co.
24
(1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838 (Associated Vendors) [holding out as a unitary entity a factor]
25 The named Defendants and Archstone s California apartment complexes utilize the same
26
employees. (See FAC,
23; see also Associated Vendors, at

p.
839 [same employees a factor].)
27 The named Defendants are represented by the same attorneys. (See Associated Vendors, at p.
28 839 [same attorneys a factor].)
11
PLAmmFFs OPPosITION TO DEFENDTs 128.7 MOTIoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 250
#:252
1 Thus, given the fact that Plaintiff has pled ultimate and evidentiary facts supporting her claim
2 that Archstones California apartment complexes are the alter-egos of the named Defendants,
3 Archstones 128.7 motion is completely baseless and improper and must be denied.
4
5 B. Alternative Theories of Liability
6 In any event, even if Plaintiff does not have a sufficient basis to allege alter-ego (which she
7 does), Plaintiff pleads two additional liability theories that render the named Defendants responsible for
8 Archstone s systematic policy and procedure of always charging for cleaning and painting at the end of
9 every tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit. (See FAC,
J
14, 16.)
10 Therefore, even if alleging alter ego was improper, naming the four (now five) entities as defendants
11 was not.
12
13 1. Management Theory ofLiability
14 First, picking up on the courts recommendation that real estate is often managed by a party that
15 is not the legal owner and that manger is responsible for what happens day-to-day in a property, Plaintift
16 alleges that the named Defendants are the managers of the California Apartment complexes:
17 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that, at all times mentioned
herein, [the named Defendants], either directly or through its corporate affiliates, has
18
been engaged in the business of owning, developing, managing, maintaining, and leasing
19
approximately 70 multi-unit apartment complexes throughout the State of California,
including but not limited to the premises formally rented by Plaintiff.
20
21 (FAC,J14.)
22 And like her alter-ego allegation, Plaintiff goes above and beyond what is required and alleges
23 evidentiary facts, rather than the ultimate fact of management:
24 Each of Archstone s California apartment complexes flies under the same Archstone banner and
25 logo. (FAC,
18.)
26 The named Defendants and Archstones California apartment complexes share the same officers.
27 (Seeii,Jl9.)
28
12
PLMNTIFFs OPPosmoN TO DEmmANTs 128.7 MoTION
EXHIBIT 2
Page 251
#:253
1 The named Defendants lease the residential units at its apartment complexes pursuantto
2 standardized lease and forms. (See id[ 20.)
3 Archstone holds itself out as a unitary entity on its website and offers industry-leading customer
4 service guarantees at all of its California apartment complexes. (See id.,
21.)
5 The employees at Archstone s California apartment complexes are uniformly trained and
6 employed by the named Defendants or their corporate affiliates. (See id.,J 21.)
7 The named Defendants monitor and regulate its employees at its California apartment complexes
8 to unsure they comply with their uniform policies and procedures. (See id.,J 22.)
9 Therefore, even if Plaintiff is unable to prove her alter-ego allegation, the named Defendants still
10 would be liable for the acts alleged in Plaintiffs complaint because Plaintiff has alleged that they are the
11 entities that are responsible for creating and implementing the policy of always charging for cleaning
12 and painting at the end of every tenancy regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit.
13
14 2. Agency Theory ofLiability
1.5 Second, even if Plaintiff does not have a sufficient basis to allege her alter-ego and management
16 theory of liability, Plaintiff also alleges that Archstones California apartment complexes are the agents
17 of the named Defendant:
18 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein
mentioned, [the named Defendants] and [the named Defendants] California apartment
19
complexes, are the agents, partners, successors, or employees of each other, and, in
20
doing the things complained of herein, are acting within the course and scope of such
agency, partnership, succession or employment. Mi acts and omissions alleged to have
21 been done by [the named Defendants] and [the named Defendants] apartment complexes
22
were done with the consent, knowledge and ratification of all each other.
23 (FAC,
16.)
24 And like her alter-ego and management theory of liability, Plaintiff alleges more than enough
25 facts to support her claim:
26 Each of Archstones California apartment complexes flies under the same Archstone banner aid
27 logo. (FAC,
18.)
28
13
PLAinTIFFs OPPosITIoNTO DEFEnrANTs 128.7 MoTIoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 252
#:254
I The named Defendants lease the residential units at its apartment complexes pursuant to
2 standardized lease and forms. (See id., 20.)
3 Archstone holds itself out as a unitary entity on its website and offers industry-leading customer
4 service guarantees at all of its California apartment complexes. (See id.,
21.)
5 The employees at Archstone s California apartment complexes are uniformly trained and
6 employed by the named Defendants or their corporate affiliates. (See id.,J 21.)
7 The named Defendants monitor and regulate its employees at its. California apartment complexes
8 to unsure they comply with their uniform policies and procedures. (See id.,f 22.)
9 Thus, even in the unlikely event that this court finds that Plaintiff did not have sufficient basis to
10 allege her alter-ego and management claims, the named Defendants could still be found liable under an
11 agency theory.
12
13 C. Plaintiffs Does Not Have to Accept As True Archstones Unsupported and Self-
14 Serving Declaration.
15 Finally, Archstone claims that sanctions are warranted because Plaintiffs counsel fail[ed] to
16 consider evidence that Defendants are not appropriate parties to this action. (Notice, at
p.
1:1213.)
17 This is ridiculous. Archstones counsel never provided Plaintiffs counsel with the evidence it speaks
18 of. As explained above, during the July 24th teleconference between the parties, Archstones counsel
19 offered to provide unidentified evidence that the named Defendants are not proper parties to this
20 action only fPlaintiff withdrew her PMKNotices. As any reasonable attorney would do, Plaintiffs
21 counsel explained that they would not agree to withdraw the Notices until after they had reviewed
22 Archstone s evidence and determined whether it provided a sufficient basis to dismiss the Defendants.
23 Archstones counsel refused.
24 But, in any event, even if Plaintiffs counsel had been provided the Declaration of Robert C.
25 Lund prior to Archstone engaging in motion practice, she was not obligated to accept it as conclusive
26 evidence. A plaintiff is not required to blindly accept a defendants self-serving and conelusory
27 declaration as true, especially when the great weight of the plaintiffs investigations suggest otherwise.
28
14
PajNnps
OPPOSITION TO DEFDANTs 128.7 MoTIoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 253
#:255
1 At most, Archstones conclusory declaration entitles Plaintiff to conduct discovery on purported facts it
2 alleges, which is precisely why this court should compel Plaintiffs PMK Notices.
3
4 III. ALTERNATIVELY, ARcH5T0NEs REQUEST FOR $80,000 IN ATToRNEYs FEES IS
5 UNSUPPORTED AND GROSSLY ExcEssIvE.
6 In the unlikely event that sanctions are warranted, Archstones request for $80,000 (again, not a
7 typo) in attorneys fees is unsupported and grossly excessive. It merely state that [t]hrough the date of
8 this declaration, Defendants have collectively incurred in excess of $80,000 in attorneys fees and costs
9 in defending this case. (Begakis Deci.,
6.) Archstone provides absolutely no evidence in the form of

