Vagle v Archstone ASN Warner Center paint carpet cleaning security deposits ASN emeryville equity residential.pdf

8/12/2019 Vagle v Archstone ASN Warner Center paint carpet cleaning security deposits ASN emeryville equity residential.pdf

1/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 147

Case 2:14-cv-03476-RGK-AJW Document 1-3 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 124 Page ID #:149

Prsan o e Cor's Oober 2013 order Pan Jenr Vagle ("Plan) and

Dendan ASN Wer Cener LLC (Dendan sbm e lowng jon sats repor n

preparaon r e er sas coerene seded r November 1, 2013 a 1:30 pm

5 I. DISPUTEDISCOVERY

On Oober e Cor vaaed er noe a er breing on Pan

Moon o Compe er Responses o Reqess r Admsson (Se One, Moon o Compel

rer Reponses o Reess r Prodon o Docmens (Se One Moon o Compel Furher

Responses o orm Ineogaores (Se One and Moon o Compe urer Responses o

Spea Ineogaores (Se One and Dendans Moon o Compe Fe Dscove

Reponses Te Cor ordered e paes o conne o mee and confer on e dsped

dsovery and sb a jon sas repor denyng wc dsovery ems are sll n dspe

13 Te Co aknowedged a e paes wod rean er respeve rgs o her breng

(e opposon bre and repy bre on er oons o compe.

A lanfs iscover Class Cnac nrmatn (Secal nerrgatry N 1)

Te paes were nabe o rea an agreeen on Pas rees r e class conac

nraon reave o ASN W aer Cener, C Te paes ws o dscss s maer w

e Cor a e November 1 sas conrence

2 Class nrmatn n Secrty Dests a Archstne Warner enter

(Specal nerrgares Ns 27, 22)

Dense onse as proded s oaon o Pans consel Pan resees

e rg o revew e domen prodon bere deermnng weer o wdraw er moon

24 o ompe er responses on ese dscovery es

ll

ll


2/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 148


15

23

24

3. Complaints and Small Clais Lawsuits (Special Interrgatrie N

8-2; Requests r Production os -5)

The paries have greed to continue to meet and coer on these discovery items afte

Paiti has h time to review e data produced by Dent relate to clss imti

secriy deposits at the Archstone Wer Ceter partment cmmty.

4. Identicatin of Other Archstne Aparent Uing he ae

Standardized Fors (Special Interrgatries s 24, 6 8 0

34, 36, 38, 4 Requests r Adission o. 1-0

Interrogatory 7.)

Painti has agreed to withdraw these requests and modi this iscvery ito sile

request r the ientication o other Archstone aparment cmmuities with access to the

Opeatios Manu aread prouced b Dendat Based on this moicatio, withu

wiver of any objectios Dendat has agreed to respond this moie request

5 Full Identicatin of Witnesses (Specia Interrogatories 9 31,

34, 37, 39, 54, 57, 6, 63, 7 or Interrogatories o. 11 11

17.

The pries have agreed to cotiue to meet and cor on these iscovery items fter

Plainti furher researches the ega issues reated to these discovery items

. Arcstone's Website (Special Interrgatory . 65)

Painti has greed to modiy this discovery item so it is nt limite to a enti ht

mintied updated or operated the website at warchstoneaparmetscom Base o tis

moiction ad without wiver o ny objectios Dent has greed to respo ts

modied request

7. Traning Materials and Docuents (Special Interrogatrie -7)

Paiti has greed to withdrw these requests and moiy this iscovery it a serequest tht seeks the ientication o aing mterias that were use t the Archste Warer

Center parment commit Bsed on this modication ad without wiver f any objectios

Dendat has greed to respond this modied request

2

1


3/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 149


. '

2

4

5

7

0

4

17

20

2

4

5

2

7

2

8 Archstone's Tree Guarantees (Speal nterrogatories 775)

Pati hs aeed to wdaw thes scovery es.

B. Defndant's iscovery1. Wtness Ientty and rmaton or Interoatoy No 2)

e ps wee nabl to reach n aeemn o Defndn's m ogo equs

he dnt of esses nd ead contact formaton T pes sh o sss hs

ma w he Co at te Noemb stats cofence.

Fats Supportn Requests r Amsson Denals (orm Inerrogato

7.1 as t relates to Requests r Asson Nos 2, 3, 5, 6 7 8 and )

e es were ae o each an aemen o Dendants Fo Ineogor o

11 as t eaes o Reess Amsson Nos 2 3 6 9 and 11 Th s sh to

sss s mat w the o t the Novemb 1 staus conence

De: Octobe 2 23 R X LAW FM

Dat Ocober 2 203

osw 8040298 1

JT TTU


4/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 15


CHRISTOPHER J. HEALEY (SBN 105798)[email protected]

2 JAIKARAN SINGH (SBN 201355)j [email protected]

3 McKEA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP600 West Broadway, Suite 2600

4 San Diego, Caliia 92101-3372Telephone: 619.236.14145 Facsimile 619.232.8311

6 Attorneys r DendantASN 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 andall others similarly situated,

12

13

14v.

