Está en la página 1de 15

2

3 4 5

Miles M. Cooley (SBN 206783) mcooleY@reedsmith.com . REED SMITH LLP

Los Angeles, CA 90067-6078 Telephone: 310.734.5200 Facsimile: 310.734.5299

190J Avenue of Stars, Suite 700

P£R1OR,COURT OFCALIFORNJA

FILED1~

COUNTY OFLOSAl"GELf..s

AUG 31 Z011
John •

6
7 8 9

REED SMITII LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 Telephone:
Facsimile:

Donald P. Rubenstein (SBN 121034) Rachel M. Golick (SBN 261138) San Francisco, CA 94105~3659

8Y:.J,~~~2....'

415.543.8700
415.391.8269

Attorneys for Plaintiff Robyn Fenty

J
oS

10
11

j

i1

a• ~
.Ii

~

SUPERIOR COURT OF TIlE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

J2

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

13
14 15 16
VS.

it
.!I
0{

ROBYN FENTY. an individual, Plaintiff.

No.:

BC46S745
FOR:

f !

COMPLAINT

(1) PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE; (2) NEGLICENCE;

17
18

19

PRUDENTIAL CALIFORNIA REALTY, a franchisee of Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Ine., a California corporation, LANDMARK DESION GROUP) LLC. a limited liability

(3) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
(4) FRAUD;

company, LAROCCA INSPECTION
ASSOCIATES,

20
21

ALMOZAF AR, an individual, HEA TIlER RUDOMIN. an individual, RICHARD

INC., a corporation, JILLA

(5) BREACII OF CONTRACTj AND
(6)

22
23 24
25

WILLlAMS, an individual, and DOES I through 25, inclusive. Defendants.

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
ii;il::i:i;;;;'

JURY TRIAl.. DEMANDED

a:::a::: ~
.. ~ ~

...... ~ :ii~""~r.~5i:lr.t~r;:;,';;t~-.j~ ,=,,,,,,. !=;p.;:to. '.

~""Mg

-~
J~

........

U

26
27 28

Plaintiff Robyn Fenty ("Plaintiff~, by and through her undersigned counse~Ree'd Sniifh'$ n ;~ ::=. ~ 2 ~5 '.::I ..... LLP, complaints of Defendants Prudential California Realty, Landmark Design Group, LLC, ~::1 r.
-A _~

~

~

~\

2;l-

re r

U

Lakocca Inspection Associates, Inc., Jilla Almozafar, Heather Rudomin and Richard Williarns,~M; ; alleges as follows:
-1COMPLAINT
~ '="

~f

"" ;

..

i

I

1

PARnES 1. 2. Plaintiff is an individual and resides in Los Angeles. California. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times

2
3

4

mentioned herein, defendant Prudential California Realty eCPrudential") was and is a real estate brokerage and a franchisee of Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc., a California corporation, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times

5
6
7 8 9

mentioned herein, defendant Landmark Design Group, LLC ("Landmark") was and is a California
limited liability company with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California 4. Plaintiff'is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at aJI relevant times

l;

~

I
: ..

I
11

10
11

mentioned herein, defendant LaRocca Inspect jon Associates, Inc. ("LaRocca'') was and is a
California corporation offering property inspection services with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times

]2
13 14
J5

~J

it

f I
<II;

mentioned herein, defendant Jilla Alrnozafar eAlmozafar") was and is an individual and an officer

16

of Landmark residing in Los Angeles, California. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times

17 18 19 20
21 22

mentioned herein, defendant Heather Rudomin (URudoxnin") was and is an individual residing in Los Angeles, California.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at aU relevant times

mentioned herein, defendant Richard Williams ("WHliam.s!!)was and is. an individual residing in Los Angeles, California. 8.

23

The true names and capacities of defendants DOES 1 through 25J inclusive. arc

24 25

unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues each such defendant by such fictitious names. P1aintiffwill seek leave to amend this Complaint to state the true names and capacities of tbe fictitious defendants
when they are ascertained.