10 time sheets or billing statements to support this s claim. They dont even state what their hourly rate is
11 or the number of hours they have spent working on the case. Instead, just like the Declaration of Robert
12 C. Lund, Archstones counsel asks this court to blindly accept the Declaration of Mr. Begakis as true
13 despite the fact that it seems completely unreasonable and unrealistic and is akin to highway robbery
14 against their client. The court should not reward Archstones counsels sloppiness.
15
16
CONCLUSION
17 For the forgoing reasons, the court should deny Archstones 128.7 motion in its entirety, and
18 award Plaintiffs counsel the reasonable attorneys fees it incurred in opposing it.
19
20 Date: September 13, 2012 R. REx PARRIS LAWFIRM
21
By:________
22
/John f4ickfoj
23
Attoreys for Plaintiff
24
25
26
27
28
15
PLPJNnFFs OPPOsITIoN TO DEFENDANTs 128.7 MoTIoN
EXHIBIT 2
Page 254
#:256

Exhibit B
EXHIBIT 2
Page 255
#:257
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS .ANGELES
3 DEPARTMENT 307 HON. WILLIAM F. HIGHBERGER, JUDGE
4
5 JENNIFER VAGLE
6 PLAINTIFFS,)
7 VS. )NO. BC 480931
8 ARCHSTONE BUILDERS INCORPORATED,
9 DEFENDANTS.)
10
11 REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12 AUGUST 8, 2012
13
APPEARANCES:
14
FOR PLAINTIFF: R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
15 BY: ALEXANDER R. WHEELER, ESQ.
JOHN BICKFORD, ESQ.
16 43364 10TH STREET WEST
LANCASTER, CA
17 661.979.2595
18
19 FOR ARCHSTONE: PAUL HASTINGS
BY: HOWARD M. PRIVETTE, ESQ.
20 NICHOLAS BEGAKIS, ESQ.
515 SO. FLOWER STREET
21 TWENTY-FIFTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
22 213.683.6229
23
24 RAQUEL A. RODRIGUEZ, CSR NO. 9485
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
25 600 SOUTH COMMONWEALTH AVENUE
DEPARTMENT 307 - 14TH FLOOR
26 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90005
213.351.8601
27
28
EXHIBIT 2
Page 256
#:258
1
1 CASE NUMBER: BC 480931
2 CASE NAME: VAGLE VS. ARCESTONE BUILDERS
3 INCORPORATED
4 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 8, 2012
5 DEPARTMENT 307 HON. WILLIAM F. HIGHBERGER,
6 JUDGE
7 APPEARANCES: (AS NOTED ON TITLE PAGE.)
8 REPORTER: RAQUEL A. RODRIGUEZ, CSR
9 TIME: A.M. SESSION
10
11 0
12
13 THE COURT: BC 480931. VAGLE VERSUS ARCHSTONE
14 BUILDERS INCORPORATED. APPEARANCES PLEASE.
15 MR. WHEELER: GOOD, MORNING, YOUR HONOR,
10:35AM
16 ALEXANDER WHEELER R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM FOR THE
17 PLAINTIFF.
18 MR. BICKFORD: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JOHN
19 BICKFORD FOR THE R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM FOR THE
20 PLAINTIFF.
10:35AM
21 MR. PRIVETTE: HOWARD PRIVETTE AND
22 NICK BEGAKIS OF PAUL HATINGS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS.
23 THE COURT: LET ME ASK FIRST FROM THE
24 DEMURRING MOVING PARTY, DO YOU WISH TO BE HEARD OR DO
25 YOU SUBMIT? COURTS ISSUED A TENTATIVE.
10:36AM
26 MR. PRIVETTE: WE ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT, YOUR
27 HONOR.
28 THE COURT: I DIDNT SET A TIME FOR REPLEADING
COPYING NOT PERMITTED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 69954(D)
EXHIBIT 2
Page 257
#:259
2
1 AND ILL NEED TO HEAR FROM THE DEFENDANTS BEFORE I
2 FINALIZE ANYTHING, BUT ILL BE DISPOSED TO GIVE THE
3 PLAINTIFFS THE TIME YOU FEEL YOU NEED. PROBABLY
4 SOMETHING LIKE A MONTH. BUT LET ME HEAR PROM