Plainti,

ASN WAER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware15 limited liability corporation, and DOES 1

through 100, inclusive,16

17Dendant.

Case No. BC480931

PROOF OF SERVICE

Assigned r All Purposes toHon. William F. HighbergerDept. 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-rerenced action, and that I am employed in the State o

20 Calirnia, County of San Diego, where the withinmentioned service occurred My busines

21 address is 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, Calirnia 92101; telephone number (619

22 236-1414.

23 On November 8, 2013, I caused to be served the llowing do cument(s)24 1. NOTICE OF RULINGS FROM JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE

25 on the interested parties in this action by:

26

27

28

MCKE LOG &

DRIDGE P

SAN DIEGO

LEXISNEXIS SERVICE LIST VIEWABLE ONLINE

PROOF OF SERVICE


5/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 151


1 XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Complying with Codeof Civil Procedure 1010, I causesuch document(s) to be Electronically Filed and Served through the LexisNexis System

2 the above-entitled case. Upon completion of transmission of said document(s), a linreceipt is issued to the ling party acknowledging receipt, ling and service by th

3 LexisNexis system A copy of the LexisNexis ling receipt page will be maintained witthe original document(s)in our oce

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caliia that th

regoing is true and correct

Executed at San Diego, Caliia on November 8, 2013

Geralnn D idmar

s 803757570.5

MCKENN LONG &DRIDGE LLP 2

SAN DIEGO PROOF OF SERVICE


6/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 152


CHRISTOPHER J HEALEY (SBN 105798)[email protected]

2 AIKARA SGH (SBN 201355jsingh@mcealogcom

3 McKEA LOG & ADRDGE LP

600 West Broadway Sute 26004 Sa Dego, Cala 92101-332elephoe: 6192361414

5 Facsmle 6192328311

6 Attoeys DendantASN WARER CETER C

CONFORMED OPY

Su1wri C C; Of Lo ngtls

NOV 0 8 213

.John A. Clarke, Executiv Ofe/CeBy: Rb Sah, Depuy

7

8

9

SU UT TH STAT ALA

UT LS AGLS

10

11 EER VAGE, o behalf of heself andall othes smlaly stated

12

13

14v

Plant

ASN WARER CENER C, a Dlawa15 lmted lablty copoaton and DOES 1

thogh 100 nclse16

Dedat

1

Case o. BC48093 l

SV

Assged Al Puposes to-on Wllam bgDept 307

18 I, Gealy D Vdma declae nde penalty o peuy that I am oe the age of eghtee

19 yeas that am ot a paty to the above-erenced acto and that am employed the State o

20 Calrna, County of Sa Dego whee the wthn-metoned sevce occued My bses

21 addess s 600 West Boadway, Sute 2600, Sa Dego Cala 92101; telephone umbe (619

22 236-1414

23 O oembe 8, 2013 cased to be seved the llowg docmet(s)

24 1. T ULGS JT STATUS

25 o the teested pares n ths acton by

26

27

28

MKN G &D LP

$AN DIEG

LXSXS SV LST VWABL L

ROOF O SERVIC


7/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 153


1 XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Complying with Codeof Civil Procedure 1010, I causesuch document(s) to be Electronically Filed and Served through the LexisNexis System

2 the above-entitled case. Upon completion of transmission of said document(s), a linreceipt is issued to the ling party acknowledging receipt, ling and service by th

3 LexisNexis system A copy of the LexisNexis ling receipt page will be maintained witthe original document(s)in our oce

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caliia that th

regoing is true and correct

Executed at San Diego, Caliia on November 8, 2013

Geralnn D idmar

s 803757570.5

MCKENN LONG &

DRIDGE LLP 2SAN DIEGO PROOF OF SERVICE


8/124

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):

, DeputyClerk, by(Adjunto)(Secretario)

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED:You are servedas 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):Form Adopted for Mandatory Use

Judicial 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 informationbelow.

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 copyserved 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 yourcase. 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 CourtsOnline Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, askthe 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 propertymay 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 attorneyreferral 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 andcosts 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 acontinuacin

Tiene 30 DAS DE CALENDARIO despus de que le entreguen esta citacin y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en estacorte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefnica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estaren 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 labiblioteca 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 corteque 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 lepodr quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin ms advertencia.

other(specify):

For proof of service of this summons, useProof 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. July 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 deremisin a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de unprograma 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 elcolegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobrecualquier recuperacin de $10,000 ms de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesin de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil . Tiene quepagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.

ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC, aDelaware limited liability corporation, ASN

WARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, and ASNLONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, andDOES 1 through 100, inclusive

JENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGEPONCE, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated

BC480931Los Angeles County Superior CourtCentral Civil West

00 South Commonwealth AvenueLos Angeles, California 90005

R. Rex Parris, Esq. (SBN 96567); Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. (SBN 239541) (661) 949-2595 (661) 949-7524Kitty Szeto, Esq. (SBN 258136); John M. Bickford, Esq. (SBN 280929)R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM43364 10th Street West, Lancaster, California 93534

THIRD AMENDED54504572

Nov 05 201

03:51PM

EXHIBIT 2Page 154



9/124

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 JURY TRIAL

R. Rex Parris, Esq. (SBN 96567)Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. (SBN 239541)Kitty Szeto, Esq. (SBN 258136)John M. Bickford, Esq. (SBN 280929)R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM43364 10th Street West

Lancaster, California 93534Telephone: (661) 949-2595Facsimile: (661) 949-7524

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

JENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGEPONCE, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated;

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC, aDelaware limited liability corporation, ASNWARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delawarelimited liability corporation, and ASNLONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC, aDelaware limited liability corporation, andDOES 1 through 100, inclusive;

Defendants.

Case No. BC480931

CLASS ACTION

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

(1) Violations of Civil Code section1950.5

(2) Unjust Enrichment(3) Violation of Business and

Professions Code sections17200 et seq.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

EXHIBIT 2Page 155



10/124

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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of CivilProcedure section 410.10 and Article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution.

2. This court has jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants havesufficient 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, haveagents, 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 theamount in controversy with respect to Plaintiffs individual claims is less than $75,000.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff JENNIFER VAGLE (Plaintiff VAGLE) is, and at all timesmentioned 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 timesmentioned 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 WARNERCENTER) 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 2Page 156

Case 2:14-cv-03476-RGK-AJW Document 1-3 Filed 05/06/14 Page 10 of 124 Page ID#:158


11/124

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

2THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8. Defendant ASN LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC (Defendant ASNLONG BEACH) is a limited liability corporation formed under the laws of the State of



9. Defendant ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC (DefendantARCHSTONE) 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 suedherein 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 alltimes 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 thereexists, 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 2Page 157



12/124

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


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, thatDefendant 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.

15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, thatDefendant 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.

16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that theemployees at Defendant ARCHSTONEs California apartment complexes are

uniformly trained and employed by Defendant ARCHSTONE. Defendant

EXHIBIT 2Page 158



13/124

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


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 ensurethat 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 VAGLEleased 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 $399.00standard 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 2Page 159



14/124

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. On or about August 15, 2010, Plaintiff VAGLE vacated her apartmentunit, 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 providedPlaintiff 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; andc. $142.27 for painting.

22. After Plaintiff VAGLEs lease expired, Plaintiff VAGLE spoke toindividuals 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, PlaintiffPONCE 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 $99.00security deposit.

25. On or about November 27, 2011, Plaintiff PONCE vacated his apartmentunit leaving it clean and in the same condition it was at the inception of his tenancy,

subject to reasonable wear and tear.

/ / / /

EXHIBIT 2Page 16



15/124

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


26. On or about December 4, 2011, Defendant ARCHSTONE providedPlaintiff 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; andc. $160.00 for painting.

27. On or about December 31, 2011, Plaintiff PONCE complained about thesecharges 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 January 9, 2012, Defendant ARCHSTONE responded toPlaintiff 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 theirexperiences 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 2Page 161



16/124

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


For example:1

(a) Archstone Aurora HillsAgoura Hills, CA:Upon moving out, I had the carpets cleaned, walls painted andpatched, and the entire apartment was spotless. Archstone chargedme for paint, carpets cleaned and shampooed, carpet patched when

no stains were there, and a total clean of the apartment totalingover $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 moneythey 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 ofthe property. Upon move out, I cleaned the rugs with aprofessional machine, cleaned the kitchen and bath completely,and cleaned and repainted as needed. The apartment was seen byCarolyn who commented that it was cleaner than when I movedin. Despite this, I was charged for full cleaning, carpet cleaningand 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 proratedfee based on wear-and-tear, nothing. On top of that my mom andI spent the better part of a weekend completely cleaning the placeout. 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 thebone.

Posted 2/24/2006 by Anonymous

/ / / /

1 These reviews represent only a small sample of the negative reviews found byPlaintiffs. The number of negative reviews Plaintiffs have found number in the hundredsPlaintiffs make these allegations as support for their good faith belief that DefendantARCHSTONE has a systematic policy and procedure of always charging for apartmentcleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement at the end of every tenancy,regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit.