~I
\
~f

26
27

~t

28 -2-

COMPLAINT

VENUE 2
3 4 5 6 7 A.

9.

Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles because this case arises out of a

contract made in the County of Los Angeles and concerns the purchase and sale of real property in the County of Los Angeles.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff Seeh To Purchase Real Property In Beverly Hills California

10.

In the fall of2009t Plaintiff sought to purchase a home in Beverly Hills, California

8 9

and Plaintiff enlisted Prudential to assist her. Prudential agent Shelley Brown ("Brown") acted as Plaintiff's real estate agent in connection with her real property search, 11. Brown showed Plaintiff a two-story home located in Beverly Hills, California (the

'j

10
II 12 13 14
15

"Property") which. at that time; was owned by Rudomin. The Property is generally located in hilly terrain above Beverly Hills and is in a location which. on information and belief, is known to real estate professionals 12. to be subject to high winds .

~1 it
)
"

~

i1! .s;

i

'&

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the Property was

f

extensively remodeled in 2007 and 2008. 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Almozafar, an officer

16 17 18

of Landmark, was the engineer of record for some or all of the renovations to the Property and was involved in the design of numerous defective elements as fwther alleged herein. J 4.

19, 20
21

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times

mentioned herein. defendant DOES I through 25. inclusive, were subcontractors and/or laborers

who performed work
Property. 15.

On

the Property in connection with the renovation and remodeling of the

22 23 24
25
~ t) ~~
'~

On information and belief, Almozafar, Landmark and DOES I through 25 worked in

concert with Rudomin to design andbuild extensive construction defects. 16.

the Property

and did so in a manner that resulted in

26

Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Williams was

~.28 ~

27

a designated agent for Rudomi~ for purposes of implementing and completing the remodeling and renovations to the Property in 2007 and 2008.

COMPLAINT

-3-

B. 2

Plaintiff's Aeents Negotiate Purchase Of The Property Wilb Rudomin And Rudomin Makes Representatlens Regarding The Property's Cood.tioQ

3
4 5 6 7 8

17.

Brown. as an agent for Prudential, participated in the negotiations with Rudomin,

through her agents, regarding the purchase price of the Property. 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Brown did not

provide Plaintiff with relevant sales information regarding properties in the area which supported the final purchase price. 19. PJaintiffis informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Brown became aware

9

of or should have known of the extensive construction defects in the Property which existed prior to
Plaintiff's purchase of'the Property. 20. However, at no time: before, during or after the negotiations did Brown inform

~! --' &

~

j Q ..
11

10 11
12

Plaintiff of the existence or extent of the construction defects present on the Property. 21.

E

II f
4(

J

13 14 15

In addition, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that

Brown did not conduct any due diligence regarding fhe impact of the Property's location or the numerous construction defects on the Property's value. Brown did not counsel Plaintiff at any time of the impact of these factors on the Property value,

I

16
17 18

22.

On Brown' s advice, Plaintiff entered into the purchase and sale agreement with

Rudomin on July 27~ 2009, subject to inspection contingencies, with a final purchase price of$6.9 million ("Purchase and Sale Agreement"). 23. Under the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Rudomin agreed to disclose

J9
20
21

known material facts and defects affecting the Property.
24. On. or about August 13.2009, Rudomin represented to Plaintiff that Rudomin was not in any of the following, (including past defects that have been repaired) . +
Of

22
23 24 25

aware of"[d]efects

grading, drainage, retaining walls, interior

exterior doors, windows, walls, ceilings, floors or

appliances."
25. Also on or about August 13, 2009, Rudomin represented to Plaintiff that Rudomin

~i26 '.
't t~ ~,
h

27

was not aware of "[ w]ater intrusion into any part of any physical structure on the Property; leaks from or in any appliance, pipe, slab or roof; standing. water, drainage, flooding, underground water,