5 PLAINTIFFS.
10:36AM
6 MR. WHEELER: I THINK WED LIKE TO GET IT ON A
7 FASTER TRACK. IVE SEEN THE COURTS TENTATIVE AND I
8 THINK WE CAN REPLEAD AND BEEF UP OUR ALLEGATIONS. WE
9 ASK FOR 14 DAYS.
10 I DO WANT TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT OUR
10:36AM
11 ALLEGATIONS ARE IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN
12 THE COURTS TENTATIVE. WE WILL BE ALLEGING AND BEEFING
13 UP OUR ALLEGATIONS ABOUT CORPORATE POLICY AND PRACTICE
14 OF ARCHSTONE.
15 50 WHAT THEIR DEFENSE IS, YOU DIDNT SUE 10:36AM
16 THE RIGHT COMPANY, YQU SHOULD BE SUING THIS LLC. WELL
17 BE
SHOWING
TO THE COURT ARCHSTONE HAS POLICIES AND
18 PROCEDURES THAT APPLY ACROSS EVERY CALIFORNIA BUILDING
19 NO MATTER WHAT INDIVIDUAL LLC THERE IS.
20 AND THAT THE WAY THEYVE SET THEIR
10:36AM
21 BUSINESS UP IS TO INSULATE ITSELF FROM CLASS ACTIONS BY
22 HAVING 80 DIFFERENT LLCS AND WHEN THEY GET SUED IN ONE
23 OF THEM SAYING, YOU DIDNT SUE THE RIGHT ENTITY YOU GOT
24 TO SUE OF ALL OF THEM TO HAVE A CLASS.
25 SO THATS WHAT WERE UP AGAINST. WE
10:37AM
26 SUED WHAT WE COULD FIND AND WHAT OUR INVESTIGATION
27 SHOWED WAS THE RIGHT ENTITIES. THE DEFENSES RESPONSE
28 IS THEYRE NOT THE RIGHT ENTITIES. AND WERE NOT GOING
EXHIBIT 2
Page 258
#:260
3
1 TO TELL YOU WHO THE RIGHT ENTITIES ARE. BUT YOU HAVE
2 THE WRONG PEOPLE.
3 USUALLY. WHEN THAT HAPPENS WE GET A PHONE
4 CALL FROM DEFENSE SAYING, YOU GOT THE WRONG GUY LETS
5 TALK ABOUT WHO THE RIGHT PERSON IS. INSTEAD WEVE JUST 10:37A1
6 HAD STONEWALLED DISCOVERY AND ALLEGATIONS THAT WE HAVE
7 THE WRONG PEOPLE IN.
8 I THINK ONE THING WE NEED TO DISCUSS
9 TODAY IS STATUS FOR DISCOVERY. THERE ARE SOME MOTIONS
10 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ON. AND WE WILL CLEAN UP OUR
10:37AM
11 PLEADING AND WELL DO THAT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER SO
12 WE CAN MOVE THIS ALONG.
13 THE COURT: THERE ARE A COUPLE WAYS TO GO
14 ABOUT THAT THAT I WOULD SHARE WITH YOU. BEAR WITH ME
15 WHILE I LOOK FOR FUTURE DATES ALREADY SET FOR THIS CASE 10:37AM
16 IF ANY.
17 V (PAUSE) +
18
19 THE COURT: SO I SEE WE HAVE A MOTION TO QUASH
20 SET FOR AUGUST 28 AT 11:00 A.M. I HAVENT LOOKED AT
10:38AM
21 THOSE PAPERS SO ALL I KNOW IS WE HAVE A COME BACK DATE.
22 ON A QUESTION OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER IN
23 GENERAL IF THAT IS RELEVANT I INVITE BOTH SIDES
24 ATTENTION TO THE COURTS PUBLIC WEBSITE WHERE TWO
25 ALTERNATIVE SPECIMEN PROTECTIVE ORDERS ARE THERE ON
10:38AN
26 PLAIN DISPLAY.
27 ONE OF WHICH, I THINK, IS MORE USEFUL
V
28 BECAUSE ITS A SINGLE FORM PROTECTIVE ORDER. BUT THE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 259
#:261
4
1 OTHER ONE ACCOMMODATES THOSE WHO THINK SOMEHOW THAT
2 SOMETHING SPECIAL TO THEIR CLIENTS AFFAIRS REQUIRES
3 ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY TREATMENT. WHICH IS OFTEN
4 EXCESSIVE BUT HUMORS THE PART OF THE BAR THAT HAS A
5 CLAMORING NEED FOR ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY.
10:38AM
6 AND THAT SPECIMEN EXISTS AS AN
7 ALTERNATIVE. SO IF YOU NEED A PROTECTIVE ORDER ILL
8 INVITE YOUR ATTENTION IN THAT DIRECTION.
9 THIS CASE CAME IN FROM THE MOSK
10 COURTHOUSE WHERE IT FIRST WAS PROCEEDING IN FRONT OF
-- 10:39AM
11 NO, I GUESS IT GOT HERE DIRECTLY. YEAH, YOU DIDNT
12 HAVE ANY LIFE IN TIMES IN THIS CASE IN MOSK.
13 MR. WHEELER: I BELIEVE COMPLEX HELD ONTO IT.
