20 a 2 24 Raymond V. DiGiacomo, Jr. 66 Geary Street #414 San Francisco, CA 94108 415-595-4107 Self-Represented Fb chibi ‘County Of San Francisco FEB =§ 2000 CLERIC GF SHE CQURT BY sl iy Oa SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO [CIVIL UNLIMITED) Raymond Vincent DiGiacomo, Jr. Plaintiff, Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc.; and, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants goo 20-seerss Case No.: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR: . PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS; . RETALIATION; }. NUISANCE; EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 3. UNJUST ENRICHMENT; }. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; . CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD; . UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; ). NEGLIGENT SELECTION CENDAMAYWN SB [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] COMES NOW, Plaintiff Raymond Vincent DiGiacomo, Jr., and alleges: ~ DiGiacomo v. THC - Compan for Injunctions and Damages - 110 " 12 18 “4 6 6 "7 8 19 20 a 2 24 27 PREFACE This is a very troubling case of what has become an epidemic of abuse and neglect at the hands of San Francisco's so-called “Supportive” housing management organizations, entities which obtain both private and government funding on the premise of utilizing the City’s vast array of residential Single Room Occupancy (“SRO”) hotels to allow the region's most vulnerable and disadvantaged residents the opportunity to stabilize and rebuild their lives, while further integrating themselves into mainstream society. The reality, however, paints a much grimmer picture - one of isolation, exploitation and oppression. The following excerpt was taken from an August 2019 written notice posted onto the front doors of all units located in the Graystone SRO hotel situated at 66 Geary Street, San Francisco, California 94108, by the building's landlord, The Tenderloin Housing Clinic. The document, entitled “San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing's Resident Emergency Safety Check Policy”, was driven by the City's concern over the recent alarming increase in Supportive housing tenant deaths, many of whom perished while members of San Francisco's Supportive SRO hotel community. The bulletin essentially referenced the City's new mandate that Supportive housing landlords are now to perform ‘mandatory wellness checks on tenants whom exhibit certain conceming behaviors (i. those tenants unseen by staff for several days at a time, etc.), a service which until recently enacted by the City, was optional, and based on a tenant's wellness check “preference” - which each tenant previously had the option of waiving via written contract: "..Out of concem for the wellbeing of tenants living in supportive housing sites, the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH) instituted a Resident Emergency Check Policy for all HSH funded agencies. This HSH policy will supersede our 10 year's plus agency policy for conducting Wellness Checks...” Although efforts have been made to discipline Supportive SRO hotel owners and their respective landlords, tenants of said buildings still experience crippling oppression ‘DiGiacomo v. THC - Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 210 " 12 18 4 18 16 7 18 19 20 a 27 28 on multiple fronts. The San Francisco Rent Board still refuses to assist tenants living in SRO hotels managed by non-profit landlords - even though these buildings are, at times, owned by wealthy, for-profit real estate investors. In addition, the City's “contingency-phobic” Landlord-Tenant attorney community continues to shy away from taking on less-than-lucrative cases against non-profit landlords, with many law firms actively evading prospective plaintifis even before hearing the most basic details of their case, and, in some situations, even going so far as to embed discriminatory check-boxes inside their law firm website's Contact form in order to filter non-profit tenants desperately seeking assistance from said legal community. These unique challenges, combined with the nature of San Francisco's “circular- referring’, volunteer-dependent housing rights organizations, complacent County welfare programs, in addition to the City’s general lack of quality legal aid services are unfortunately why victims of the phenomena colloquially known as “poverty pimping” must exclusively resort to civil litigation for recompense. This of course poses a significant, if not impossible, challenge to the typical Supportive SRO tenant whom then must represent themself against an experienced legal team while possessing a minimal-to-non-existent litigation background and diminished cognitive capacity - in addition to a multitude of other debilitating and exacerbated mental and/or physical health challenges typical to the City’s SRO community. “Non-profit” landlords, such as the defendant in this case, currently experience few deterrents when brazenly abusing, neglecting, exploiting and retaliating against their disadvantaged and well-intentioned renters. It is now in the hands of the jury| system of justice to provide said tenants the respect, safety and opportunity they rightfully deserve, so that they may elevate themselves out of the state of paralysis they now have no other choice but to call “home”. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Raymond Vincent DiGiacomo, Jr. (“PLAINTIFF”) is an individual currently residing at 66 Geary Street #414, San Francisco, California 94108. DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 310 " 2 1B 4 6 6 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Defendant Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. ("THC") is a California corporation operating out of its principal place of business at 126 Hyde Street, San Francisco, California 94102. 3. The true names, identities, and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of Defendants DOES 1 through 100 are unknown to PLAINTIFF; ‘who, therefore, sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names, identities, and capacities of said Defendants are ascertained, PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this complaint accordingly. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is responsible negligently, intentionally, tortuously or in some other actionable manner including, but not limited to, the causes of action alleged herein, for the events referred to herein, and caused damages to PLAINTIFF as herein alleged. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 4..On or about October 23 2017, PLAINTIFF and THC entered into a written agreement by the terms in which PLAINTIFF was to perform his San Francisco County ‘Adult Assistance Program (‘CAAP") workfare obligation at THC’s place of business located at 48 Turk Street, San Francisco, California 94102 ("48 Turk Street") in an employmentlike scenario where PLAINTIFF worked in an unpaid secretarial capacity for THC for six hours per week in exchange for financial-, food- and housing-related benefits provided to PLAINTIFF by the City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF"). 2. PLAINTIFF continued to perform his workfare at THC’s 48 Turk Street office from| on or about October 31 2017 to on or about February 5 2018. PLAINTIFF then, on or about February 5 2018 became uncomfortable continuing his workfare assignment due to THC’s hostile work environment and thus terminated his workfare relationship with THC on or about February 5 2018. 3. On or about February 20 2018, PLAINTIFF filed a grievance with the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS") notifying HHS of the negative experience he endured while performing his workfare with THC, as the HHS oversaw CAAP-related grievances at that time. The complaint to HHS included details regarding incidents of workplace harassment PLAINTIFF endured from THC pseudo- DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages -410 " 12 13 4 15 6 7 18 9 20 a manager Joseph Pena (“PENA”), acts of fraud committed by PENA which PLAINTIFF witnessed, and, elements of deception which PENA encouraged PLAINTIFF to commit during PLAINTIFF's workfare assignment. In addition, a copy of said grievance can be viewed at https:/tinyurl.com/PenaGrievance and is made part of this Complaint as EXHIBIT A . 4. On or about July 5 2018, PLAINTIFF received a response from HHS as to the result of his grievance's investigation, which was conducted by HHS. 5. On July 5 2018 at approximately 2:09 pm local time, PLAINTIFF contacted THC’s Founder and Executive Director, Randy Shaw (‘SHAW)), via email to inform SHAW of said HHS investigation’s completion. PLAINTIFF then immediately received an out-of- office-auto-reply email message from SHAWs business email account (randy@thelinic.org) almost immediately thereafter, on July 5 2018. PLAINTIFF has not received any further direct communication from SHAW, other than said out-of-office- auto-reply email message. 