28

COMPLAINT

-4-

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIQ_N 2 3 PROFESSIONAL

NEGLIGENCE

{Against Prudential, Landmark, Almozafar, LaRoeca, Williams and DOES 1 tbrougb 25}
39. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs I through 38, above, as though set

4

5
6 7
8 9

forth in full herein. 40,
As a provider of real estate brokerage services to Plaintiff, Prudential and its agents

owed Plaintiff a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the real estate brokerage profession commonly possess and exercise. 41. Prudential breached its duty to Plaintiff and failed to exercise the proper degree of

,I

10 11 12

skill, prudence, and diligence required by members of the real estate brokerage profession by, among other things, failing to conduct proper due diligence regarding the extensive construction defects

'3

~1
~
'!:

~ 13 i
s

present on the Property, failing to follow up with Rudomin or her agents regarding her responses to
.the Request for Repairs and failing to follow up with LaRocca regarding its supplemental inspection report which found numerous defective elements to be "serviceable," and failing to advise Plaintiff

~ I
I i

14 15 16

to have further testing, including destructive testing. before removing contingencies. 42. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times and/or laborers

17 18
19

mentioned herein, defendant DOES 1 through 10, inclusive) were subcontractors

who performed work on the Property as agents of Landmark and/or Alrnozafar in connection with their provision of engineering services for the renovation and remodeling of the Property. 43. As providers of engineering services in connection with the Property. Landmark,

20
21

Almozafar and DOES 1 through 10 owed Plaintiff, as a future owner of the Property, a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the engineering profession commonly

22
23 24

possess and exercise.
44.

Plaintiffis informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Landmark,

25

Almozafar and DOES 1 through 10 breached thelr duties to Plaintiff and failed to exercise the proper

:~26 "
U
27

degree of skill, prudence, and diligence required by members of the engineering profession by, among other things, creating defective design and engineering plans which did not provide sufficient waterproofing of the Property. -7COMPLAJNT
U$~JI.CTlV'E·11llI@flT.1

tl

28

_--,-

--'''---'

I

moisture, water-related soil setting or slippage, on or affecting the Property," Rudomin further represented that she was not aware of any "problems with or infestation of mold."
26., On or about September 8.2009, Rudomin represented to Plaintiff that Rudomin was

2 3
4

not aware of any significant defects or malfunctions in doors, foundation or other structural

5 _components. Rudomin also represented that she was not aware of any "flooding, drainage or
6 7 8 grading problems,"

27.

At no time did Rudomin disclose to Plaintiff the existence or extent of the

construction defects in the Property. C. The Property Was Laden With Construction Defects 28. Prior to the close of escrow, LaRocca was engaged by Plaintiff's agents to

9

j
oS '8
...J

10
II

perform an inspection of the Property and produced a written inspection report (the "Lakocca

~ i
::r: ,;
~

12
13

Report"). The Lakocca Report noted various construction defects including the following:
areas of the roofwhich

(1)

i1
1
..;

~ I
.to

were not properly sloped and were collecting water which did not fully

14
15

drain off; (2) missing rain cap on the roof; (3) cracking in the exterior of the Property which
might allow for water intrusion; (4) problems with flashings, which should protect the Property
from water intrusion; (5) exterior door thresholds which were not sufficiently

I

16 17
18

sloped to direct

water away from the interior; (6) water pooling on balcony and inability to fuHy inspect waterproofing due to tile on the deck; and (7) the balcony surface height was slightly higher

19 20
21 22

than the interior floor surface. which might allow water intrusion. 29. Subsequently, a Request for Repairs ("Request") was created based on the

LaRocca Report, setting forth a list of defects and cosmetic issues requiring repair, including
requests related to materia) waterproofing

defects. Request item number fifteen asked the

23 24

seller to 4'[c]orrect sloping on the exterior thresholds, so that water flows away from the building."

25

30.