14 THE COURT: SO YOU ARE IN THEORY UNDER AN
15 INITIAL STAY ON DISCOVERY. WHICH ID BE HAPPY TO LIFT 10:39AM
16 AS EARLY AS TODAY.
17 MR. WHEELER: ACTUALLY YOUR HONOR I BELIEVE IT
18 WAS LIFTED LAST TIME - I WASNT PERSONALLY HERE. MY
19 COLLEAGUE ALONG WITH MR. BICKFORD WAS HERE. AND MY
20 UNDERSTANDING WAS THE STAY WAS LIFTED TO DO DISCOVERY 10:39AM
21 AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD THE RIGHT DEFENDANTS.
22 THE COURT: THE MINUTE ORDER OF JUNE 26TH
23 SHOWS IT WAS LIFTED AND WHILE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE
24 IMMEDIATE FOCUS OF IT, THE MINUTE ORDER INDICATES ITS
25 A PLENARY LIFTING OF THE STAY.
10:39AM
26 OBVIOUSLY, SUBJECT TO MY EFFECT TO
27 POLICE WHAT IS REASONABLE DISCOVERY IN THE CONTEXT OF
28 THE EARLY BEGINNINGS OF CLASS ACTION.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 260
#:262
5
1 MR. WHEELER: AND THATS --
2 THE COURT: LET ME MAKE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS
3 BEFORE YOU JUMP IN.
4 WHETHER IT IS THE RUNNING OF HOTELS, OR
5 THE RUNNING OF RENTAL PROPERTY A FORM OF BUSINESS WHICH 10:40AM
6 IS COMMON IS FOR INVESTORS WHICH ARE NOT ALWAYS THE
7 SAME INVESTORS HOLIDAY INN TO HOLIDAY INN OR HILTON TO
8 HILTON OR APARTMENT HOUSE TO APARTMENT HOUSE TO BE THE
9 PASS OF INVESTORS IN THE PROPERTY AND THEN IN NEED OF
10 ACTIVE MANAGEMENT COMPANY.
10:40AM
11 SO THE BRAND OF A HOTEL CHAIN APPEARS ON
12 MANY HOTELS. BUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FEE SIMPLE OR
13 THE IMPROVEMENTS ON A LEASE HOLD ARE NOT ALWAYS HELD BY
14 THE CORPORATE ENTITY WHOSE TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IS
15 ON THE FRONT DOOR OF A PROPERTY.
10:40AM
16 AND THAT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE FACT
17 THAT ONE OR ANOTHER MANAGEMENT COMPANY MAY BE RUNNING
18 IT. EITHER THE ONE THAT IS LITERALLY OWNED BY THE
19 OWNER OF THE SERVICE MARK OR CONCEIVABLY A FRANCHISEE
20 OF THE SERVICE MARK OPERATING IN PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO 10:41AM
21 THE CONTROL OF SOMEBODY WHO HAS A SERVICE MARK OR A
22 TRADEMARK.
23 AND THE POINT OF ALL THAT IS TO SAY THAT
24 IN THE RUNNING OF REAL ESTATE -- AND HERE APARTMENT
25 HOUSES ARE MORE GERMANE THAN HOTELS. BUT IUSE THE
10:41AM
26 HOTEL ANALOGY BECAUSE I HAVE A LITTLE MORE CONFIDENCE
27 OF AWARENESS OF HOW THE BUSINESS IS ORGANIZED.
28 A MANAGEMENT COMPANY MAY RAVE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 261
#:263
6
1 SUBSTANTIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HAPPENS DAYTO-DAY
2 IN A PROPERTY SO IF SOMEBODY SLIPS IN A BANQUET HOLE,
3 YOU MAY OR NOT SUE THE OWNER OF THE FEE SIMPLE, BUT YOU
4 MAY ALSO CHOOSE TO SUE THE OWNER OF THE MANAGEMENT
5 COMPANY, WHO WAS THE FIRST TO GET THE BANANA PEEL UP IN 10:41AM
6 A TIMELY FASHION.
7 OR ARRANGE FOR A JANITORIAL CONTRACTOR
8 SO THE BANANA PEEL DOESNT STAY THERE. THATS TO SAY
9 DIFFERENT PEOPLE WILL HAVE DIFFERENT INTERESTS IN A
10 PIECE OF REAL ESTATE, BUT THEY AY NOT BONA FIDE,
10:41AM
11 SEPARATE DEFENDANTS OR CO-DEFENDANTS.
12 THERE MAY BE SOME THEORIES WHERE IT IS
13 PERCEIVED TO BE JOINT AND SEVERAL TORT LIABILITY.
14 WITHOUT IT NECESSARILY BEING ALTER EGO, BUT IF REASONS
15 WHY IN THE STRUCTURE OF THINGS THERE MAY BE MULTIPLE
10:42AM
16 DEFENSE PARTIES THAT HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
17 WHAT HAPPENED.