EXHIBIT 2Page 162



17/124

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


(d) Archstone City PlaceLong Beach, CA:I traveled during the week and was gone a lot of the weekend, sothe place was basically untouched and spotless, and at the end ofmy rent they charged me cleaning and carpet clean (i wassupposed 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, CALets not forget the amount of money I had to pay to move out. Iwas told by the inspector that my apartment was in absolutelyPERFECT condition upon final inspection. Yet, they still forcedme to pay their ridiculous fees to 1) professionally clean theapartment 2) professional carpet clean the apartment and 3)professionally repaint the apartment.

Posted 4/16/2012 by Jackie K.

(g) Archstone Del Mar StationPasadena, CAThe day after I moved everything out of my apartment I hired myloyal cleaning lady to do a deep and thorough cleanse of theapartment. The place didnt have a speck in it. I received a bill 3weeks later for $1,100.00 in move out costs. $80 for aprofessional cleaning, which would be impossible to fathomswhat 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 nicethat they paint the unit for new tenants, but the security depositisnt a fund for the landlord to return a unit to brand-newcondition. They also apparently try to charge a set $100 cleaningfee to each departing tenant. Talk to your lawyer about Cal. Civ.Code 1950.5 (online at http//legalinfo.ca.gov) and he or she islikely to tell you that in your circumstances charging for paintingis illegal when only ordinary wear and tear is present, and

EXHIBIT 2Page 163



18/124

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


charging a set cleaning fee without accounting for actual tasksand time spent cleaning is also illegal. The law was passed in2003, apparently Archstones standard screw-the-tenantprocedures 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 ona bunch of random fees and I ended up paying $350. I am a verycareful, neat person who takes care of her things, so to becharged 100 for professional cleaning-well ok, but not a random100 for a paint job and then another 150 that I was never toldabout. 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 lookingspotless. The place looked better than when we moved in. Whenthey came to look at it the guy said it was one of the best cleanedapartments that hed seen. He charged us $95 general clean, $50carpet clean, and $85 for touch up paint. More than half ourdeposit 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 topaint my unit. My unit was kept in perfect condition, I am aclean 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 2Page 164



19/124

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


(m) Archstone GlendaleGlendale, CA:Before I moved out, I had to sign a notice to vacate within 30days of the move-out date, in person. This was a little annoyingfor someone who travels a lot. After that, they sent me a wholepage of cleaning instructions. . . . So Archstone expects you tofollow most or all of these instructions, but they charge you atleast $80.00 for apartment cleaning always, on top of at least $60for carpet cleaning. What was the point of me cleaning theapartment 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 wasreally 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 thecarpet and walls, but no major stains, no major holes in the walls,etc. The day I turned in my keys, I had cleaned out themicrowave/fridge/oven/stove so that they looked brand new. Inot only vacuumed, but also steam cleaned the carpets, and filledthe 3 nail holes that were in the wall with putty. When you moveinto a big apartment like this where it not a privately owned, butan actual national corporation, you expect that the walls will havea fresh coat of paint, the carpets will be clean, etc. This isbecause 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 movedout, the apartment (aside from some wall scuffs) looked exactlyhow it did when I moved in. So why did I get a bill from them?Apparently, you arent supposed to even vacuum when you moveout because they charge you an arm and leg to move out. On myitemized bill, I had a carpet cleaning package that I had to payfor, they said that the paint should last for X numbers of years sothey charged me for the excess years. So, if I would have stayedfor 2 years, I would have had to pay less even though therewould 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 wewere responsible for hundreds of dollars to paint the walls, cleanthe carpets, and clean the entire apartment for the next tenant,

EXHIBIT 2Page 165



20/124

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


regardless of the fact that we left the apartment clean and withoutdamages. Had there been damages, they would have charged usmore. Even though the rental lease clearly stated that the depositwas supposed to be returned unless there were damages, with theexception of regular wear and tear, the manager insisted thatregular 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, CAWhen I moved out I left the place in outstanding conditions;However, they are charging me for a new carpet, cleaning andpainting. At the end I owe them money.


(q) Archstone Las FloresRancho Santa Margarita, CA:Our apartment was cleaned from top to bottom before we movedout and somehow we got slapped with a bill for over $300 forsupposed repairs.


(r) Archstone Marina del ReyMarina del Ray, CA:We just moved out, and we though our whole $800.00 securitydeposit was coming back to us we left our apartment inPERFECT condition. We received $48.00 back. Why do youask? They told us they had to air out the carpet and repaint thewalls 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. NoChoice! Only one worker told us this. They dont tell you whenyou move it. So dont count on your deposit back, ITSAUTOMATIC.