Rudornin responded in writing to some of the Request items. In her written

!~ 26 " ~1 27 "
"

response to item. number fifteen, Rudomin stated "family room threshold is non applicable: threshold is completely covered by a seven foot overhang,"

~~

~, 28

-5COMPLAINT

U5_.A!;TM-1D710l6I7,l

31 , 2
3

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that LaRocca undertook

to provide a second inspection of the Property and to €:valuate Rudornm's responses to the Request. In a supplemental inspection report, delivered priOl' to plaintiff's removalof the inspection response regarding the exterior threshold as

4 5
6 7

contingency, LaRocca evaluated Rudomin's "serviceable,"

which, based on the report, is the highest ranking LaRocca assigns in a written

inspection report. 32. Although LaRocca undertook to provide Plaintiffwith comprehensive home

8
9

inspection services before and after creation of t~e Request, LaRocca did not conduct sufficient due diligence regarding the water intrusion defects enumerated in its reports or to ensure the defects
were

I
.:!!
"II 0.

10 1J

repaired prior to the close of escrow.
33. Plaintiff is fuither informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that LaRocca did

!
!
Ji

..

12 13 14 15

not conduct proper due diligence regarding Rudomin's responses to the Request. D. Construction Defects Cause Flooding And Damage To The Property 34. In or about January 2010, the Property was subject to a moderate rainstorm, On

::I

itf
]
-0:

~1
;i

infonnation and belief, the rainwater pooled on the second floor balcony and seeped into numerous rooms of the house, causing extensive water intrusion into various rooms. 35, In or about May 2010, in connection with an insurance claim filed by Plaintiff, an

16
17 18

engineering finn hired to assess the water damage found a host of construction defects in the property, including numerous waterproofing defects and evidence of'warer intrusion and associated damage. 36. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that numerous

19
20 21 22
23 24

construction defects, which existed at the time Plaintiff purchased the Property but were not made known to Plaintiff, caused the severe water intrusion problems. 37. Plaintiff is infonnecl and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Rudomin knew or

25

should have known of the extensive construction defects prior to marketing the Property in 2009. 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges) that the actual value of the extensive construction defects

n• ~,
h

26

" ~t
~t

27

the Property at the time of purchase, taking into consideration

28

alleged herein, was millions of dollars less than the purchase price paid by Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT

-6-

45. 2

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times

mentioned herein, Williams and defendant DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, were subcontractors and/or laborers who performed work on the Property as agents of'Rudomin in connection with the

3
4

renovation and remodeling of the Property.
46. As providers of professional contracting and/or subcontracting services in connection

5
6

with the Property, Williams and DOES 11 through 25 owed Plaintiff, as a future owner of the

7
8 9

Property. a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the contracting
and/or subcontracting profession commonly possess and exercise, 47. Plaintiff is Informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Williams and DOES

10

11 through 25 breached their duties to Plaintiff and failed to exercise the proper degree of skill. prudence. and diligence requited by members of the contracting and/or subcontracting profession by.
among other things, constructing defective renovations and improvements to the Property which did not provide sufficient waterproofing. 48. As a provider ofhome inspection services to Plaintiff, LaRocca owed Plaintiff a duty

J
'!II

11 12

~ i
~ ..
.l:

~

itf
J
4;

~ I

13 14
15 16 17

to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the home inspection profession commonly possess and exercise. LaRocca further undertook to provide additional horne inspection services to the extent LaRocca was involved with the preparation of the Request for Repairs, the review of'Rudomin's responses to the Request for Repairs, the conduct ofa second inspection of the

18 19
20 21

Property and the creation ofa supplemental inspection report for Plaintiff. 49. LaRocca breached its duties to Plaintiff and failed to exercise the proper degree of

skill, prudence, and diligence required by members of tile home inspection profession by, among other things, failing to conduct proper due diligence regarding the extensive construction defects it

22
23

identified in the Property and fmding the certain waterproofing problems for which repair was
requested to be "serviceable" in its supplemental inspection report for the Plaintiff. SO. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of LaRocca, Prudential. Landmark,

24
25

fi

'I ~f
~T

'.~ .