18 SIMILARLY WHETHER ITS THE MANAGEMENT
OF
19 THE CONDO ASSOCIATION, AGAIN NOT WHATS OCCURRING HERE,
20 BUT SOME ANALOGY WHERE IF SOME CONTRACT COMPANYS
10:42AM
21 RUNNING 20 DIFFERENT CONDOS, BUT YET HOW THEY CONDUCTED
22 BUSINESS PRACTICE MAKE THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY HAVE SOME
23 RESPONSIBILITY.
24 EVEN THOUGH THEY SAY WELL, IM ONLY A
25 MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR A CONDO. IF IT COMES TO HOW
10:42AN
26 THEY DO THINGS THEY MAY HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY. SO
27 YOU KNOW YOUR CASE BETTER THAN I. I ONLY MAKE THESE
28 SUPPOSITIONS AND EXAMPLES TO INVITE YOU TO BE CLEAR IN
COPYING NOT PERMITTED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 69954 (D)
EXHIBIT 2
Page 262
#:264
7
1 THE NEXT PLEADING OF HOW YOU SEE THE PARTIES HAVING
2 CO-RESPONSIBILITY. PARTICULARLY IF YOU DONT JUST RUN
3 TO THE APPROACH THAT THEY DIDNT CAPITALIZE IT
4 ADEQUATELY.
5 ITS AN OLD STYLE ALTER EGO-LIKE,
10:42AM
6 EXAMPLE I WANTED TO - KOSCOT K-O-S-C-O-T
7 INTERPLANETARY, I THINK. WITH AN OLD STYLE UNDER
8 CAPITALIZED BUSINESS BACK WHEN I WAS GOING TO LAW
9 SCHOOL.
10 AND THERE YOU JUST MAKE THE ALTER EGO 10:43AM
11 ALLEGATION. BECAUSE YOU KNEW IT WAS ALL FOR LOGIC TO
12 REACH THROUGH THE SHAREHOLDERS OR PARENT COMPANY. THAT
13 MAY NOT BE WHAT YOURE ABOUT HERE. YOU TELL ME IN YOUR
14 NEXT PLEADING.
15 AND OPPOSING COUNSEL WHAT YOUR THEORY IS 10:43AM
16 50 IT MAY NOT BE ALTER EGO. BUT IT MAY AT LEAST BE
17 CLEAR IF YOURE TRYING TO CONNECT THE DOTS. IF YOU
18 FEEL NOW THAT WITHIN TWO WEEKS YOU CAN BRING FORWARD
19 ALL THE ASSERTIONS YOU WANT AGAINST ALL THE CURRENTLY
20 NAMED DEFENDANTS, THAT WILL BE YOUR JUDGMENT.
10:I3AN
21 IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE YOU KNOW WHY ASN
22 WARNER LLC IS A PARTY DEFENDANT AND YOURE WAITING TO
23 FIND THROUGH DISCOVERY OR OTHERWISE YOUR PROOF AS TO
24 OTHERS, YOU CAN ALWAYS THINK OF THE OPTION OF
25 bISMISSING THEM WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND BRINGING THEM IN 10:44AM
26 WHEN THE PROOF DEVELOPS.
27 I KNOW TO A NORMAL PLAINTIFF COUNSEL
28 THAT ITS SO FRUSTRATING TO THINK YOU CANT JUST DO A
EXHIBIT 2
Page 263
#:265
8
1 SHOTGUN PLEADING AT THE BEGIN AND LOOK FOR YOUR PROOF
2 LATER. BUT FROM A PROFESSIONAL POINT OF VIEW ITS
3 SOMETIMES BETTER TO MAKE MORE MODEST PLEADING FIRST AND
4 SEE WHERE FACTS TAKE YOU.
5 AND THEN BRING IN THE OTHERS AND TO SOME 10:44AM
6 EXTENT THE SAME MIGHT BE TRUE OF WHAT AND WHEN AND HOW
7 AN ASSERTION OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH ITS
8 SPECIFIED AGENTS BY NAME OR TITLE OR FUNCTION, SUPPORTS
9 A FRAUD CLAIM WHERE YOU GOT A HEIGHTENED PLEADING.
10 YOU MAY WANT TO THINK THROUGH HOW YOU
10:44AM
11 START FILLING IN THE GAPS THERE, BUT ILL TRUST YOUR
12 GOOD JUDGMENT WHEN YOU COME BACK TO DECIDE WHAT YOU
13 WANT TO DID TO BRING FORWARD A PLEADING KNOWING THAT
14 DEFENSE COUNSELS ALREADY GOT A DEMURRER ON THEIR WORD
15 PROCESSOR.
10:45AM
16 AND THEYLL PROBABLY TRY TO FIGURE OUT
17 IF THEY CAN HIT THE REPEAT BUTTON TO TEST IT. SO THAT
18 YOU OBVIOUSLY WANT TO TO BRING FORWARD WHAT YOURE
19 COMFORTABLE WITH IS A PLEADING THAT SURVIVES LIKELY
20 DEMURRER.
10:45AM
21 DOES THAT PROVIDE SOME CLARITY AS LEAST
22 AS TO WHATYOU MIGHT WANT TO BEAR IN MIND AS YOU AMEND?
23 MR. WHEELER: I UNDERSTAND THE COURTS