6. Sometime between July 5 2018 2:10 pm local time and July 16 2018, after residing for approximately 10 months at the Saint Vincent De Paul Society's Mutt Service-Center South (‘MSC South’) homeless shetter located at 525 5" Street, San| Francisco, CA 94107, an employee of said shelter presented PLAINTIFF with a permanent housing opportunity where PLAINTIFF would (upon successful completion of a housing interview and background check) move into a unit located inside a ‘Supportive Single Room Occupancy Residential Hotel ("SRO") managed by THC in a relationship where PLAINTIFF's monthly rent would be paid directly to THC by CCSF, unless the PLAINTIFF was able to generate income on his own. At the same time PLAINTIFF was offered said interview opportunity with THC, PLAINTIFF was not provided any other housing interview opportunities with any other landlords, and thus had the option of either pursuing said housing opportunity with THC or remaining inside an unpredictable, psychologically-taxing and dangerous shelter environment for an indefinite period of time. 7. On of about July 16 2018 PLAINTIFF completed a housing interview with THC, during which PLAINTIFF informed THC of PLAINTIFF's vulnerabilities, including, but not limited to PLAINTIFF's history of chronic homelessness. DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for injunctions and Damages - 510 " 2 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 at 2 23 28 28 27 8. On or about July 19 2018, PLAINTIFF and THC entered into a written agreement: by the terms in which THC rented Unit 414 situated at 66 Geary Street, San Francisco, 94108 (‘PREMISES’) to PLAINTIFF at the agreed rental of $500 per month, payable in advance on the 1% day of each and every month, commencing on July 19 2018. PLAINTIFF signed the lease agreement under substantial duress as: A) PLAINTIFF’s MSC South shelter bed was terminated by THC “before” the July 19 2018 lease signing appointment began; B) PLAINTIFF was “not" provided a blank copy of his lease agreement prior to his lease signing appointment; and, C) said lease signing appointment consisted of the PLAINTIFF being rushed through approximately 50 pages of lease documentation inside a “rapid-fire-style” lease signing session facilitated by a THC employee who possessed a general demeanor that any reasonable person would {ind intimidating on some basis. 9.Under the rental agreement, PLAINTIFF entered into possession of the PREMISIS on July 19 2018, and has continued in possession since. 10. Since July 19 2018, THC has acted as the Landlord of the PREMISES and has continued as Landlord since. 11. Within approximately one week after entering into possession of the PREMISES, PLAINTIFF informed THC of additional vulnerabilities regarding his mental health, doing so in a one-on-one case management interview that was both initiated by, and conducted by, THC 42. PLAINTIFF, to his knowledge, is not in default as to the payment of rent. 13. PLAINTIFF, to his knowledge, has passed all monthly room habitability inspections conducted by: THC since entering into possession of the PREMISES. 14, Since first engaging with THC, PLAINTIFF, in addition to financial losses, has suffered severe emotional distress due to: paranoia, anxiety, discomfort, annoyance, oppression, post-traumatic stress, forced labor, suicidal ideations, homicidal ideations, challenges seeking employment and societal withdrawal. In addition, since first engaging with THC, PLAINTIFF has suffered two (2) progressive mental health status downgrades documented by CCSF; a permanent mental health diagnosis documented by a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist ("MFT") possessing approximately 40 years of experience who generated said diagnosis after PLAINTIFF spent DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for injunctions and Damages -610 " 2 18 4 18 16 7 18 19 at 2 23. 24 a 28 approximately four months in said MFT’s one-on-one and group mental health counseling environments. Additionally, PLAINTIFF has now developed a debilitating legal dependency with said dependency's core origin stemming from the conflict between PLAINTIFF and THC, which has placed PLAINTIFF in a troubling state that has now entangled PLAINTIFF in a web of litigation against numerous other parties unrelated to THC. PLAINTIFF has also experienced an inability to pursue his preferred hobbies and personal interests while also experiencing a slowed physical (spine) injury healing process due to increased stress levels related to PLAINTIFF's conflicts with THC, in addition to PLAINTIFF's inability to obtain general psychological security while on and near the PREMISES - all of which injuries have caused and continue to cause great mental pain and suffering, in addition to physical pain and suffering, and have continually pushed PLAINTIFF further away from mainstream society and ever the more closer toward a Supplemental Security Income driven existence FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Lessor’s Retaliatory Action against Lessee of Dwelling) ~15. PLAINTIFF repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1- 14 as if set forth fully herein. 16. On July 22 2018, PLAINTIFF sent move-in-related photographs and move-in- related written feedback via email to CCSF's Housing Access Team (hat@sfgov.org) and to THC (housingcounselors@thclinic.org) which documented the concerning condition of the PREMISES and other negative aspects of PLAINTIFF’s move-in experience. 17. On or about August 3 2018, PLAINTIFF became so concerned with his tenancy that he submitted a written grievance (‘Grievance One") to THC, doing so in accordance with THC’s formal grievance policy, which was included in PLAINTIFF’s lease paperwork packet. Within Grievance One, PLAINTIFF detailed issues related to his move-in process, his outstanding maintenance requests, troubling building conditions, and his concems regarding the building's management team. Note that DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Inunctions and Damages -710 " 12 13 4 8 16 7 18 19 21 23 24 25 a 28 Grievance One essentially referenced a set of emails and pictures which can be found at http://tinyurl.com/GrievanceOne and are made part of this Complaint as EXHIBIT B. 18. On or about September 6 2018, PLAINTIFF submitted a written request for a Reasonable Accommodation ("RA") to THC and did so in accordance with THC's formal - RA policy, which was included in PLAINTIFF’s lease. The RA, signed by PLAINTIFF’s Primary Care Physician, entailed a request to have the outside of PLAINTIFF's bedroom windows cleaned to allow more sunlight into PLAINTIFF’s room, for reasons regarding mental health. At the time of move in, PLAINTIFF’s windows had not been cleaned in at least four (4) years, and were so egregiously filthy that the average person would have experienced an extreme level of difficulty seeing through PLAINTIFF's windows. Pictures of said windows, in their state at the time of PLAINTIFF's move-in, can be found within EXHIBIT B's “July 31” subsection 19. On or about October 25 2018, after PLAINTIFF had become increasingly’ concemed with THC’s non-responsiveness and general conduct, an inspector from San Francisco's Department of Building Inspection (‘DBI’) visited PLAINTIFF’s SRO hotel to’ ‘conduct a formal inspection, doing so at the request of PLAINTIFF, and, upon entering the building, identified himself to the building’s desk clerk as a guest of PLAINTIFF and employee of DBI, doing so-within the sign-in log maintained by THC’s desk clerk team. Said inspector then proceeded to cite THC for twelve (12) building code violations, some of which were extremely severe and detailed poorly-maintained fire escape windows which were unable to be properly opened and could have caused multiple tenants to be burned alive in the event of a fire. During the same inspection, DBI also cited THC for a bathroom door lock issue which the PLAINTIFF had previously asked THC to remedy in three (3) written requests PLAINTIFF had made to THC on or about the dates of August 20 2018, September 4 2018 and October 15 2018. In one request, made to THC on or about September 4 2018, PLAINTIFF even went so far as to mention to THC that said door lock issue caused PLAINTIFF to be locked alone inside the building's fourth floor restroom for a period of time, causing PLAINTIFF to suffer a panic attack. In addition, PLAINTIFF also sent-a written correspondence to THC, on or about October 15 2018, which notified THC of a separate incident in which PLAINTIFF DiGi 10 v. THC — Gomplaint for Injunctions and Damages - 810 " 12 13 4 18 16 7 18 19 experienced difficulties locking said bathroom door, which unfortunately caused PLAINTIFF to defecate into his clothing, 20.On or about November 2 2018, PLAINTIFF submitted a second written grievance (“Grievance Two") to THC, doing so in accordance with THC’s stated grievance policy. Within Grievance Two, PLAINTIFF detailed issues regarding THC’s corporate culture, maintenance team, case management program and benefit check distribution system, while also referring to PLAINTIFF's outstanding grievances and RA’s which PLAINTIFF had not yet received a written response to. A copy of Grievance ‘Two can be found at http:/tinyurl.com/GrievanceTwo and is made part of this Complaint as EXHIBIT C. 21. On or about December 6 2018, PLAINTIFF met with an attorney employed by San Francisco's Human Rights Commission (‘HRC’) to discuss THC’s conceming business practices, including THC’s non-responsiveness to PLAINTIFF’s grievances and RA requests. Shortly after the conclusion of said meeting (which was conducted at 25 Van Ness Avenue #800, San Francisco, CA 94102) HRC sent a letter to. THC on PLAINTIFF's behalf Thereafter, THC: 22. Breached its standard company policy, which was included in PLAINTIFF's: lease paperwork packet, and states that THC shall respond “in writing” to a tenant's grievance within twenty (20) business days. THC did not provide a written response to PLAINTIFF’s Grievance One until one hundred eighty seven (187) days after PLAINTIFF submitted said grievance to THC, only providing said written response after| being placed under pressure to do so by HRC’s written correspondence. In said written correspondence, sent by HRC to THC on behalf of PLAINTIFF, HRC mentioned to THC that PLAINTIFF had experienced non-responsiveness from THC regarding PLAINTIFF's grievances and RA request, even after PLAINTIFF's multiple written follow-up attempts to obtain responses from THC. In addition, HRC also caught THC in a lie when HRC requested that THC provide a written response to PLAINTIFF's Grievance Two, only to have THC’s legal team accidentally send HRC a copy of THC’s DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 810 "1 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 9 20 a 22 23 24 28 27 28 written response to PLAINTIFF’s Grievance One, with said accidental transmission occurring on or about January 10 2019 and essentially proving that THC did indeed receive: PLAINTIFF’s Grievance One. The situation was of course especially concerning and paranoia-inducing to PLAINTIFF, as THC claimed (in a written letter from THC’s executive management team mailed to PLAINTIFF on or about December 19 2018) that THC “never received” Grievance One from PLAINTIFF. Thus, it was highly unlikely for THC to truthfully state it had not received Grievance One from PLAINTIFF, as there were at least five THC employees (including both the Building Manager and Case Manager of PLAINTIFF’s SRO building, in addition to THC’s Grievance Manager, Housing Services Manager and Housing Counselor) who all knew of PLAINTIFF’s Grievance One at the time Grievance One was submitted to THC, providing further evidence that THC’s executive team knowingly made a false statement to PLAINTIFF. In addition, a visual aid providing a summary of THC's concerning response times is available in the “Defendant THC’s Response Times" table which is attached to this Complaint as EXHIBIT 1 and made part of this Complaint. 23. Breached its standard company policy, which was included in PLAINTIFF's lease paperwork packet, and states that THC shall respond “in writing” to a tenant's request for a RA within five (5) business days. THC did not provide a written response to PLAINTIFF's RA until one hundred fifty three (153) days after PLAINTIFF submitted said RA, and only did so after being placed under pressure by HRC’s aforementioned ‘written correspondence to THC 24. Breached its standard company policy which states that THC shall respond “in ‘writing’ to a tenant's grievance within twenty (20) business days. THC did not provide a written response to PLAINTIFF's Grievance Two until fifty (50) days after PLAINTIFF submitted said grievance, and only did so after being placed under pressure by HRC’s aforementioned correspondence to THC. 25. Left the carpeted hallway located immediately outside of PLAINTIFF's front door un-vacuumed for at least seventy four (74) days, which caused said carpet to become an extremely unsightly environmental health hazard. 26. Failed to repair the building's fourth floor bathroom door lock for approximately eighty seven (87) days, even after PLAINTIFF made three written requests to THC DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 1010 " 2 13 14 18 16 7 8 19 20 a 23 24 26 26 ar 28 regarding the issue (doing so on or about the dates of August 20 2018, September 4 2018 and October 15 2018) in addition to DBI citing THC for the issue on or about October 25 2018, during DBI's on-site inspection, 27. Significantly reduced PLAINTIFF's composting capal for approximately two hundred sixty one (261) days, and continued to do so even after PLAINTIFF made three requests to THC to restore said capabilities (on or about the dates of October 15 2018, November 1 2018 and January 9 2019) while also reminding ‘THC of San Francisco citywide composting and recycling ordinance 100-09. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that THC exhibited deceptive behavior during this time period, evidenced in photos PLAINTIFF took of his SRO hotel's curbside garbage receptacles, in which green (compost) receptacles did not appear, and in which blue (recycle) receptacles appeared in quantities highly disproportionate to the number of residents living in the building. s to near-zero levels 28. Removed the sole trash can from the building's fourth floor restroom for approximately two hundred fifty two (252) days, even after PLAINTIFF made a written request to THC (on or about January 9 2019) to restore said service, stating to THC in the same request that the removal of said trash can could cause issues related to. health, safety and plumbing, 29. Failed to repair the building's fourth floor toilet, which wobbles heavily at the toilet-to-floor junction. An initial request for service was made by PLAINTIFF to THC on or about August 2 2019 and, as of the date of this Complaint, the issue continues to remain unresolved, with approximately one hundred eighty six (186) days having elapsed without a resolution, even after multiple verbal follow-up inquiries made by PLAINTIFF to THC. : 30. Failed to repair the building's fourth floor shower faucet, which continues to drip excessively, even when tumed off. A request for service was made by PLAINTIFF to THC on or about January 8 2020 and, as of the date of this Complaint, the issue continues to remain unresolved, with approximately twenty seven (27) days having elapsed without a resolution, all while unnecessary water-related costs and environmental impacts are continually accrued due to said leaks. DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 1110 " 12 8 “ 6 6 7 18 19 20 a 24 25 28 ar 28 31. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that THC’s failure to respond to PLAINTIFF’s grievances, RA request, maintenance requests and other service requests were in retaliation for PLAINTIFF's having complained about the untenantability of the PREMISES as well as the concerning nature of THC’s company culture and business practices. 32, Since first engaging with THC, PLAINTIFF: has now suffered damages as| described in numbered paragraph fourteen (14) of this Complaint, 33. THC’s multiple acts of negligence, retaliation and oppression are especially troubling to PLAINTIFF, as THC fashions itself as a “Supportive Housing” organization while receiving both government and private funding in exchange for its exercising a unique duty of care to its tenants, most of whom suffer from some form of mental and/or physical health challenge and are among the CCSF’s most vulnerable population. 34. The retaliatory actions of THC, as alleged in this complaint, were oppressive and. malicious within the meaning of Civil Code § 3294 in that they were despicable conduct that subjected PLAINTIFF to cruel and unjust hardship, and done in willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’s rights and safety, thereby entitling PLAINTIFF to an award of punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Maintenance of Nuisance) 36. PLAINTIFF repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1- 34s if set forth fully herein, 36. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that during the 2019 calendar year, the sole elevator which services PLAINTIFF's SRO hotel experienced an approximate 80% downtime as THC, along with the building’s owner, “nickled and dimed” their way through several unduly-long repair cycles, all of which were performed on an end-oflife elevator system that should have been modemized several years prior. PLAINTIFF estimates PLAINTIFF traveled at least an “additional” 41,000 footsteps during the 2019 calendar year (with approximately half of said footsteps being DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 1210 " 2 B “ 16 16 1” 18 19 20 a 8B 28 “uphill” in nature), with said 41,000 footsteps required due to THC’s complacency during the aforementioned repair cycles - all while PLAINTIFF received no reduction in monthly rent from THC for said elevator inconveniences. In addition, the long-term unavailability of the elevator posed significant challenges for most tenants living inside PLAINTIFF's SRO building, especially those who identify as elderly and/or physically disabled, like “Tom”, who graciously provided the tenant elevator testimonial shown in ithe August 2019 video located at http:/tinyurl.com/TomsTestimonial - which is made part of this Complaint as EXHIBIT D. THC finally began planning the modernization of said elevator system almost immediately after PLAINTIFF: A) began formally organizing his building's tenants regarding said elevator issues (on or about August 18 2018); and, B) sent THC a written letter (on or about August 18 2018) which informed THC of potential litigation which could arise should THC and the building's owner continue to drag their feet on said elevator modernization process. 37. MONTHLY RENT PAYMENT MECHANISM: Since PLAINTIFF took possession of the PREMISES, PLAINTIFF has been required by THC to pay his monthly rent to ‘THC via either money order or cashier's check during months where PLAINTIFF earns enough income through employment or other means, and thus does not have his rent paid to THC by CCSF. The money order and cashier's check requirement was stated inside of PLAINTIFF's lease agreement, which PLAINTIFF signed under heavy duress |, for reasons previously stated in this Complaint. Additionally, said lease agreement did “not” state whether PLAINTIFF or THC was to incur the cost of said money order (or cashier's check) and also mentioned an electronic funds transfer ("EFT") option, which PLAINTIFF assumed (at the time he signed his lease) was an alternative payment option to paying his rent by money order (or cashier's check). PLAINTIFF attempted to pay his rent to THC via personal check during the month of December 2018 and was shortly thereafter threatened with eviction by THC when THC posted a “Three Day Pay or Quit’ notice on PLAINTIFF’s front door, doing so on or about Christmas Eve December 24 2018. 38. PLAINTIFF has now paid rent to THC via money order on two occasions (on or| about the dates of December 24 2018 and January 2 2020) and has thus incurred additional costs that would not have been incurred if PLAINTIFF was allowed to pay his DiGiacomo v. THC — Compiaint for Injunctions and Damages - 1310 " 2 13 4 18 16 7 18 19 20 at 23 24 25 a 28 rent to THC via personal check or EFT. In addition to the extra costs associated with the purchase of each money order, PLAINTIFF has also incurred the time expense of obtaining and delivering each money order, which entails that PLAINTIFF: A) travel to a post office; B) wait in line at said post office to obtain said money order; C) travel from said post office to THC’s 472 Turk Street office; D) wait in line outside of said THC office in a dangerous environment under unfavorable weather conditions; and, E) meet with a THC employee to deliver said money order to THC - an entire process which can easily take up to one and a half (1.5) hours to complete. 39. On or about December 20 2018, PLAINTIFF sent a written letter to CCSF for assistance on the aforementioned money order issue (while also providing a copy of said letter to THC) but, as of the four hundred eleven (411) days leading up to the date of this Complaint, PLAINTIFF has not yet received a resolution (or opinion) from CCSF on said issue. In said letter, PLAINTIFF mentioned the unfair, dangerous, oppressive and discriminatory nature of having to pay his rent via money order. The letter was, of course, in addition to a separate letter PLAINTIFF sent to CCSF (on or about November 13 2018) where PLAINTIFF requested assistance from CCSF in helping him move into a different Supportive housing environment managed by a different landlord - a request that, as of the four hundred forty eight (448) days leading up to the date of this Complaint, also has not yet been addressed by CSF. 40. PLAINTIFF also sought assistance on said money order issue from legal aid law firm, Bay Area Legal Aid (‘BALA’), signing a retainer agreement with said firm's San Francisco office on or about December 29, 2018 and providing BALA a copy of the December 20 2018 letter which PLAINTIFF sent to CCSF and THC. After approximately ten (10) months had passed since PLAINTIFF signed said retainer agreement with BALA, PLAINTIFF became concerned as to the length of time BALA was requiring to resolve the money order issue, in-addition to the fact that PLAINTIFF received little to no follow up status reports from BALA over that time period, other than those status reports which were initiated by PLAINTIFF. Then, on or about October 17 2019, PLAINTIFF contacted BALA for status and learned from its managing attorney that PLAINTIFF's attorney was on medical leave and that PLAINTIFF's case had been closed - all to the total surprise and dismay of PLAINTIFF. DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 1410 " 2 13 “ 16 16 v7 ® 19 20 a 23 24 25 ar 41. THC’s requirement that tenants pay their rent via money order or cashier's check is especially troubling as THC, according to its 2018 tax return, possessed an annual revenue stream of approximately $45,000,000, an annual net income of approximately $1,500,000 and an annual political lobbying spend of approximately $1,000,000 - figures which not only allude to THC’s ability to modernize its rent payment mechanism, but also raise concems as to why THC continues to “collectively punish” tenants who wish to pay their rent by personal check or EFT - even those renters who have never bounced a check with THC. 42. MONTHLY BENEFIT RECEIPT MECHANISM: In the event that PLAINTIFF does not eam enough income during any given month, PLAINTIFF's rent is then paid by CCSF via an EFT of PLAINTIFF’s entire monthly benefit check, which is sent via EFT from the bank account of CCSF to the bank account of THC. After electronic receipt of funds, THC then takes its rent from PLAINTIFF’s electronically-transfered benefit check. At that point, PLAINTIFF must then travel to THC’s 472 Turk Street office to receive his “portion” of said monthly benefit check, which is then distributed to him in person, by a THC employee, via “paper” check. The process has proven extremely problematic and time consuming for PLAINTIFF. Even when the process goes as planned, the entire amount of time needed to complete said process can easily amount to approximately one hour or more, when one takes into account the time needed to travel to and from THC’s 472 Turk Street office, in addition to the time one must stand in line outside of said office, doing so in a dangerous and depressing area of San Francisco's Tenderloin District, under uncomfortable weather conditions, while witnessing emotionally distressing acts of gratuitous violence, and while suffering the indignity of having to constantly consider the defecating birds perched above said line. Additionally, when said benefit receipt process does “not” go as planned, which has ‘occurred multiple times, PLAINTIFF has needed to expend, at times, over two hours of uncompensated time remedying EFT-related errors which have occurred due to: A) the problematic Information Technology ("IT") which drives said EFT payments from CCSF to THC; and, B) THC’s unwillingness to quality control said IT. In addition, THC’s unwillingness to provide PLAINTIFF’s monthly benefit to PLAINTIFF via an EFT into PLAINTIFF's checking account has forced PLAINTIFF wait additional time periods in DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 1510 " 2 13 4 18 16 7 18 19 2 at 2 4 25 2 ar order to receive access to said benefit funds. As an example, PLAINTIFF received his badly needed February 2020 benefit check from THC ‘on Friday January 31 2020, but} did not receive access to said benefit check’s funds until three days later, on Monday February 3 2020, as PLAINTIFF's challenging financial situation forces him to bank with ‘a 100% online bank, which does not charge PLAINTIFF a monthly account maintenance fee, but requires a waiting period of one business day before granting its customers access to the “first $200” of a check deposited online, and then an additional business day to obtain the remaining amount of said check, if said check's amount is greater than $200, which is indeed the case in PLAINTIFF’s situation. Also note that the one-business-day waiting period can easily extend to a longer period of time, if the deposit occurs on, or near, a weekend or holiday. 43. PLAINTIFF would also like to state that “before” PLAINTIFF entered into possession of the PREMISES, PLAINTIFF received his monthly benefit check from CCSF each month, via an EFT from CCSF's bank account to PLAINTIFF’s personal checking account, with little to no technical challenges - which causes PLAINTIFF to believe that the aforementioned IT challenges are indeed related to THC on some basis. 44. Since PLAINTIFF entered into possession of the PREMISES on July 19 2018, THC has committed waste thereon by posting printed informational notices, at a frequency of several times per month, onto PLAINTIFF’s front door, in addition to the front doors of its approximately 2300 other tenants who live inside of the approximately 21 buildings in which THC manages, causing PLAINTIFF emotional distress, as PLAINTIFF regards himself as an environmental advocate. On or about November 1 2018, the PLAINTIFF notified THC as to its wasteful conduct, doing so in writing, within Grievance Two. As an example of said wasteful (and annoying) conduct, THC posted approximately twenty eight (28) 8.5°x11” printed notices onto PLAINTIFF's front door, and onto the doors of the building’s approximately 77 other tenants - with said notices providing information regarding the aforementioned elevator issues and being posted between the time period of approximately March 2019 to approximately January 2020. To add further insult to the nuisance, many of these notices were nearly identical in nature. More specifically, notices posted onto PLAINTIFF's front door on or about the DiGiacomo v. THC - Complaint for injunctions and Damages - 1610 " 12 8 “4 6 16 ” 8 19 20 a 23 2 28 28 dates of October 11 2019, November 8 2019, November 15 2019, November 26 2019, and January 6 2020 all possessed a common, repeated theme of notifying the building's tenants as to the date in which said elevator modemization process was to begin. Additionally, there were also 8.5"x11" notices posted onto PLAINTIFF's front door on or about the dates of December 12 2019, December 24 2019, January 17 2020 and January 31 2020, which all possessed a common, repeated theme of thanking the building's tenants for their patience during said elevator modemization process. In addition to a multitude of other non-elevator-related notices that were posted to the front doors of PLAINTIFF and his fellow tenants, the approximately 2,000 elevator- related notices - which required over 187,000 square inches of paper and significant quantities of ink/toner and tape - were purchased with THC funds that could have been more responsibly allocated toward providing THC’s tenants with the badly-needed aforementioned EFT capabilities so that said tenants would no longer be required to ‘wait in oppressive and dangerous 1970's-era welfare lines in order to receive their monthly benefit checks and/or pay their monthly rent. 45. As mentioned earlier in this Complaint, from on or about December 9 2018 to on or about August 27 2019 (a period of approximately 261 days), THC reduced PLAINTIFF's composting and recycling services. On or about November 1 2018, PLAINTIFF notified THC as to its wasteful conduct, doing so within Grievance Two, in addition to notifying THC in two (2) additional written correspondences (dated October 15 2018 and January 9 2019). 46. As mentioned earlier in this Complaint, PLAINTIFF experienced unduly long delays in receiving responses to this grievances, RA requests, maintenance requests and service requests, and considers said unduly long response times to be a Nuisance to PLAINTIFF. 47. Each act and omission of THC as alleged above was done intentionally and lover PLAINTIFF's objection. THC willfully and maliciously engaged in this conduct with the full knowledge that it would result in substantial damage to PLAINTIFF. Therefore, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 732, PLAINTIFF is entitled to treble damages from THC according to proof. DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 1710 " 12 8 4 16 16 ” 18 19 20 at 48. The defective and dangerous conditions of PREMISES as alleged in this complaint constituted a nuisance within the meaning of Civil Code § 3479 and Code of| Civil Procedure § 731 in that they deprived PLAINTIFF of the safe, healthy and comfortable use of PREMISES. : . 49. As a proximate result of THC’s maintenance of the nuisance, PLAINTIFF suffered damages as described in numbered paragraph fourteen (14) of this Complaint, all to his general damages in the sum according to proof, | 50. In maintaining the nuisance, THC acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damage being caused to PLAINTIFF. Despite this knowiedge, THC tailed to abate the nuisance by repairing the defective and dangerous conditions of PREMISES or causing them to be repaired. It's failure to act was both oppressive and malicious within the meaning of Civil Code § 3294 in that it subjected PLAINTIFF to cruel and unjust hardship in willful and conscious disregard to PLAINTIFF's rights and safety, thereby entiting PLAINTIFF to an award for punitive damages. THC's fallure to put PREMISES into a condition fitfor human occupation at the time of renting them to PLAINTIFF and its failure 'to repair the defective and dangerous conditions or to have them repaired within a reasonable time after PLAINTIFF notified it of them or at all, as alleged above, were oppressive and malicious within the meaning of Civil Code § 3294 in that they subjected PLAINTIFF to cruel and unjust hardship in willful and conscious dregs of PLAINTIFF's rights and safety, thereby entiting PLAINTIFF to an award of punitive 51. PLAINTIFF will continue to experience distress, resulting in a multi judicial proceedings, unless THC’s conduct s forthwith and hence enjoined. | \damages. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 52. PLAINTIFF repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1- 51 as if set forth fully herein. | 53. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that THC’s failure to put PREMISES into a condition fit for human occupation before renting them to DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 1810 " 2 13 4 18 16 7 18 19 20 at 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF, its repeated failure to repair the defects or to have them repaired when requested by PLAINTIFF to do so or at all, its non-responsiveness to PLAINTIFF’s grievances and RA request, as alleged in this Complaint, were knowing, intentional, and willful and done with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing PLAINTIFF emotional distress. 54. In failing to correct the defects within a reasonable amount of time or at all, despite PLAINTIFF’s numerous requests that it do so as alleged in the Complaint, THC’s conduct was malicious and oppressive, in that it was conduct carried on by THC. in willful and conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF's rights and subjected PLAINTIFF to) cruel and unjust hardship. PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages. 55. THC failed to exercise ordinary care in the management of the above-mentioned SRO by failing to respond within a reasonable amount of time to PLAINTIFF’s grievances, RA requests, maintenance requests and service requests. 56. As a proximate result of the negligence of THC, PLAINTIFF was seriously injured in his health, strength ‘and activity sustaining’ damages as described in numbered paragraph fourteen (14) of this Complaint, all to his general damages in the sum according to proof. : 57. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the injuries will result in some permanent disability to PLAINTIFF, and PLAINTIFF has been damaged thereby in the sum according to proof by reason of the negligence-of THC. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment) 58. PLAINTIFF repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1- 57 as if set forth fully herein. d 59. As previously stated in this Complaint, THC has required PLAINTIFF to pay his rent by either money order or cashier's check, causing PLAINTIFF to incur additional monetary and time expenses when paying rent, even though it is THC who is reaping the “benefit” of said additional expense. PLAINTIFF attempted to pay his rent to THC via personal check to avoid said additional expenses, inconveniences, and risks - but DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 1910 1" 2 13 “ 8 16 7 18 19 at 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 THC has denied PLAINTIFF’s request (on December 10 2018 and at other times), while deferring to the lease agreement which PLAINTIFF signed under substantial duress, which states PLAINTIFF must pay his rent to THC via money order or cashier's check. | 60. THC has, through its wrongful conduct as described in this Complaint, reaped profits from the monies belonging to PLAINTIFF, and in so doing has caused PLAINTIFF to suffer monetary losses, all of which damages and costs were not only, foreseeable but were the intended consequences of THC’s actions. 61. Based on the facts as alleged herein and as proven at trial, in equity and good conscience, it would be unconscionable and otherwise unjust for THC to enrich itself at ‘the expense of PLAINTIFF, in addition to the fact that Civil|Code § 3521 explicitly states ‘that, “He who takes the benefit must bear the burden”. 62. As a proximate result of the conduct of THC as herein alleged, PLAINTIFF has incurred damages in that PLAINTIFF has been induced fo pay rent via money order, ‘which has caused PLAINTIFF to incur additional expenses and inconveniences, as well as additional financial and safety risks, in addition to a decreased motivation to seek employment, all by reason of which PLAINTIFF has been damaged in an amount according to proof at time of trial, including interest and coms. ETH.GAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary on | 63. PLAINTIFF repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1- 62 as if set forth fully herein. 64, PLAINTIFF is a tenant of THC: As such, THC owed, and continues to owe, a fiduciary duty to PLAINTIFF. I 65. THC breached the fiduciary duty through the conduct alleged above, by failing to conduct itself as a reasonably prudent “Supportive” housing management organization, and by otherwise engaging in the course of conduct alleged herein. In addition, shortly before PLAINTIFF took possession of the PREMISES, THC chose to promote the manager of PLAINTIFF's SRO hotel into a new and generally-unrelated role, and did so DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for injunctions and Damages - 2010 " 12 1B “4 6 16 "7 8 19 20 a 3 25 26 27 “before” finding a suitable full-time replacement for said manager, thus “actively” bringing PLAINTIFF's SRO hotel toward a state of chaos and disarray. 66. The above course of conduct was, pursued without due regard for and in reckless and conscious disregard of the financial and psychological circumstances of| PLAINTIFF and resulting damage to PLAINTIFF. 67. THC pursued such course of conduct intentionally and maliciously while unconscionably disregarding the rights of PLAINTIFF, with reckless disregard of the likelinood of causing PLAINTIFF damage, to further their own economic interests at the expense of PLAINTIFF's interests. 68. As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of defendant as herein alleged, PLAINTIFF has incurred the aforementioned damages, all by reason of which PLAINTIFF has been damaged in at least the sum in excess of the jurisdictional amount of this Court, plus attorneys fees and costs, and additional amounts according to proof at time of trial. ‘SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Constructive Fraud) 69. PLAINTIFF repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1- 68 as if set forth fully herein. 70. THC owed PLAINTIFF fiduciary duties because PLAINTIFF, a vulnerable, mental-health-challenged individual possessing a history of chronic homelessness, reasonably and justifiably reposed trust and confidence in THC’s self-purported integrity and fidelity which is currently advertised on its company Linkedin profile as being an organization that “..provides housing and comprehensive services that help disenfranchised low-income people in San Francisco increase stability...” as well as one which offers “..supportive housing to formerly homeless single adults, many of which have mental health, medical and/or substance abuse issues...” 71. As PLAINTIFF’s fiduciary, THC owed him the utmost duty of care, including the duty to fully disclose every material fact within its knowledge of which PLAINTIFF was ignorant. ~ DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for injunctions and Damages - 2110 " 2 B “ 6 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 25 26 27 28 72. On or about December 19 2018, THC represented to PLAINTIFF, in writing, that: it did not receive Grievance One. Either THC failed to investigate the whereabouts of Grievance One with a reasonable degree of competency, or it deliberately attempted to deceive PLAINTIFF. Either way, THC concealed critical facts that led to consequences for PLAINTIFF. 73. THC had no reasonable grounds for representing to PLAINTIFF that Grievance: One was never received, as PLAINTIFF: A) informed at least three (3) THC employees of said grievance via email on or about August 3 2018 (THC's Grievances Manager; PLAINTIFF'S Case Manager; and, THC’s Services Manager); B) Visited THC’s 472 Turk Street office in person on or about August 3 2018 and formally filed Grievance One during a meeting with two THC employees (PLAINTIFF's Building Manager; and, THC's Housing Counselor); and, C) Followed up with THC on the status of Grievance One, doing so in writing, on or about October 15 2048 and November 1 2018. 74, PLAINTIFF reasonably relied on THC’s representations because of its approximately 40 years of experience and expertise in managing “Supportive” SRO hotels, its formal grievance and RA policies which were included in PLAINTIFF's lease paperwork packet, as well as its pre-existing relationship with CCSF. PLAINTIFF had no reason to suspect THC would not respond to his grievances, RA request, maintenance requests and service requests, and behave in the generally concerning manner described above. 75. PLAINTIFF's reliance on THC’'s false representations caused him the serious aforementioned harm. 76. THC’s false representations and PLAINTIFF's reasonable reliance thereon were substantial factors in causing PLAINTIFF harm. 77. THC’s managers, directors, and officers knew that THC was non-responsive to PLAINTIFF's grievances, requests for RA, maintenance requests and service requests, and knew the serious risk of harm posed by ignoring repeated cries for help from a mental-health-challenged tenant. As such, THC’s actions were malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent within the meaning of Civil Code § 3294, thereby justifying the imposition of exemplary damages. DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 2210 " 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 at 23 25 28 ar SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Business Practices, Bus & Prof. Code, § 17200, et seq.) 78. PLAINTIFF repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-77 as if set forth fully herein d 79. Business and Professions Code § 17200 states, in pertinent part: “...unfair| competition shall mean and include any unlawtul, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with § 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” 80. UNFAIR CONDUCT: At all times mentioned herein, THC engaged in ‘unfair’ business practices because its conduct was immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially damaging to PLAINTIFF. Specifically, and without limitation, the particular offensive conduct includes THC: creating business practices which encourage its tenants to wait in physically dangerous lines outside of its 472 Turk Street office for unduly long periods of time of up to approximately one hour, under uncomfortable weather conditions, each and every month, in order to pay their rent and/or receive their monthly government benefit check from THC - with a danger factor so high, that THC has gone as far as to retain armed, off-duty police officers to stand guard immediately inside of THC’s 472 Turk Street office during THC’s benefit check distribution and rent payment activities. adopting a relatively new maintenance work order policy (on or about August 2019) where THC no longer provides work order request receipts to tenants who request maintenance work orders - which thus allows THC the opportunity to more easily conceal and/or dispute the date and time a tenant made a maintenance request, and‘to more easily claim that a maintenance request was. never made to begin with. + currently preventing its tenants from freely expressing themselves when submitting grievances, by forcing its tenants fo begin their grievance with pre- DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for injunctions and Damages - 2310 " 2 13 14 8 16 7 18 19 at 23 24 ar 28 determined “response themes” designed by THC, which violate its tenants’ First Amendment right to freedom of expression unfairly representing itself as a “Supportive” Housing organization, which implies some degree of regulation of, or licensure for, its offering, which is clearly false and misleading + adopting the practice of promoting employees “before” finding realistic replacements for said promoted employees, which has allowed THC to retain said employees at the expense of service quality, while also jeopardizing tenant, safety, security and well-being. + Forcing its tenants to pay their monthly rent to THC via money order (or cashiers check), thus collectively punishing tenants, and requiring that its tenants bear the avoidable burden of each rent payment transaction which includes: the cost of said money order (or cashier’s check), the time and energy needed to obtain said money order (or cashier's check), the time and energy needed to travel to. THC's 472 Turk Street office to deliver said money order (or cashier's check) to. THC, the aforementioned physical and psychological risks associated with standing in line outside of said office while waiting to pay said money order (or cashier's check), all in addition to any time a working tenant must request off of work in order to pay said money order (or cashier's check) to THC during THC’s normal business hours, which do “not” include the lunch hour period, as THC’s 472 Turk street office is closed during the lunch hour. 81. FRAUDULENT CONDUCT. At all times mentioned herein, THC engaged in “fraudulent” business practices because members of the public, in addition to THC’s existing and potential donors, as well as the government entities which interface and contract with THC, are likely to be deceived as a result of the conduct alleged herein. 82. As a direct and proximate result of THC’s wrongful acts, PLAINTIFF suffered harm and losses as described herein and in amounts to be proved at trial. PLAINTIFF therefore seeks restitution from THC. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Selection) DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 2410 " 12 13 14 18 16 7 18 19 a 23 24 25 26 ar 28 83. PLAINTIFF repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1- 82 as if set forth fully herein. 84. THC selected PENA as a pseudo-manager for PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF’s fellow CAAP workfare participants whom performed their workfare assignment at THC’s 48 Turk Street office. THC was familiar with the nature of the CAAP workfare program, as THC had begun a formal workfare partnership with CCSF before PLAINTIFF began his assignment with THC. THC was also familiar with PLAINTIFF, as PENA personally interviewed PLAINTIFF shortly before THC entered into a written workfare contract with PLAINTIFF on or about October 23 2017. PLAINTIFF knew that THC was identified by CCSF as an ‘administrative-labor" worksite (as opposed to a “physical-labor” worksite) after PLAINTIFF viewed CCSF's list of recommended worksites, and thus relied on said list for reasons of screening and approval, as PLAINTIFF preferred an administrative- labor worksite. This, along with the fact that PLAINTIFF was interviewed “only” by PENA prior to beginning his assignment with THC, are reasons why PLAINTIFF chose THC as a workfare site, 85. PLAINTIFF would not have accepted an offer to perform-his CAAP workfare at! THC had he been advised of PENA’s diminished cognitive capacity and abusive personality characteristics. PENA was not an acceptable pseudo-manager, due to several factors which even a cursory screening would have disclosed; including, among other things, that PENA is mentally-disabled and possesses an Intellectual Quotient (IQ) level insufficient to manage a team of CAAP workfare participants, many of whom are struggling with their own mental health challenges which require that they be very carefully supervised and managed. PLAINTIFF certainly would not have begun his CAAP workfare assignment with THC had he known of THC’s ineffective and negligent human resources management program, in addition to the fact that PENA was residing in a Supportive housing facility at the time PLAINTIFF began his workfare assignment /with THC. 86. THC owed the vulnerable and disadvantaged PLAINTIFF, who relied on THC for acceptable workfare conditions, a duty of care to provide a reasonable work environment. That duty arose once THC began its partnership with CCSF. THC undoubtedly had a duty to reasonably vet and develop PENA before placing PENA into ~Disiacomo v THO ~ Gomplan fr injunctions and Damages -2510 " 12 13 14 16 16 7 18 19 at 23 24 25 27 28 a role that allowed predatory PENA significant influence over the fragile mental health conditions of THC's CAAP workfare participants, including PLAINTIFF. 87. Approving PENA was a reckless, negligent action which falls well below the ‘standard of care to conduct reasonable screening. 88. PLAINTIFF reasonably trusted and relied on THC to screen all proposed managers and pseudo-managers, including PENA. 89. THC did not disclose that PENA was afflicted with a condition that usually’ requires treatment with medication and/or therapy, and which could have devastating consequences for a CAAP workfare participant. 90.Had THC disclosed the fact that PENA was socially and intellectually challenged, in addition to disclosing warning signs evidenced from the rate of tumover THC had previously experienced within its CAAP workfare program under PENA's pseudo-leadership, PLAINTIFF would not have ventured the risk of performing his workfare assignment for THC, only to have to terminate said assignment shortly thereafter, due to workfare-assignment-related stressors. 91. The selection of PENA as PLAINTIFF’s workfare pseudo-manager was reckless, wanton, negligent and a breach of THC’s assumed and legally-imposed duty to carefully screen, investigate, monitor and develop its employees. 92. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of THC as alleged hereinabove, PLAINTIFF was damaged and continues to suffer the damages described in numbered paragraph fourteen (14) of this Complaint, all to his general damages in the sum according to proof, as THC’s breached duties were a substantial factor in causing the aforementioned harm. 93. PLAINTIFF’s damages continue and are not finally calculated, known or currently able to be quantified, which will be more particularly determined according to proof at trial. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as follows: 1. For a permanent injunction compelling THC to modify its Tenant Grievance Form ‘so that the document does not violate PLAINTIFF's First Amendment right to freedom DiGiacomo v. THC — Complaint for Inunctions and Damages - 2610 1" 2 13 4 18 16 7 18 19 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 of expression, as it currently forces PLAINTIFF into pre-determined “response themes” designed by THC; 2. For a permanent injunction compelling THC to refrain from posting paper-based notices onto the front door of PLAINTIFF, and, instead, notifying PLAINTIFF of any reasonably necessary information either via email OR via a dry-erase whiteboard permanently mounted onto PLAINTIFF’s front door OR via a reusable laminated document that is temporarily mounted onto PLAINTIFF's front door, 3. For a permanent injunction compelling THC to provide a receipt via email to PLAINTIFF any time PLAINTIFF requests a maintenance work order, providing said receipt to PLAINTIFF within twenty four (24) hours after the work order is requested by PLAINTIFF; 4. For a permanent injunction compelling THC to allow PLAINTIFF at least forty eight (48) hours to view any document THC wishes PLAINTIFF to sign, before asking PLAINTIFF to sign said document; 5. For a permanent injunction compelling THC to allow PLAINTIFF to pay his rent to THC via personal check or EFT, and to allow PLAINTIFF to do so until PLAINTIFF bounces a personal check (or EFT payment) with THC on two (2) or more occasions. After said second personal check (or EFT payment) bounces, PLAINTIFF would then be required to pay his rent to THC via money order (or cashier's check) for a probationary period of one (1) year. If PLAINTIFF is able to make all rent payments to THC on time, and in full, during said probationary period, PLAINTIFF would then be able to resume a personal check or EFT rent payment method, in order to pay his monthly rent to THC each month; 6. For a permanent injunction compelling THC to provide PLAINTIFF his portion of PLAINTIFF's monthly government benefit to PLAINTIFF via EFT each month into PLAINTIFF's personal checking account; 7. For general and special damages according to proof, 8. For medical and related expenses, according to proof, 9. For lost earnings, past and future, according to proof; 10. For exemplary and punitive damages; DiGiacomo v. THC = Complaint for Injunctions and Damages - 2710 " R B “ 6 16 7 ® 9 20 a 24 25 28 11. For restitution and treble damages under Civil Code § 3345 (Seventh Cause of| Action only); 12. For costs of suit incurred herein; and, ¢ 13.For such other and further relief as the court may de Dated: February OF, 2020 faymond V. DiGiaborfio, Jr. Plaintiff in Pro Per DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFF hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues triable as a right by jury. Dated: February 05”; 2020 ‘aymond V. DiGiacomo, Jr. Plaintiff in Pro Per VERIFICATION. |, Raymond Vincent DiGiacomo, Jr. am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. | have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and, as to those matters, | believe it to be true. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: February OT ,2020 Plaintiff in Pro Per DiGiacomo v. THE — Complaint for njnclons and Damages - 28Exhibit 1 Defendant THC’s Response Times Issue Submitted |Resolved Response Time |Vacuuming of Hallway |7/2218 [10/4/18 74 days Grievance 4 8318 216/19 187 days (157 days late) Bathroom Door Lock [8/20/18 _|11/15/18 (approx.) [87 days (approx.) RA 9/618 2/6/19 153 days (148 days late) Grievance 2 tans [12228 50 days (30 days late) Compost Service yee = | 8/27/19 261 days Reduction Bathroom Trash Can [12/21/18 [8/30/19 252 days Removal Wobbly Toilet Base [8/2/19 None 186 days (and counting...) Shower Head Leak —|1/6/2020 | None 27 days (and counting...)- cw-010 ARS RETA ES ei Fon counTistORT 66 Geary Street #414 San Francisco, CA 94108 Sele Represented veusmore to: 415-595-4107 te arrose ron pan: Seif’ Represented lsuPenior COURT oF causronwla, counTY oF San Francisco steceraconess: 400 McAllister St. wauine sores: 400 McAllister St. cirymoze cove. San Francisco, CA 94102 ‘CASE NAME: DiGiacomo v. Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Ine. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation Unlimited — [_] Limited one poe counter =) Joinder ‘somanded Gemandedis | Filed wth fst appearance by defendant ‘excoods $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Cour, rule 3402) ——_|_oerr ‘tems 1-6 bolow must be completed (s6e instructions on page 2). fi- Check one box below forthe case type that best describes this case: Ato Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (EY auto 22) ey soe of conractarany (8) (Cal. Rules of Coun, ules 3.403.403) ‘Uninsured motorist (46) [1 Rule 3.740 cottectons (08) TE) Antirust rade regutation (03) Other PUPDIWD (Personal Injury/Property [| Onercoletons (09) >) construction detect (10) Damage/Wrongtul Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) TE) sass tort (40) ‘chess (04) TI oer convact (7) TS secures nigaton (20) Product ability (24) Real Property E Environmentattexic tor (20) Masical malpacton (48) TE nine domainiverse TF nsurance coverage cans ars rom the Other PUPDIWD (29) eendemnaton (1) above listed provonalycompax case 7] wrongtut eviction (33) ‘types (41) tusess lornia business pracice (7) [] Ober real ropery 26) Enforcement of Judgment Civil ights (08) Unlawful Detainer (3) Enforcement of judgment (20) Defamation (13) TI commercial (91) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud (16) CJ Resicentiat (32) CO rico Intellectual property (18) 1 orgs) 1 other compoit (nt specied above) (42) Profession regigence (25) dict Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition ‘ther non-PUPDIWVD tort (35) =| ‘Asset forflture (05) ‘Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petton re: abiration award (11) J Wrongrl termination (36) [J] wit otmandate (02) Se 1 other employment (18) Totter ia ren (99) 2 Thiscase [_Jis [¥Tisnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judic'al management: 2.2] Large number of separately represented parties. [_] Large number of witnesses. ».[] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel ¢. [__] Coordination with retated actions pending in one or more courts Issues that will be time-consuming to resolve In other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court [7] Substantial amount of documentary evidence t. [1 substantial postiudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. 4, Number of causes of action (specify): 8 5. Thiscase [_Jis isnot a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of reiated cp Date: 02 [0S [20 Raymond V. DiGiacomo, Ir. TEE OR NTT monetary .[7] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief. (7 ] punitive NOTICE + Plaintif must fle this cover sheet withthe first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except smali aims cases of Gases fled under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Insttutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Cour, rule 3.220,) Faure to fle may result In sanctions. * File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rue, * If tis case is complex under rule 3.400 et seg. ofthe Calforna Rules of Cour, you must serve a copy ofthis cover sheet on all ‘other parties tothe action or proceeding, + Uriess this s a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet willbe used for statistical purposes only [ae CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET SES aaa ‘tatoo iy 207 wcnotno capeSUMMONS For courr use omy (CITACION JUDICIAL) |) See eee! NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): Tenderloin Housing Cini, Ine.; and, DOES 1 through 100, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Raymond Vincent DiGiacomo, Jr. INOTICET Vou fave beer sued. The court may decide agalnat you wiout your bang Feard unless you respond win 00 daye. Road the Infomation bei. "You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS aftr this summons and legal papers are served on you to fea wen response at this court and have a copy Jered on the paint. letter ar phone cal wil not protect you. Your wien response must ben proper legal orm you want the court to hear your leas. There may be scour form that you can use for your response. You can ind these cout forms and mor information a the Galeria Courts [Cnine Sal-Help Centar (wan. cournfe.c.govieetfhep), your count law lrary, or the courthouse nearest you, Ifyou cannot pay the fing fee, ask the lourt der fora foe waiver form. If you donot fle your response on time, you may lse te ease by default and your wages, money, and propery may be taken without further warning from the cour. “There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attomey right away. Ifyou do net know an attomey, you may want to call an alorney reteral service. you cannot afford an attorney, you may be elie fr free egal services trom a nonprofit legal services program. You can locale ltrese nonprott groups atthe California Legal Sovices Web site (sa Jownelpcalfomia.r), the Calera Courts Online Sell-Help Center |woew.courtnf.ca.gow'soifelp), or by contacting you local court or county bar association. NOTE: The cout has a statutory len for waved fees and [cass on any settee or arivaion award of $10,000 or more ina ii case. The courts len must be paid betare the cour wil amiss the ease |;AViSOr Lo han demandado. Sine responde dentro de 30 das, la corte puede deck en su contra sin escuchar su vers. Lea fa nformacisn @ Jentinuacisn, Tlone 90 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despubs de quo le enttequen esta ltacén y papales legals para presontar una respuesta por escrito en esta core y hacer que se enrogue una copia al domardanto. Una carta 0 une llamada (aloférica no protegon. Su respuesta por eecrto tone quo estar lon formato legal corecto si desea que procesen su caso en la core. Es posible que haya un Formulario que usted puede Usar para su respuesta [Puede encontrar estos formularios de fe corte y mas informacion en ol Conro de Ayuda dela Cortes de Catorna (wn. cucorto.ca gov, nf Jisiotoca do teyes de su condado 0 en a corte quo le quede ms cara. Sino puede pags la cuota de presentacin, pid a secrete doa cote que) le a6 un formufrio de exencion de pag de cuotas. Sino presonta su raspuesta a tompo, puede perder e caso por Incumplimiento y la corte e oda lautar su suet, cine y biones sin mas advertonas Hay oes requisites legals. Es recomendable que lame a un abogade inmediatamente. Sine conoce aun abogade, puede llamar a un servicio de lemision 2 abogados. Sino puede pagar aun abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requists pare obtener servicios legeles gratulos do un laograma de servicios legates sin nes de wero. Puede encontrar estos grpes sin nes de lucro an so web de Calla Legal Services, (Gr Jawholecalomia.org), en al Cant de Ayuda do la Cortes de Calfomia, (www. sucare.ca.gov) 0 poniendose en contac con la cate 0 61 Icoleno de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ey, a core one derecho @ rectamar las cual y 1s cosios exenlgs por inponer un gravamen sobre |valguiorrecuperacién de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida medtante un acuerdo o una concesion de abi on un caso de dorocho av. Tone que [pagar 0 gravameon dela cae antes de que la corte puede desechar el caso Ginanoeyaecenceecowes: WO uedtew Soa sonFenc,coong OE EO HOC ET OS ‘The name, address, and telephone numberof plant's attorney, or plantif without an attorney, is: (EI nombre, direccion y el nimero de telsfono del abogado de! demandante, ode! demandante que no tiene abogado, 0s): Raymond Viagrt acme, eB Geary Suet ats San Francaso GA 9108 sass06.107 oa exes [ua ry ; "oem, aS CLERKOFTHECOURT Sey, Af oy, (For proof of service ofthis summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (orm POS-010)) WO (Para prueba de entroga de esta cittén use ol frmulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010).) NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 4. [asa individual defendant. 2. [asthe person sued under the fttious name of (speci 3. [Jon behaif of (pect under: [] cP 416.10 (corporation) [5 cee 416.60 (minor) [J Cor 416.20 (defunct corporation) [Ecce 416.70 (consenatee) [] cop 416.40 (association or partnership) [=] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) [] other (spect): 4. [1 by personal deivery on (date) eres ‘SUMMONS eto Panto Hatz Eines ery So,