26
27

Almozafar and DOES 1 through 25. Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court to be proven at trial.

~.

28 -8~
COMPLAINT
USflTII/E-I07lo.:!tn1. ,

WHEREFORE, 2

Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereafter set forth.

3 4
5 6 7 8 51.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIQN
NEGLlGENCE

(Against Rudomln, WilHams and DOES 11 tbrougb 25)
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 tluough 50, above. as though set

forth in full herein.
52. Plaintiff is informed and believes. and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times

9

mentioned herein. Williams was a designated agent for Rudomin for purposes of renovating and remodeling the Property in 2007 and 2008 and that defendant DOES 11 through 25, inclusive, were subcontractors and/or laborers who performed work on the Property as agents ofRudomin Williams in connection with the renovation and remodeling of the Property. 53. As the owner of the Property, Rudomin and her agents, Williams and DOES 11 and/or

I
'II

10

~
.J

N

.,

II ]2 13 ]4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

.,
Z
.j;

~

ii
f
I

~j

through 25, owed Plaintiff a duty to ensure any and all renovation or remodeling of the Property was completed in such a manner as to avoid or minimize the risk of harm to Plaintiff as a :future purchaser of the Property.

i

'"

54.

Rudomin, Williams and DOES 11through 2S breached their duty to Plaintiff by.

among other things. failing to design and implement the renovation and/or remodeling of the Property in such a manner as to avoid or minimize the risk ofhann to Plaintiff from lack of waterproofing and construction defects. Rudomin further breached her duty to Plaintiffby failing to properly supervise general and subcontractors, including Williams and DOES 11 through 25. who completed the renovation and/or remodeling work on the Property to ensure minimization of such risk. 55. As the seller of the Property. Rudomin also owed Plaintiff statutory duty to disclose

22
23

24
25
26 ~

known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the Property.

56.

Rudomin breached her duty to Plaintiff by, among other things. representing to

~t
;;
~t

Plaintiff that Rudomin had no knowledge of any water-related construction defects on the Property when, on information and belief. Rudomin knew or should have known of the extensive

27

28

COMPLAINT

-9-

.....

-----~-~--

construction defects present on the Property which materially affected the value and desirability of 2

the Property.
57. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence ot Rudomin, Williams and DOES

3
4 5 6

II through 25, Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court to be proven at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereafter set forthTHIRD CAUSE OF ACTJON

7
8

9

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
(Against PnIdential) 58. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs I through 57, above. as though set

" ~ ! .... :

I
~

10

1I
12

forth in full herein.

itf
j
..:

E ij
::!

13 14
.15 16 17
18

59.

As Plaintiff's real estate agent, Prudential and its agents owed. Plaintiff a fiduciary
j

duty to act with the utmost care, integrity, honesty and loyalty including a duty to investigate and

learn the material facts which may have affected Plaintiff's decision with respect to purchasing the
Property and to counsel Plaintiff regarding those facts. A fiduciary relationship existed between Plaintiff and Prudential and its agents pursuant to which Plaintiff, as a person who lacked experience

with the purchase of rea] estate. placed Prudential and its agents in a position ofttust and confidence.
As a result, Plaintiff was dependent upon and vulnerable to the actions and omissions of Prudential and its agents. 60. Prudential breached its fiduciary duty to Plaintiff by, among other things: failing to

19

20
21
22 23 24

provide Plaintiff with prices of comparable properties in the area which supported the final purchase price; failing to investigate or learn the material facts regarding the ex-tent of the construction defects present on the Property; failing to follow up with Rudomin or LaRocca regarding Rudomin's inadequate responses to the Request for Repairs; failing to conduct proper due diligence regarding LaRocca"s supplemental inspection report and the impact of the Property's location or the numerous construction defects on the Property value; and failing to counsel Plaintiff
of'the impact of these factors on the Property's valu~.

2:>
q

Ii
~t

'~

'.

26

., .f

27
28

-10COMPLAINT

US___ACl1V&1D1102S17.1

I

61.