24 COMMENT. WEVE ALREADY BEEN THINKING, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE
25 OF THE THINGS NO MATTER WHAT LLC ALL OF THE LEASES IN 10:45AN
26 CALIFORNIA ARE THE SAME. YOU CAN PAY YOUR RENT THROUGH
27 ONE WEBSITE.
28 YOULL SEE THOSE SORTS OF ALLEGATIONS
EXHIBIT 2
Page 264
#:266
9
1 THAT ARENT IN THE CURRENT PLEADING.
2
SO, YES, I DO UNDERSTAND THE COURTS
3 COMMENTS.
4 THE COURT: YOU TRE NOT LIMITED TO ALTER EGO.
5 BUT IF YOUVE GOT DIFFERENT WAYS YOURE TRYING TO MAKE 10:45AM
6 THEM JOINT VENTURE OTHER
OTHERWISEr TELL OPPOSING
7 COUNSEL AND ME WHY YOU THINK THAT THEORY OF COMMON
8 RESPONSIBILITY EXISTS.
9 MR. WHEELER: OF COURSE, YOUR HONOR.
10 THE COURT: ANY OTHER GUIDANCE YOU THINK THAT
10:45AM
11 I CAN GIVE YOU TODAY.
12 MR. WHEELER: ONE ISSUE IS THE DISCOVERY.
13 THERE ARE MOTIONS ON THE COURTS CALENDAR. WE CAN WAIT
14 UNTIL THEN TO DO THEM. BUT I KNOW IN THIS COURT HOUSE
15 AT LEAST SOMETIMES ITS
10:45AM
16 THE COURT: ID PREFER TO GET TO THEM SOONER.
17 OFF THE RECORD.
18
(PAUSE) +
19
20 THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD. SO NOW I SEE 10:46AM
21 IVE GOT AN ARCHSTONE MOTION TO QUASH.
22 AND A NEWLY FILED PLAINTIFF MOTION TO
23 COMPEL WITH HEARING DATES AUGUST 28 AND SEPTEMBER 11.
24 I HAVEN 1TREAD A WORD OF THEM. WHATS THE MOST
25 EFFICIENT WAY TO DEAL WITH IT?
10:47AM
26 IS THE MOTION TO QUASH ONLY ON THE
27 THEORY OF LET ME GET A DEMURRER RULING AND THEN ILL BE
28 OUT OF THE CASE OR IS IT SOMETHING MORE THAN THAT,
COPYING NOT PERMITTED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 69954 CD)
EXHIBIT 2
Page 265
#:267
10
1 MR. PRIVETTE?
2 MR. PRIVETTE: ITS ABSOLUTELY MORE THAN THAT,
3 YOUR HONOR. UNFORTUNATELY, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY
4 MULTI-YEAR CAREER, THIS IS A CASE WHERE WE JUST
5 RECENTLY EVEN SERVED A 128.7 MOTION ON THE BASIS OF THE 10:47AM
6 SAME REASONS WE BROUGHT THAT MOTION TO QUASH.
7 AND THIS IDEA THAT WE WERE STONEWALLING
8 DISCOVERY IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
9 WE MET AND CONFERRED WITH THE PLAINTIFFS
10 TO TRY TO EXPLAIN TO THEM INFORMALLY WHY THESE FOUR
10:47AM
11 PARTIES WERE NOT THE RIGHT PARTIES. AND WE WERE HOPING
12 THAT RATIONALE MINDS COULD GET TOGETHER AND LEAD TO A
13 POSITION WHERE I THINK THE COURT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
14 NUDGING PLAINTIFFS, WHICH IS START WITH THE LANDLORD
15 SEE IF YOU CAN PLEAD A CASE.
10:48AM
16 MAYBE IF YOU CAN FIND SOME OTHER FACTS
17 MAYBE GO FROM THERE. OBVIOUSLY, MY POSITION IS THEY
18 WONT BE ABLE TO DO THAT. BUT THAT SEEMS TO ME THE
19 RATIONALE WAY TO GO ABOUT A CASE.
20 THE COURT: IVE GOT A LOT OF OTHER STUFF ON 10:48AM
21 CALENDAR, AND I AM PREPARED FOR THIS TODAY. CAN I GET
22 SOME KIND OF SHORT FORM REPORT FROM DEFENDANT IN
23 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION SET IN SEPTEMBER AND
24 SOMETHING FROM PLAINTIFF IN RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS
25 MOTION TO QUASH.
10:48AM
26 SOWE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS PERHAPS ON
27 FRIDAY, OR EARLY NEXT WEEK. OUT OF TIME MANAGEMENT I
28 NEED TO BASICALLY -- CUT THIS SHORT THIS MORNING. AND
EXHIBIT 2
Page 266
#:268
II
1 THEN I WILL READ THE PAPERS AND WHAT I WOULD HOPE IS
2 SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS AND SEE IF I CAN REASON THIS
3 THROUGH QUICKER.
4 MR. PRIVETTE: YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD CUT TO