Posted 1/13/2012 by Lisa P.

/ / / /

EXHIBIT 2Page 166



21/124

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


(t) Archstone RiversideRiverside, CA:Our company rented an apartment here for one year. It was onlyoccupied three to four nights a week -- never during the day andnever on weekends. When we gave up the lease, they tried tocharge 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 invirtually the same condition as when we moved in, decided hecould let us off the hook for the carpet cleaning, but he would stillhave to charge us $50 for hanging drapes in the bedroom anddining 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 FULLRESPONSIBILITY! Upon moveout we HIRED APROFESSIONAL contractor to repaint interior of apartment (notdamaged!) and to fix a piece of wood (4 in x 1 ft) on the patio thathad been damaged. THEY CHARGED US FOR PAINT andrepair after we had already fixed. In addition, we had carpetsprofessionally cleaned. THEY CHARGED US FOR AN ENTIREROOM OF NEW CARPET! The carpet did NOT need to bereplaced! I received a bill for 600.00! I WOULD NEVERRECOMMEND! Unprofessional, expensive.

Posted 9 months ago by Google User

(v) Archstone TerracinaOntario, CA:My final bill had the following charges (in addition to theexpensive 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 yearprior to me renting it. I made no blemishes or marks on the walls,either. The property manager told me I would get my depositback, 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 2Page 167



22/124

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


(w) Archstone Ventura ColonyVentura, CA:[T]hey charge you move out costs no matter how well you takecare of the apartment they charge you to clean paint and shampoothe carpets.


(x) Archstone Walnut CreekWalnut Creek, CA:My wife & I lived there for only 2.5 months and left itimmaculately clean (better than when we moved in actually).She spent 8 hours cleaning EVERY detail in our 600sf apartmentto ensure we would get out cleaning deposit back. Later wetalked to one of the receptionists who said we shouldnt havebothered because they always charge $100 for a professionalcleaning service, NO MATTER how well you cleaned. Sure

enough, we were charged the $100. Also, we asked differentoffice personnel three times what paint we could use to dab overthe 10-15 small spackle holes where we hung pictures. Theyrefused to give us a paint color and said it would have to beprofessionally painteddespite the fact that on the check-outsheet it says to paint any spots needing it. We received our billtoday and they charged us $250 for a FULL repainting of the onebedroom apartment (of which I guarantee you didnthappenthe 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, andthe carpets professionally cleaned They tried to charge us over$500 for cleaning and painting, and we had to submit ourpictures and receipts to have them take the money off and changethe 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 repaintingthe walls white even though I lived there for four years.

Posted 11/11/2011 by BEWARE B.

EXHIBIT 2Page 168



23/124

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


Defendant ARCHSTONEs Uniform Systematic Policies and Procedures

31. Based on their personal experiences and the experiences of other classmembers, 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 alwayscharging 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 otherssimilarly 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 2Page 169



24/124

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


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 Codesection 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, Plaintiffsreserve 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.

37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that theClass 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 Memberswithout 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 torepresent, 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 2Page 17



25/124

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


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 theinterests 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 aclass 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 2Page 171



26/124

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


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 thatpredominate 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 ofalways 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 paintingand/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 2Page 172



27/124

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


c. Whether Defendants have a systematic policy and procedure ofreducing these charges when a tenant complains about being

charged;

d. Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class Members are entitled tostatutory 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 chargingfor 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 andincorporate 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 DefendantARCHSTONE 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.

41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, thatDefendants 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 andprocedures that violate Civil Code section 1950.5, Plaintiffs and the Class Members

EXHIBIT 2Page 173



28/124

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


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.

43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, thatDefendants 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 chargingPlaintiffs 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 Plaintiffsand 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 ofthis money unlawfully retained.

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

EXHIBIT 2Page 174



29/124

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.)




herein.

49. The acts and practices engaged in byDefendants and described hereinconstitute 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 andProfessions Code sections 17200 et seq.

50. Defendants conduct as described herein is unlawful in that itautomatically 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 itautomatically 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 businesspractices 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 2Page 175



30/124

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


53. Plaintiffs and the putative class members are therefore entitled torestitutionary 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 Proceduresection 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 depositspursuant to Civil Code section 1950.5;

8. For restitutionary disgorgement of the unlawful charges and prejudgmentinterest;

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 2Page 176



31/124

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. 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. WheelerAttorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

EXHIBIT 2Page 177



32/124

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


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. WheelerAttorneys forPlaintiffsand the Putative Class

EXHIBIT 2Page 178



33/124

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 partyto the within action. My business address is: R. Rex Parris Law Firm 43364 10thStreet 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 forthbelow 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 fullyprepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at Lancaster, addressed as set forthbelow.

by transmitting via e-mail the document(s) listed above to the e-mail address set forthbelow 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-Maildirectly to the following:

MCKENNA LONG &ALDRIDGE LLP

Christopher J. Healey, Esq.

[email protected] Singh, [email protected] West Broadway, Suite 2600San Diego, California 92101Telephone: (619) 233-2960Facsimile: (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 2Page 179



34/124

54457925

Oct 28 201

02:15PM

EXHIBIT 2Page 18


1 R. ex Paris Eq. SBN 96567)Alxadr Wheeler sq. SBN 239

2 Kty zto Esq. SB 25816}Jo M Bickfo, Esq S N 2892

3 EX LW FIRM46410t Stt Wt4 Lanastr Cala 95Tphon: 1) 99-2595

5 Faml (1 997526 oy Plat ad th Puatv Ca

7 Ctor J Rea e (N 05798Jaikaran Singh Es 1SB 20355)8 MN LONG DRDG tP

60 s Boadwa) Sut 26009 a Dgo CA 92072

Tho 9) 2641410 ae 9 645521 Atoy dat SN War Cnr LLC

2 F H F F

3

4

F H Y F G - V H

1 JIFR VAGL on bhaf of hsfand al os marly stuatd;

16

17

18

Plat

vAS WAR CNR LLC a

19 awa td abty ooaton and

20OS thoug100 nuv;

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

das

Ca No BC89

L TIO

JOINT STTU ORT

at: ovmb m : mt 07

rAssgnd Al Puos to h Honoabiam ghbrgr amn 0]Jry Tral at: on SComlant ld Ma 4, 0

JOIT SAU EPR


35/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 181


Pursuant to the Cour's October 8, 203 order, Plainti Jenir Vagle ("Plaitif) a

Deant ASN Wer Center LLC (Denant submit the llowig joit stats repor i

preparation r the urher stats coference schedued r November 1 2013 at 1 :3 pm.

4

5 I. DISPUTE DISCOVERY

6

7

9

4

5

6

7

9

4

5

6

7

On October 8, the Court vacated unti furher otice al urher brieng on Plaitifs

Motion to Compe Further Resonses to Requests r Admissio (Set Oe), Motio to Compel

Frher Reoses to Requests r Prouction o Documets (Set One, Motio to Compel urer

Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One and Motion to Compel rher Resposes to

Secia Interrogatories (Set Oe and Dendants Motion to Compel urher Discovery

Reoses The Cour ordered the paries to cotinue to meet and confer o the dispute

discovery an submit a oint status reor ientiyng which discovery items are still i ispute

Te Cour acknowedged that the paries woud retain their resective rights to rer brieg

(ie opposition bries and rey briefs on ther motions to comel

A. Plaintifs iscover1 Class Contact Inrmation (Specia Interrogatory No. )

The aries were unable to reach an agreemet on Pantis request r the class cotact

irmation reative to ASN Waer Center, LLC The aries wish to discuss this mater wit

the Cour at the November 1 stats conerence

2 Class Inrmation on Security Deposits at Archstone Warner Center

(Specia Interrogatories Nos 2-7, 22)

Dense counse has roduced this information to Paintis counsel Painti reseres

the right to review the document roduction bere determning whether to withdraw her motio

to comel urher responses on these discovery items

Ill

Ill

Ill

JOIT STATU REPOT


36/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 182


3. Compant and Sma Cam Lawut (Specal Inteogatoe No

18-21; Requet Poducton No. 2-5)

The paies have ageed o connue to mee and confe on hese discovey items afte

4 Painti has had ime to eview the daa poduced by Dendant elae to class inmation on

5 secuiy deposis a he Achsone We Cente apamen commuiy

6 4 Identcaton of Othe Achtone Apatment Ug the Sae

7 Standadzed Fom (Speca Inteogatoe No. 24 26 28 30

34 36 38 4; Requet Admo No 10; o

9 Inteogatoy No 71)

Plaini has agee o wihdaw these euests an modi this iscovey into a single

euest he identicaion o othe Achsone apamen commuiies with access to he

Opeations Manua aeady poduced by Dendan Based on this modication an without

13 waive of any obections, Dendant has ageed o espond his modie euest

4 5 Ful Identcaton of Wtnee (Speca Iteogatoe 29 31 3

5 34 37 39 54 57 6 63 76; Fom Inteogatoe No . 5

6 171)

7 The paies have ageed o continue to mee and con on these discovey items afte

Plainti fuhe eseaches the ega issues elaed to hese discovey iems

9 6 Achtone' Webte (Speca Inteogatoy No 65)

Plaini has ageed o modiy his discovey iem so it is not limited to an entiy hat

mainained, updaed o opeated he website at wachsoneapamenscom Base on this

modicaion, and wihou waive of any obecions Dendan has ageed to espon this

modied euest

4 7 Tang Mateal and Document (Specal Inteogatoe 67)

5 Plaini has ageed o wihdaw these euests and modify this discovey into a single6 euest that seeks the identicaion o ainng mateias hat wee use a the Achstone Wane

7 Cente apatmen commniy Based on his modicaion, and without waive of any obections

Denan has ageed o espond his modied euest

2

JOT ST REPOT


37/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 183


' .

4

5

9

13

4

9

4

25

8 Archstone's Tree Guarantees (Specal Interogatois 775)

Plainti has aeed o wthdaw hese dscvery ems.B. Defendnt's iscovery

1 Wtness Identty and nrmaton orm Interrogatoy No 2.)

e paties were unabe to reach aeement n Dendant's rm inegar reques

r the dentit of wtnesses d reaed conac iorman Te pies ish disuss hs

maer wih the Court at the Noveber 1 stats cnfeence

2. Facts Supportng Requests r Admsson Denas (om togtoy

7.1 as t elates to Requsts r Admsson Nos. 2 3, 5 6, 7, 8 9 n )

he es wee unabe to each an aeement on Dendants Frm Integ

7l as i reates t Reuests r Admsson Ns. 2 3 7 9 and The paries wish

disuss hs ate w he u at the November status conrence

Dae: Octber 2 03

Date Octber 203

usw 8040291.l

R R S W FM

y r kAttoes r antfandhe Puaie Class

P

3

JOIT SATU REPO


38/124

EXHIBIT 2Page 184


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

0

1

12

13

14

15

16

7

8

9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROO O SERVICE

I a a rsdn t Sa aa, vr t ag ghtn ars, and n a art h wtn actn M snss addrss s: R Rx Pas Lawrm 43364 0th Sr WstLancasr 93534. On t w-mnnd da, I srvd t wthn dcmn/s

JOINT STATU PORT

ransmttng va csmh dcmnt(s) sd av t x nmr(s) s rhw n s da

_ rsna dvrng th dcmn(s) std av t th rsn(s) at h addrss(sst rh w

_ acng th dcmnt(s) sd av na sad nv wh stag hrn rad, n Und Sats ma n Stat aa a Lancastr, addrssd as s rw

_ transmttng va -ma t dcmn(s) sd av t -ma addrss s rhw n ts da

_ BY ELECTROIC SERVICE

_ B crnca srvng th dcmn(s) dscrd av va LxsNxs Srv n a ars aarng n LxsNxs Srv srvc s as w as va EMadrct h wng:

MCKNNA LONG & DDE LLP

rsr J Ha schealckennalong.comJakaran Sng sjsingh@mckennaong com600 Wst Bradwa St 2600San Dg aa 92101Thn (619) 233-2960acsm (619) 744-3682

xcd n Ocr 28, 2013 at Lancastr, aa

X I dcar dr nat rjr ndr aws t Sta aa ha h as r and crrc


39/124

PAUL HASTINGS LLPHOWARD M. PRIVETTE (SB 137216)2 NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS (SB 253588)BETH MUELLER (SB 278283 )3 515 South Flower StreetTwenty-Fifth Floor4 Los Angeles, CA 9007 1-2228Telephone: (213) 683-60005 Facsimile: (213) 627-07056 Attorneys for Defendan tsARCHSTONE BUILDERS INCORPORATED;7 ARCHSTONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT(CALIFORNIA) INCORPORATED; SM ITH FOUR,8 INC.; and SMITH TWO, INC.9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA10

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES252 2JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself CASE NO. BC480931 W Rftq 3413 and all others sim ilarly situa ted , STIPULATION TO EXTEND14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TOFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;15 vs.

16 ARCHSTONE BUILDERS [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREONINCORPORATED, a Delaware17 corporation; ARCHSTONE PROPERTYMANAGEMENT (CALIFORNIA) Orig. Response Date: September 26, 201218 INCORPORATED, a Delaware New Response Date: Sep tember 28, 2012corporation; SMITH FOUR, INC. dlb/a19 Archstone-Smith Four , Inc., a Delaware Dept: 307corporation; and SMITH TWO, INC. dlb /a Judge: Hon . William F. Highbe rge r20 Archstone-Smith Two, Inc., a Delawarecorporation; and Does through 100,21 inclusive,22 Defendants.23242526

LEGAL_US _W 728651912

STIP TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST MENDED COMPLAINTEXHIBIT 2Page 185



40/124

PA UL HASTINGS LLPHOWARD M. PRIVEflE (SB 137216)NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS (SB 253588)BETH MUELLER(SB278283)515 South Flow er StreetTwenty-Fifth FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-2228Telephone : (213) 683-6000Facsimile : (213) 627-0705Attorneys for DefendantsARCHSTONE BUILDERS INCORPO RATED;ARCHSTONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT(CALIFO RNIA) INCORPORATED; SM ITH FOUR,INC.; and SMITH TWO, INC.

JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herselfand all others sim ilarly situa ted ,Pla intiff,

ARCHSTONE BUILDERSINCORPORATED, a Delawareco rporation ; ARCHSTONE PROPERTYMANAGEMENT (CALIFORNIA)INCORPORATED, a Delawarecorporation; SMITH FOUR, INC. dlb/aArchstone-Smith Four, Inc ., a Delawareco rpo rat ion; and SMITH TWO, INC. d/b/aArchstone-Smith Two, inc. , a Delawareco rporatio n; and Does through 100,inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. BC48093 STIPULATION TO EXTENDDEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOJD TOFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;

Dept: 307Judge: Hon . William F. Highberge r

28LEGAL US W 72865191,2

ep 2013:54PM

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALWORNIACOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627

vs.[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

Orig. Response Date:New Response Date: September 26, 2012September 28, 2012

STIP TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TO FlRST AMENDED COMPL INTEXHIBIT 2Page 186



41/124

STIPULATION2 Defendants Archstone Build ers Incorporated, Archs tone Property Management3 (California) Inco rpo rated, Smith Four, Inc., and Smith Two, Inc. (co llectively , Defendan ts) and4 plaintiff Jennifer Vagle (Plaintiff), acting through their respect ive counsel, hereby stipulate and5 agree to the following:6 WHEREAS, on August 8, 2012 the Court sustained Defendants Demurrers with7 leave to amend and granted Defendants Motion to Strike with leave to amend;8 WHEREAS, Plaintiff fi led a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on August22,9 2012;

10 WHEREAS, Defendan ts response to the FAC is curren tly due on Sep tember 26,11 2012;12 WHEREAS, Defendants Motion to Quash Notices of Deposition and For A13 Protective Order Staying Discove ry, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony ; and14 Defendants Motion for Sanctions are fully briefed and se t for hea ring on Sep tember 26, 2012, at15 9:00a.m.;16 WHEREAS, Defendants have requested a brief extension of tim e to respond to the17 FAC following the hearing on September 26, 2012;18 WHEREAS, Plaintiff has ag reed to grant a two-day extension of time to respond19 to the FAC, through and including Sep tember 28 , 2012;20 /7/21 /1/22 /7/23 /7/24 /7/25 /1/26 III27 /7/28

LEGAL US W 72865191.2STIP TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EXHIBIT 2Page 187



42/124

WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT, as to2 those Defendants who have been served, their time to answer, demur, move, or otherwise respond3 to the FAC shall be extended through and including September 28, 2012. Defendants are not4 waiving, and this Stipulation and Order shall no t prejudice, Defendants right to assert any and all5 arguments and defenses they may have with respect to the FAC and the alleged causes of action6 therein.7 DATED: September 25, 2012 PAUL HASTINGS LLP

NICHOLAS J. BEGAKISAttorneys for Defendants11 ARCHSTONE BUILDERS INCORPORATED;ARCHS TONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT12 (CALIFORNIA) INCORPORATED; SMITH FOUR

13 INC.; and SMITH TWO, INC.14 DATED: September 25 , 2012 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM

By_________________________________Y SZETO18 Attorneys for Plainti19 20 2122

2324 V25 V262728

LEGAL_US_W 72865191.2 -2-STIP. TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT VEXHIBIT 2Page 188



43/124

[PROPOSED1 ORDER2 The Cou rt having reviewed the Parties Stipulation to Extend Defendants Time to3 Respond to the First Amended Complaint , and good cause appearing therefore , IT IS HEREBY4 ORDERED THAT:5 As to those Defendants who have been served, their time to answer, demur, move,6 or otherw ise respond to the FAC shall be extended th rough and including September 28, 2012 .7 Defendants are no t waiving, and this Stipulation and Order sha ll no t prejud ice, Defendants right8 to assert any and all arguments and defenses they may have with respect to the FAC and the9 alleged causes of ac tion there in.

1011 IT IS SO ORDERED.1213 Dated : Honorable William F. Highberger141516171819202122232425262728

LEG AL _U S_W 72 8651912 _3_STIP TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EXHIBIT 2Page 189



44/124

PROOF OF SERVICE2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss:3 CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND COU11TY OFLOS ANGELES45 I am employed in the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles, Stateof California. I am over the age of 18, and not a party to the within ac tion. My business6 ad

Documents

Vagle v Archstone ASN Warner Center paint carpet cleaning security deposits ASN emeryville equity residential.pdf