As ,direct and proximate result of Prudential's breaches of its fiduciary duties; limits of this CO'Urlto be

2

Plaintiff bas suffered damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional

3
4

proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereafter set forth.

5

6
7 8

EOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD

(Against Rudomin)
62. P1aintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 61) above, as though set

9

~Z

,J

O'I!"

I
,I;

10
11

forth in fujI herein. 63. On or about August 13,2009, Rudomin represented to Plaintiff that Rudomin was not

12
13 14 15

aware of "[djefects in any of the following, (including past defects that have been repaired) ... grading, drainage, retaining walls. interior or exterior doors, windows, walls, ceilings) floors or appliances. " 64. Also on or about August 13.2009, Rudomin represented to Plaintiff that Rudomin

E

~t
f I
..:

~J

16 17 18
19

was not aware ofll[w]ater intrusion into any part afany physical structure on the Property; leaks

from or in any appliance, pipe, slab or roof; standing water, drainage, flooding, underground water,
moisture) water-related soil setting or slippage. on or affecting the Property." Rudomin further

represented that she was not aware of any "preblems with or infestation of mold," 65. On or about September 8, 2009. Rudomin represented to Plaintiff that Rudomin was

20
21

not aware of any significant defects or malfunctions in doors, foundation or other structural components. Rudomin also represented that she was not aware of any "flooding) drainage or

22
23
24

grading problems." 66. Each day beginning August 1,2009 through September 9. 2009, Rudomin failed to

25
~~

disclose to Plaintiff the existence and extent of the construction defects on the Property. 67. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges. that the representations

26
27

"

~t

,~I

'.

~I

made by Rudomin on August 13, 2009 and September 8, 2009 were false and that Rudomin had knowledge of the falsity of the statements at the time she made them.

28

COMPLAINT

-11-

USfl!M.lD71()zG!7,1

68. 2 :3
4

The misrepresentations]

failures to disclose information and suppressions of

information herein alleged to have been made by Rudomin were made with the intent to induce Plaintiff to act in the manner herein alleged and to purchase the Property in reliance thereon. 69. In reliance on these misrepresentations and failures to disclose and suppressions of Plaintiff's reliance was

5 6 7

facts alleged herein, Plainriff'was induced to and did purchase the Property.

reasonable because Rudomin, as the seller of the Property, was required by law to disclose the existence of any and all known material defects on the Property. 70. Plaintiff was unable to discover the true facts regarding the existence and extent of

8
9

the construction defects on the Property as a result of the breaches and omissions of'Rudomin, Lakocca and Prudential, and each of them, as alleged herein. 71. As a proximate resuJt of the fraudulent conduct of Rudomin, as herein alleged, limits of this Court to be

i .. ~l

I
'\l

10 11

12 13
14

Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional

~1
11
00:

proven at trial. In addition, Rudomin's conduct as herein described was so egregious as to warrant
the imposition of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.

iti
l

15
16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereafter set forth.
F1FrIl CAUS€ OF ACTION

17
18

BREACH OF CONTRACf
(Against Rudowiu) 72. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 71, above, as though set

19 20 21

forth in full herein.

22 23
24 27,2009.

73.

Plaintiff and Rudomin entered into the Purchase and Sale Agreement on or about July

Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Rudomin agreed to disclose to

Plaintiff all known material facts and defects affecting the Property. 74. Plaintiff has performed all conditions) covenants and promises required to be

25
~~
26

performed on her pan in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, or was excused from performance as a result of Rudomin's negligence and fraud as herein alleged. -12COMPLAJNT

~) 27 h

'. tJ

28

75. 2

Rudomin breached the Purchase and Sale Agreement by failing to disclose the

existence or extent of construction defects on the Property. 76. Had Rudomin complied with the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Plaintiff

3
4 5 6 1 8 9

would not have completed the purchase of the Property.
77. As a result of Rudomin's breach of the Purchase and Sale Agreement) Plaintiff

purchased the Property and has thereby suffered damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court to be proven at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereafter set forth.