5 THE CHASE. WE GAVE THEM A DECLARATION WHICH IS NOW IN 10:48AM
6 THE FILE IT WAS SUPPORTING OUR MOTION TO QUASH WHICH IS
7 A DECLARATION FROM AN OFFICER OF THE LLC.
8 FROM THE LANDLORD WHICH GOES THROUGH AND
9 EXPLAINS THAT THESE FOUR PARTIES HAVE NO INVOLVEMENT
10 WITH ANYTHING IN THIS CASE. ID HOPED THAT PROVIDING
10:49AM
11 THAT DECLARATION INFORMALLY MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE
12 OF THAT, TAKE CARE OF ALL THESE ISSUES. AND THAT WAS
13 SHOT DOWN. AND THATS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE.
14 THE COURT: THATS A DIFFERENT QUESTION OF HOW
15 I DEAL WITH THE DISCOVERY IF IM TO DEAL WITH IT SOONER 10:49AM
16 THAN ON THE DAYS ITS NOTICED UP.
17 MR. PRIVETTE: WELL -- I WAS JUST EXPLAINING
18 THE REASON WHY WE BROUGHT THE MOTION TO QUASH. AND
19 THATS REALLY THE BASIS FOR IT. THAT IS --
20 THE COURT; YOURE NOT RESPONDING TO 10:49AM
21 THE COURTS INQUIRY. IN THAT CASE THESE MATTERS ARENT
22 ON CALENDAR. IM NOT GOING TO DEAL WITH THEM. YOURE
23 BEING UNCOOPERATIVE.
24 AND THEREFORE, ILL DEAL WITH IT THE
25 OLDFASHIONED WAY. SO SPECIFIC TO THE ITEMS ON
10:49
26 CALENDAR, ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. PRIVETTE?
27 MR. PRIVETTE: NO, YOUR HONOR, I WAS NOT
28 TRYING TO BE UNCOOPERATIVE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO --
EXHIBIT 2
Page 267
#:269
12
1 THE COURT: IM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY I
2 CAN BRING IT FORWARD FOR INFORMAL RESOLUTION. ILL
3 LOOK AT THESE AND IF I DECIDE I WANT TO SET SOMETHING
4 SOONER, I WILL. BUT YOURE WASTING MY TIME BY NOT
5 ANSWERING MY QUESTION.
10:50AM
6 MR. PRIVETTE.: I APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR. WE
7 WOULD BE HAPPY FOR -
8 THE COURT: IM DONE WITH THIS, SIR, ITS
9 OVER.
10 THE DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO 10:50AM
11 AMEND. MOTION GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
12 PLAINTIFF AS REQUESTED HAS UNTIL AUGUST
13 22 TO RESPOND.
14 THE DEFENDANT HAS STATUTORY PERIOD TO
15 INTERPOSE ITS RESPONSIVE PLEADING THEREAFTER; DEFENDANT 10:50AM
16 GIVE NOTICE. WE CURRENTLY HAVE MATTERS ON CALENDAR FOR
17 AUGUST 28 AND SEPTEMBER 11.
18 IF I WANT TO SEE YOU SOONER ILL LET YOU
19 KNOW. DEFENDANT GIVE NOTICE. COURTS IN RECESS IN
20 THAT MATTER.
10:50AM
21 MR. PRIVETTE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
22
23 (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED.)
24
25
10:50AM
26
27
28
COPYING NOT PERMITTED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 69954 CD)
EXHIBIT 2
Page 268
#:270
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 DEPARTMENT 307 HON. WILLIAM F. HIGHBERGER, JUDGE
4
5 JENNIFER VAGLE
6
PLAINTIFFS,)
7 VS.
)NO. BC 480931
8 ARCHSTONE BUILDERS INCORPORATED,
9
DEFENDANTS.)
10
11
12
13 I, RAQUEL A. RODRIGUEZ, OFFICIAL COURT
14 REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
15 CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
16 THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1 THROUGH 12, COMPRISE A TRUE
17 AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD ON
18 AUGUST 8, 2012 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.
19
20 DATED THIS DAY OF
__________________ _______
21
22
23
24
V , CSR NO. 9485
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
25
26
27
V
28
EXHIBIT 2
Page 269
#:271