I
os
0.

10

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF IMPLI.£:O WARRANTY (Agai nst RudomiD, WiIli:uus and DOES 11 threngh 25) 78. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs I through 77, above) as though set

11
12

~1 ~~

:I ~ ~

i

13
14

it

forth in full herein. 79. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant times

f I
<

15
16 17

mentioned herein, Williams was a designated agent for Rudomin at the time Rudomin remodeled the Property in 2007 and 2008 and that defendant DOES 11 through 25. inclusive, were subcontractors and/or laborers who performed work on the Property as agents of Rudomin in connection with the renovation and remodeling of the Property.

18 19
20 21

80.

Rudomin and her agents, including Williams and DOES 11 through 25, constructed

the renovations) remodeling and improvements to the Property. 81. On or about September 9~2009, escrow closed on Plaintiff's purchase of the Property

22
23
24 25 ~~
'~
'\

from Rudomin for use as a residence. 82. Rudomin and her agents, Williams and DOES 11 through 25~ implicitly warranted

that the Property was designed and constructed in a skillful manner, so as to be reasonably fit for its intended purpose as a home. 83. Plaintiff relied on the warranty and believed in good faith that the Property was of

26

U 27

~,28
h

merchantable quality. -13 COMPLAINT

84.

Rudomin and her agents. Williams and DOES ) ] through 25; breached the warranty

2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12

in that, among other defects existing at the time of sale, the balconies of the Property were
constructed with an inadequate slope to allow drainage and no other drainage system was installed, and the construction defects were so extensive that the Property was rendered uninhabitable first rainstorm following Plaintiff's purchase. 85. As a proximate result of the breaches of warranty by Rudornin and her agents,
UPOQ

the

Williams and DOES J 1 through 25, the Property flooded, suffered extensive water damage and was

rendered uninhabitable upon [he first rainstorm following Plaintiff's purchase, causing Plaintiff to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
86. Plaintiff gave written notice to Rudomin of the breach of'warranty on
01 about

July

22, 2011~ which

was within

a reasonable time after Plaintiff discovered the breach and before the

filing of this complaint. 87.

13 14

Rudomin has declined to acknowledge responsibility for the breach of warranty and

Plaintiffs damages resulting from the breach, to make any repairs or to make payment to Plaintifffor

1S
16 17 18 19

Plaintiil's damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE; Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
1.

20
21

On Plaintiff's First Cause of Action (Professional Negligence Against Prudential,

Landmark, Almozafar, Lakocca, Williams and DOES 1, through 25): for general damages according to proof'at trial; 2. On Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action (Negligence Against Rudomin, Williams and

22 23 24
25

DOES 11 through 25): for general damages according to proof at trial;

3.

On Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Prudential):

n

U

..

26 27

for general damages according to proof at trial;

~~

~; 28 -14COMJ>LAlNT

-_ ..

_._-_-

..
4. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6. On Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Wammty Against Rudomin, Williams and DOES II through 25): for compensatory damages according to proof at trial; 7. law; 8. 9.
10.

On Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action (Fraud Against Rudomin): for general damages

according to proof at trial) and exemplary and punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294;

5.

On Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action (Breach of Coo tract Against Rudomin): for

compensatory damages according to proof at trial;

For pre-judgment interest on Plaintiff's damages at the maximum rate allowed by

j
'ti
(l..

10 II

For attorneys' fees as provided by law; For costs of suit herein; and
For such other and further relief

::l ~

• ! 12
13
t4

~ I
i I
.0;

~J

E~

as the Court

deems just and proper.

15

DAlEO; August~, 2011.

16
17

18 19 20
21

BY~~~=-~

r-

__

les M. Cooley Donald P. Rubenstein Rachel M. Golick

Attorneys for Plaintiff Rob

Fenty

22
23

24
25

..•
U
~f

~~

26
27 28

" ~1

COMPLAINT