Exhibit C
EXHIBIT 2
Page 270
#:272

Vagle V Archstone ASN Warner Center Paint Carpet Cleaning Security Deposits ASN Emeryville Equity Residential PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Vagle V Archstone ASN Warner Center Paint Carpet Cleaning Security Deposits ASN Emeryville Equity Residential PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

EXHIBIT 2

17200, et seq. fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Paul Hastings LLP-Los Attorney in

12.) She then proceeds to ascribe to this single monolithic defendant

25.) Attached as Exhibit A to the FAC is what Plaintiff

8.2.) The Lease further provides that the

430.10(e). While the court must accept all facts

42.) By its express terms, Section

1950.5(b). And the statute

31.) Plaintiff also fails to

17200. The statute is disjunctive, and, as a result, the statute is

52.) No reasonable consumer would interpret the

8.2.) Plaintiff fails to offer any explanation as

14); there is a unity of ownership amongst Defendants because

18); and, Archstone apartment communities (none of

452(d); Bank ofAmerica

128.7, subd. (c)(1)

25 [attached as Exhibit A]; see also icL,

14.) As a condition of her tenancy,

27), which she was told would be

28), Archstone still withheld $80.00 for

30.) Each ex-tenant told her

16 {attached and Exhibit B].) Because Plaintiffs allegation concern

3.) Besides the Form Interrogatories, Archstones discovery relates to

19; see also Tomaselli, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at

23; see also Associated Vendors, at

6.) Archstone provides absolutely no evidence in the form of

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi