5‬

‭ ICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬
M
‭Phone‬‭Number‬‭(818)964-6262‬
‭Email‬‭Address:‬‭Mikecrob53@gmail.com‬
‭In‬‭Pro‬‭Per‬

‭SUPERIOR‬‭COURT‬‭OF‬‭THE‬‭STATE‬‭OF‬‭CALIFORNIA‬

‭COUNTY‬‭OF‬‭LOS‬‭ANGELES‬

‭BURBANK‬‭COURTHOUSE‬

‭VAHE‬‭BONOUGHOUNIAN‬‭d.b.a‬‭AUTO‬ )‭ ‬ C ‭ ROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬
‭)‬
‭OUTLET‬ ‭)‬ ‭Case‬‭No.:‬‭23BBCV0068‬
‭)‬
‭Plaintiff,‬ ‭)‬
‭)‬ ‭1.‬ B ‭ REACH‬‭OF‬‭ORAL‬‭CONTRACT‬
‭vs.‬ ‭)‬ ‭2.‬ ‭SPECIFIC‬‭PERFORMANCE‬
‭)‬
‭ROBERT‬‭COLLINS,‬ ‭)‬ ‭3.‬ ‭DECLARATORY‬‭JUDGMENT‬
‭)‬ ‭4.‬ ‭UNLAWFUL‬‭EVICTION‬
‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬ ‭)‬
‭)‬
‭Defendant(s)‬ ‭)‬
‭)‬
‭)‬
‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬ )
‭ ‬ ‭5.‬
‭)‬
‭Cross‬‭Complainant,‬ ‭)‬
‭)‬
‭vs.‬ ‭)‬
‭)‬
‭ OBERT‬‭COLLINS,‬
R ‭)‬
‭)‬
‭Cross-Defendant‬ ‭)‬
‭)‬
‭)‬
‭)‬
‭)‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭1‬
5‬
‭

‭Defendant‬‭and‬‭Cross‬‭Complainant‬‭Michael‬‭Collins‬‭(“Cross-Complainant”)‬‭hereby‬

‭complains‬‭against‬‭Co-Defendant‬‭and‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭(“Cross-Defendant”)‬‭Robert‬‭Collins‬‭as‬

‭follows:‬

‭SUMMARY‬‭OF‬‭CROSS-COMPLAINT‬

‭1.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭desired‬‭to‬‭purchase‬‭an‬‭investment‬‭property‬‭for‬‭renovation‬

‭and‬‭resale‬‭but‬‭lacked‬‭the‬‭necessary‬‭credit‬‭to‬‭secure‬‭a‬‭home‬‭loan.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬

‭assisted‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭in‬‭purchasing‬‭the‬‭property‬‭in‬‭his‬‭name.‬‭The‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭moved‬‭into‬‭the‬‭property‬‭immediately‬‭and‬‭used‬‭his‬‭earnings‬‭as‬‭a‬‭roofing‬

‭contractor‬‭to‬‭purchase‬‭renovation‬‭materials.‬‭Over‬‭three‬‭years,‬‭he‬‭paid‬‭the‬‭mortgage‬‭and‬

‭renovated‬‭the‬‭property,‬‭accumulating‬‭over‬‭$300,000‬‭in‬‭equity.‬

‭2.‬ ‭Upon‬‭substantial‬‭completion‬‭of‬‭the‬‭renovations,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭requested‬

‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭to‬‭list‬‭the‬‭house‬‭for‬‭sale‬‭with‬‭a‬‭minimum‬‭price‬‭of‬‭$500,000.‬‭After‬‭the‬

‭property‬‭was‬‭sold,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendants‬‭did‬‭not‬‭provide‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭proceeds‬‭to‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭as‬‭expected.‬‭Instead,‬‭they‬‭evaded‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭and‬‭continually‬

‭made‬‭excuses‬‭for‬‭why‬‭they‬‭could‬‭not‬‭release‬‭the‬‭funds.‬

‭3.‬ ‭After‬‭several‬‭months‬‭of‬‭delays‬‭and‬‭excuses‬‭from‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendants,‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭initiated‬‭legal‬‭proceedings‬‭to‬‭recover‬‭the‬‭money‬‭from‬‭the‬‭property‬‭sale.‬

‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭responded‬‭by‬‭withholding‬‭the‬‭funds‬‭needed‬‭for‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant's‬‭ongoing‬‭dental‬‭treatments‬‭and‬‭threatened‬‭to‬‭disinherit‬‭him‬‭if‬‭he‬

‭proceeded‬‭with‬‭the‬‭lawsuit.‬

‭1.‬ ‭After‬‭several‬‭months‬‭of‬‭delays‬‭and‬‭excuses‬‭from‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendants,‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭initiated‬‭legal‬‭proceedings‬‭to‬‭recover‬‭the‬‭money‬‭from‬‭the‬‭property‬‭sale.‬

‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭responded‬‭by‬‭withholding‬‭the‬‭funds‬‭needed‬‭for‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant's‬‭ongoing‬‭dental‬‭treatments‬‭and‬‭threatened‬‭to‬‭disinherit‬‭him‬‭if‬‭he‬

‭proceeded‬‭with‬‭the‬‭lawsuit.‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭2‬
5‬
‭

‭2.‬ ‭As‬‭a‬‭result‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭actions,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭voluntarily‬

‭withdrew‬‭the‬‭legal‬‭proceedings‬‭upon‬‭the‬‭release‬‭of‬‭the‬‭funds‬‭for‬‭his‬‭dental‬‭work.‬‭An‬‭oral‬

‭agreement‬‭was‬‭made‬‭between‬‭the‬‭between‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭and‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭that‬

‭all‬‭the‬‭money‬‭from‬‭the‬‭property‬‭sale‬‭would‬‭be‬‭deposited‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭into‬‭his‬

‭IRA‬‭(Individual‬‭Retirement‬‭Account)‬‭and/or‬‭other‬ ‭financial‬‭accounts,‬‭as‬‭long‬‭as‬‭the‬

‭accounts‬‭listed‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭as‬‭the‬‭sole‬‭beneficiary‬‭with‬‭transfer-on-death‬‭payment‬

‭terms.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendants‬‭also‬‭promised‬‭as‬‭part‬‭of‬‭the‬‭same‬‭oral‬‭agreement‬‭to‬‭set‬‭up‬‭an‬

‭account(s)‬‭from‬‭which‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭could‬‭withdraw‬‭funds‬‭from‬‭the‬‭proceeds‬‭of‬

‭the‬‭sale‬‭as‬‭needed‬‭or‬‭in‬‭emergencies.‬

‭3.‬ ‭After‬‭the‬‭purchase‬‭the‬‭truck‬‭starting‬‭having‬‭mechanical‬‭issues‬‭causing‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭to‬‭miss‬‭work.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭suggested‬‭that‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭trade‬‭in‬‭his‬‭pickup‬‭truck‬‭for‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck‬‭with‬‭a‬‭warranty‬‭and‬‭offered‬‭to‬

‭pay‬‭the‬‭balance‬‭after‬‭the‬‭trade-in.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭accepted‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬

‭offer‬‭to‬‭pay‬‭the‬‭difference‬‭on‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck‬‭and‬‭sold‬‭his‬‭truck‬‭to‬‭Simi‬‭Valley‬‭Chevrolet‬‭for‬

‭$6,000,‬‭putting‬‭the‬‭money‬‭towards‬‭the‬‭down‬‭payment‬‭on‬‭a‬‭new‬‭2019‬‭Chevy‬‭Colorado‬‭Z71‬

‭truck.‬

‭4.‬ ‭After‬‭subtracting‬‭the‬‭$6000‬‭from‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainants‬‭down‬‭payment‬‭from‬‭the‬

‭purchase‬‭price‬‭of‬‭the‬‭new‬‭truck,‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭paid‬‭the‬‭balance‬ ‭by‬‭negotiating‬‭an‬

‭installment‬‭contract‬‭with‬‭the‬‭dealership.‬‭Although‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭purchased‬‭the‬‭truck‬

‭exclusively‬‭for‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭the‬‭dealership‬‭put‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭name‬‭on‬‭the‬

‭registration‬‭because‬‭he‬‭had‬‭financed‬‭his‬‭portion‬‭of‬‭the‬‭truck's‬‭purchase‬‭price‬‭instead‬‭of‬

‭paying‬‭cash‬‭like‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭took‬‭immediate‬‭possession‬

‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭and‬‭had‬‭exclusive‬‭use,‬‭except‬‭for‬‭one‬‭time‬‭when‬‭he‬‭allowed‬‭his‬‭brother‬‭to‬‭use‬

‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭after‬‭he‬‭was‬‭arrested‬‭and‬‭incarcerated‬‭on‬‭an‬‭old‬‭outstanding‬‭warrant.‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭3‬
5‬
‭

‭5.‬ ‭Starting‬‭from‬‭the‬‭date‬‭the‬‭property‬‭sold‬‭until‬‭present‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭only‬

‭withdrew‬‭about‬‭$40,000‬‭from‬‭the‬‭accounts‬‭and‬‭spent‬‭a‬‭lot‬‭of‬‭the‬‭time‬‭in‬‭jail‬‭as‬‭a‬‭result‬‭of‬‭his‬

‭drug‬‭addictions.‬‭However,‬‭he‬‭eventually‬‭turned‬‭his‬‭life‬‭around‬‭and‬‭in‬‭2019‬ ‭moved‬‭in‬‭with‬

‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭secured‬‭a‬‭job‬‭as‬‭a‬‭roofing‬‭inspector‬‭after‬

‭moving‬‭in‬‭with‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭and‬‭purchased‬‭a‬‭used‬‭truck‬‭for‬‭$6,500‬ ‭using‬‭some‬‭of‬

‭the‬‭funds‬‭being‬‭held‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant.‬

‭6.‬ ‭After‬‭the‬‭purchase‬‭the‬‭truck‬‭started‬‭having‬‭mechanical‬‭issues‬‭causing‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭to‬‭miss‬‭work.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭suggested‬‭that‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭trade‬‭in‬‭his‬‭pickup‬‭truck‬‭for‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck‬‭with‬‭a‬‭warranty‬‭and‬‭offered‬‭to‬

‭pay‬‭the‬‭balance‬‭after‬‭the‬‭trade-in.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭accepted‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬

‭offer‬‭to‬‭pay‬‭the‬‭difference‬‭on‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck‬‭and‬‭sold‬‭his‬‭truck‬‭to‬‭Simi‬‭Valley‬‭Chevrolet‬‭for‬

‭$6,000,‬‭putting‬‭the‬‭money‬‭towards‬‭the‬‭down‬‭payment‬‭on‬‭a‬‭new‬‭2019‬‭Chevy‬‭Colorado‬‭Z71‬

‭truck.‬

‭7.‬ ‭After‬‭subtracting‬‭the‬‭$6000‬‭from‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainants‬‭down‬‭payment‬‭from‬‭the‬

‭purchase‬‭price‬‭of‬‭the‬‭new‬‭truck,‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭paid‬‭the‬‭balance‬ ‭by‬‭negotiating‬‭an‬

‭installment‬‭contract‬‭with‬‭the‬‭dealership.‬‭Although‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭purchased‬‭the‬‭truck‬

‭exclusively‬‭for‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭the‬‭dealership‬‭put‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭name‬‭on‬‭the‬

‭registration‬‭because‬‭he‬‭had‬‭financed‬‭his‬‭portion‬‭of‬‭the‬‭truck's‬‭purchase‬‭price‬‭instead‬‭of‬

‭paying‬‭cash‬‭like‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭took‬‭immediate‬‭possession‬

‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭and‬‭had‬‭exclusive‬‭use,‬‭except‬‭for‬‭one‬‭time‬‭when‬‭he‬‭allowed‬‭his‬‭brother‬‭to‬‭use‬

‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭after‬‭he‬‭was‬‭arrested‬‭and‬‭incarcerated‬‭on‬‭an‬‭old‬‭outstanding‬‭warrant.‬

‭8.‬ ‭When‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭was‬‭released‬‭from‬‭jail,‬‭he‬‭regained‬‭immediate‬

‭possession‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭and‬‭retained‬‭exclusive‬‭use‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭until‬‭he‬‭attempted‬‭to‬‭sell‬‭it‬

‭to‬‭the‬‭plaintiff‬‭in‬‭2022.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭attempted‬‭to‬‭sell‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭after‬‭he‬‭was‬‭laid‬

‭off‬‭from‬‭work‬‭in‬‭2019‬‭due‬‭to‬‭coronavirus‬‭pandemic‬‭downsizing‬‭and‬‭became‬‭very‬‭sick.‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭4‬
5‬
‭

‭9.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭became‬‭unable‬‭to‬‭work‬‭due‬‭to‬‭a‬‭diagnosis‬‭of‬‭heart‬

‭valve‬‭failure‬‭that‬‭required‬‭a‬‭major‬ ‭heart‬‭valve‬‭replacement‬‭procedure.‬‭The‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭was‬‭concerned‬‭about‬‭how‬‭he‬‭would‬‭pay‬‭for‬‭accommodations‬‭during‬‭the‬

‭post-surgery‬‭recovery‬‭period‬‭because‬‭his‬‭father,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant,‬‭had‬‭sent‬‭him‬‭a‬‭text‬

‭stating‬‭that‬‭he‬‭could‬‭no‬‭longer‬‭reside‬‭at‬‭the‬‭residence.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭informed‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭that‬‭he‬‭had‬‭locked‬‭the‬‭doors‬‭and‬‭set‬‭the‬‭alarms,‬‭and‬‭that‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭would‬‭be‬‭arrested‬‭if‬‭he‬‭showed‬‭up‬‭at‬‭the‬‭place,‬‭even‬‭after‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭requested‬‭to‬‭retrieve‬‭his‬‭belongings.‬

‭10.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭evicted‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭without‬‭notice‬‭or‬‭cause‬‭after‬

‭an‬‭argument‬‭developed‬‭when‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭discovered‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬

‭had‬‭sold‬‭the‬‭house‬‭on‬‭White‬‭Oak‬‭for‬‭only‬‭$380,000‬‭instead‬‭of‬‭the‬‭agreed-upon‬‭amount‬‭of‬

‭$500,000,‬‭and‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭had‬‭removed‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭from‬‭his‬‭will.‬

‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭sold‬‭his‬‭truck‬‭to‬‭Auto‬‭Outlet,‬‭but‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭was‬‭nullified‬‭because‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant‬‭reported‬‭to‬‭the‬‭police‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭had‬‭forged‬‭his‬‭signature‬

‭and‬‭was‬‭attempting‬‭sell‬‭the‬‭truck‬‭without‬‭his‬‭permission‬

‭11.‬‭D‬‭espite‬‭the‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭had‬‭purchased‬‭the‬‭truck‬‭as‬‭a‬‭gift‬‭for‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭and‬‭had‬‭no‬‭ownership‬‭interest‬‭in‬‭the‬‭vehicle,‬‭these‬‭allegations‬‭resulted‬‭in‬

‭the‬‭police‬‭impounding‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭and‬‭subsequently‬‭releasing‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭to‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant.‬‭Additionally‬‭as‬‭a‬‭result‬‭of‬‭the‬‭cross-defendants‬‭conduct‬‭The‬‭plaintiff‬‭has‬

‭initiated‬‭the‬‭instant‬‭civil‬‭action‬‭against‬‭the‬‭cross‬‭complainant‬‭as‬‭a‬‭result‬‭of‬‭the‬‭police‬

‭impounding‬‭the‬‭vehicle.‬

‭12.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭has‬‭asked‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭to‬‭return‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭to‬

‭the‬‭plaintiff‬‭or‬‭pay‬‭the‬‭balance‬‭but‬‭has‬‭not‬‭received‬‭a‬‭favorable‬‭response‬‭from‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant.‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭5‬
5‬
‭

‭13.‬‭Instead,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭has‬‭additionally‬‭reported‬‭to‬‭the‬‭police‬‭that‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭withdrew‬‭money‬‭from‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭bank‬‭account‬‭without‬‭his‬

‭permission.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭withdrew‬‭money‬‭from‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭bank‬

‭account‬‭while‬‭he‬‭was‬‭in‬‭Las‬‭Vegas,‬‭Nevada.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭went‬‭to‬‭Nevada‬‭to‬‭stay‬

‭with‬‭a‬‭friend‬‭after‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭evicted‬‭him‬‭and‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭had‬‭nowhere‬

‭to‬‭go.‬

‭14.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭made‬‭these‬‭allegations‬‭to‬‭the‬‭police‬‭despite‬‭the‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭he‬

‭had‬‭previously‬‭given‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭a‬‭Bank‬‭of‬‭America‬‭ATM‬‭card‬‭and‬‭associated‬

‭PIN‬‭number‬‭so‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭could‬‭access‬‭funds‬‭when‬‭needed‬‭or‬‭in‬‭case‬‭of‬

‭emergencies.‬‭Because‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭allegations,‬‭the‬‭Ventura‬‭County‬‭District‬

‭Attorney's‬‭Office‬‭has‬‭filed‬‭criminal‬‭charges‬‭against‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬

‭GENERAL‬‭ALLEGATIONS‬

‭15.‬‭Cross‬‭Complainant‬‭is‬‭and‬‭at‬‭all‬‭times‬‭mentioned‬ ‭an‬‭individual‬‭that‬‭was‬‭residing‬

‭in‬‭the‬‭counties‬‭of‬‭Ventura‬‭and‬‭Los‬‭Angeles‬‭.‬ ‭Cross‬‭Complainant‬‭is‬‭the‬‭son‬‭of‬‭Cross‬

‭Defendant‬‭Robert‬‭Collins.‬

‭16.‬‭Cross‬‭Complainant‬‭is‬‭informed‬‭and‬‭believes‬‭and‬‭thereon‬‭alleges‬‭that‬‭Cross‬

‭Defendant‬‭is‬‭an‬‭individual‬‭who‬‭resides‬‭in‬‭the‬‭county‬‭of‬‭Ventura.‬ ‭Cross‬‭Defendant‬‭is‬‭the‬

‭father‬‭of‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭Michael‬‭Collins‬‭.‬

‭17.‬‭The‬‭true‬‭names‬‭and‬‭capacities‬‭of‬‭Cross‬‭Defendants‬‭ROES‬‭1-THRU‬‭50‬‭inclusive‬

‭whether‬‭individual,corporate,associate,‬‭or‬‭otherwise‬‭are‬‭unknown‬‭to‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭at‬

‭this‬‭time,who‬‭therefore‬‭sues‬‭said‬‭cross-defendants‬‭by‬‭such‬‭fictitious‬‭names‬‭and‬‭when‬‭the‬‭true‬

‭names‬‭and‬‭capacities‬‭of‬‭such‬‭Cross-Defendants‬‭are‬‭ascertained,‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭will‬‭seek‬

‭leave‬‭of‬‭court‬‭to‬‭amend‬‭this‬‭Cross-Complaint‬‭to‬‭assert‬‭same.‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭is‬‭informed‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭6‬
5‬
‭

‭and‬‭believes‬‭and‬‭thereon‬‭alleges‬‭that‬‭each‬‭CrossDefendant‬‭named‬‭as‬‭a‬ ‭ROE‬‭is‬‭responsible‬

‭for‬‭each‬‭of‬‭every‬‭act‬‭obligations‬‭set‬‭forth‬

‭18.‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭is‬‭informed‬‭and‬‭believes‬‭and‬‭thereon‬‭alleges‬‭that‬‭each‬

‭Cross-Defendant‬‭named‬‭in‬‭this‬‭cross-complaint‬‭was‬‭at‬‭all‬‭times‬‭was‬‭the‬

‭alto-egos,agents,employees,‬‭partners,joint‬‭ventures,co-conspirators,owners,principals,‬‭and‬

‭employees‬‭of‬‭the‬‭remaining‬‭cross-defendants,and‬‭each‬‭of‬‭them,and‬‭are‬‭at‬‭all‬‭times,herein‬

‭mentioned‬‭were‬‭acting‬‭within‬‭the‬‭scope‬‭and‬‭course‬‭of‬

‭the,agency,partnership,conspiracy,ownership,‬‭or‬‭employment.‬ ‭Cross-Defendant‬‭is‬‭further‬

‭informed‬‭that‬‭and‬‭believe,‬‭and‬‭,‬‭based‬‭on‬‭the‬‭belief‬‭upon‬‭such‬‭information‬‭and‬‭belief,allege‬

‭that‬‭the‬‭acts‬‭and‬‭conduct‬‭a;;edged‬‭of‬‭each‬‭Cross=Defendant‬‭were‬‭known‬‭to,authorized‬‭by‬

‭and/or‬‭ratified‬‭by‬‭the‬‭other.‬

‭FACTUAL‬‭ALLEGATIONS‬

‭19.‬ ‭In‬‭the‬‭year‬‭2002,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant,‬‭using‬‭his‬‭favorable‬‭credit‬‭rating,‬‭secured‬‭a‬

‭home‬‭loan‬‭with‬‭a‬‭low-interest‬‭rate‬‭for‬‭the‬‭purpose‬‭of‬‭purchasing‬‭an‬‭investment‬‭property‬

‭requiring‬‭renovation‬‭(hereinafter‬‭referred‬‭to‬‭as‬‭the‬‭"White‬‭Oak‬‭Property")‬‭for‬‭his‬‭son,‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant.‬‭The‬‭said‬‭property‬‭is‬‭located‬‭at‬‭6913‬‭White‬‭Oak‬‭Ave.,‬‭Reseda,‬‭California,‬

‭and‬‭was‬‭purchased‬‭for‬‭the‬‭sum‬‭of‬‭$209,000.‬

‭20.‬‭Prior‬‭to‬‭purchasing‬‭the‬‭White‬‭Oak‬‭property‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭entered‬‭into‬‭an‬

‭oral‬‭agreement‬‭with‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭to‬‭assist‬‭the‬‭latter‬‭in‬‭the‬‭purchase‬‭of‬‭the‬‭said‬

‭property.‬‭This‬‭agreement‬‭was‬‭made‬‭subsequent‬‭to‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭fulfilling‬‭his‬

‭promise‬‭to‬‭make‬‭all‬‭lease‬‭payments‬‭in‬‭a‬‭timely‬‭manner‬‭on‬‭the‬‭house‬‭he‬‭co-signed‬‭with‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant,‬‭saving‬‭up‬‭the‬‭money‬‭required‬‭for‬‭the‬‭down‬‭payment,‬‭and‬‭undertaking‬‭the‬

‭rebuilding‬‭and‬‭replacement‬‭of‬‭the‬‭roof‬‭on‬‭the‬‭large‬‭patio‬‭structure‬‭located‬‭in‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭backyard.‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭7‬
5‬
‭

‭21.‬‭t‬‭was‬‭necessary‬‭for‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭to‬‭purchase‬‭the‬‭property‬‭in‬‭his‬‭name‬‭to‬

‭secure‬‭a‬‭low-interest‬‭rate,‬‭given‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭did‬‭not‬‭possess‬‭the‬‭requisite‬

‭credit‬‭to‬‭obtain‬‭a‬‭home‬‭loan‬‭in‬‭his‬‭own‬‭name.‬

‭22.‬‭Pursuant‬‭to‬‭the‬‭verbal‬‭contract‬‭between‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭and‬

‭Cross-Defendant,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭agreed‬‭that‬‭the‬‭title‬‭of‬‭the‬‭property‬‭would‬‭be‬‭registered‬‭under‬‭the‬

‭name‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant.‬‭This‬‭arrangement‬‭was‬‭made‬‭for‬‭the‬‭benefit‬‭of‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭during‬‭the‬‭period‬‭of‬‭property‬‭renovation‬‭undertaken‬‭by‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭or‬‭until‬‭such‬‭time‬‭as‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭became‬‭eligible‬‭to‬‭have‬‭the‬

‭property‬‭title‬‭registered‬‭under‬‭his‬‭own‬‭name.‬

‭23.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant,‬‭at‬‭no‬‭point‬‭prior‬‭to‬‭the‬‭acquisition‬‭of‬‭the‬‭property,‬

‭disclosed‬‭to‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭any‬‭proprietary‬‭interest‬‭in‬‭the‬‭property.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defe‬

‭ndant's‬‭involvement‬‭was‬‭solely‬‭to‬‭aid‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭in‬‭the‬‭purchase‬‭of‬‭the‬‭property.‬

‭24.‬ ‭In‬‭addition‬‭to‬‭making‬‭the‬‭monthly‬‭mortgage‬‭payments,‬‭the‬‭Cross‬‭Complainant‬

‭alleges‬‭that‬‭he‬‭substantially‬‭improved‬‭the‬‭property.‬

‭25.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross‬‭Complainant‬‭asserts‬‭that‬‭these‬‭improvements‬‭were‬‭financed‬‭by‬‭the‬

‭income‬‭from‬‭his‬‭roofing‬‭company‬‭and‬‭were‬‭also‬‭a‬‭product‬‭of‬‭his‬‭personal‬‭labor.‬ ‭As‬‭a‬‭result‬

‭of‬‭these‬‭improvements‬‭and‬‭financial‬‭contributions,‬‭the‬‭Cross‬‭Complainant‬‭alleges‬‭that‬‭he‬

‭accumulated‬‭approximately‬‭$300,000‬‭in‬‭equity‬‭during‬‭the‬‭three‬‭years‬‭of‬‭his‬‭ownership‬‭of‬‭the‬

‭White‬‭Oak‬‭property.‬

‭26.‬ ‭In‬‭the‬‭year‬‭2005,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭made‬‭a‬‭request‬‭to‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬

‭to‬‭list‬‭the‬‭property‬‭for‬‭sale‬‭in‬‭order‬‭to‬‭liquidate‬‭the‬‭equity‬‭that‬‭had‬‭been‬‭accrued.‬‭This‬‭action‬

‭was‬‭necessitated‬‭by‬‭the‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭the‬‭property‬‭title‬‭was‬‭still‬‭under‬‭the‬‭name‬‭of‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭8‬
5‬
‭

‭27.‬ ‭As‬‭per‬‭the‬‭verbal‬‭agreement‬‭between‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭and‬

‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭the‬‭stipulation‬‭was‬‭that‬‭the‬‭property‬‭would‬‭not‬‭be‬‭sold‬‭for‬‭a‬‭price‬‭less‬

‭than‬‭its‬‭market‬‭value,‬‭which‬‭was‬‭$500,000.‬

‭28.‬ ‭Upon‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭of‬‭the‬‭property,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭and‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬

‭had‬‭an‬‭oral‬‭agreement‬‭that‬‭the‬‭proceeds‬‭from‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭would‬‭be‬‭deposited‬‭into‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendants‬‭Retirement‬‭Account‬‭(IRA)‬‭and‬‭other‬‭investment‬‭accounts.‬

‭29.‬ ‭In‬‭these‬‭accounts,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭was‬‭to‬‭be‬‭designated‬‭as‬‭the‬‭sole‬

‭beneficiary.‬‭The‬‭agreement‬‭also‬‭included‬‭terms‬‭for‬‭transfer‬‭on‬‭death‬‭payment.‬ ‭The‬

‭Cross-Defendant,‬‭pursuant‬‭to‬‭this‬‭oral‬‭agreement,‬‭was‬‭obligated‬‭to‬‭establish‬‭an‬‭account‬‭for‬

‭the‬‭benefit‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant.‬‭This‬‭account‬‭was‬‭intended‬‭to‬‭provide‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭with‬‭access‬‭for‬‭emergency‬‭or‬‭necessary‬‭withdrawals.‬

‭30.‬ ‭This‬‭obligation‬‭was‬‭a‬‭term‬‭of‬‭the‬‭oral‬‭agreement,‬‭which‬‭was‬‭formed‬‭subsequent‬‭to‬

‭the‬‭sale‬‭of‬‭the‬‭property.‬‭The‬‭formation‬‭of‬‭this‬‭agreement‬‭occurred‬‭a‬‭few‬‭weeks‬‭after‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭initiated‬‭legal‬‭action‬‭against‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant.‬ ‭The‬‭legal‬‭action‬‭was‬

‭instigated‬‭due‬‭to‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant’s‬‭refusal‬‭to‬‭provide‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭with‬‭the‬‭proceeds‬

‭from‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭of‬‭the‬‭property.‬

‭31.‬ ‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭of‬‭his‬‭own‬‭volition,‬‭terminated‬‭the‬‭legal‬‭proceedings.‬‭This‬‭action‬

‭was‬‭taken‬‭subsequent‬‭to‬‭the‬‭allocation‬‭of‬‭$20,000‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant.‬‭This‬‭sum,‬‭derived‬‭from‬

‭funds‬‭withheld‬‭following‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭of‬‭a‬‭property,‬‭was‬‭solicited‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭for‬‭the‬

‭purpose‬‭of‬‭completing‬‭ongoing‬‭dental‬‭treatment.‬

‭32.‬ ‭The‬‭decision‬‭to‬‭dismiss‬‭the‬‭case‬‭was‬‭further‬‭influenced‬‭by‬‭threats‬‭of‬‭disinheritance‬

‭made‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭towards‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant.‬

‭33.‬ ‭Following‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭of‬‭the‬‭White‬‭Oak‬‭property,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭engaged‬‭in‬

‭substance‬‭abuse‬‭was‬‭subsequently‬‭incarcerated‬‭on‬‭multiple‬‭occasions.‬‭However,‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭later‬‭reformed‬‭his‬‭behavior‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭9‬
5‬
‭

‭34.‬ ‭In‬‭the‬‭year‬‭2019,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭cohabitated‬‭with‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant,‬

‭procured‬‭a‬‭used‬‭truck‬‭with‬‭funds‬‭held‬‭in‬‭trust‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant,‬‭and‬‭obtained‬‭employment‬‭as‬

‭a‬‭roofing‬‭inspector.‬

‭35.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭began‬‭to‬‭miss‬‭work‬‭due‬‭to‬‭mechanical‬‭issues‬‭with‬‭the‬‭used‬

‭truck.‬‭In‬‭response,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭proposed‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭exchange‬‭the‬‭used‬

‭vehicle‬‭for‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck,‬‭offering‬‭to‬‭cover‬‭the‬‭remaining‬‭balance.‬

‭36.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭accepted‬‭the‬‭offer‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭to‬‭assist‬‭in‬‭the‬

‭purchase‬‭of‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck.‬

‭37.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭sold‬‭his‬‭used‬‭pick-up‬‭truck‬‭to‬‭Simi‬‭Valley‬‭Chevrolet‬‭for‬‭the‬

‭sum‬‭of‬‭$6,000.‬ ‭The‬‭proceeds‬‭from‬‭this‬‭sale‬‭were‬‭used‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭as‬‭a‬‭down‬

‭payment‬‭on‬‭a‬‭new‬‭2019‬‭Chevy‬‭Colorado‬‭Z71‬‭truck.‬

‭38.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭paid‬‭the‬‭remaining‬‭balance‬‭of‬‭the‬‭purchase‬‭price‬‭by‬‭entering‬

‭into‬‭an‬‭installment‬‭credit‬‭agreement‬‭with‬‭the‬‭dealership.‬

‭39.‬ ‭Despite‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭being‬‭purchased‬‭for‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭the‬‭dealership‬‭listed‬

‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant’s‬‭name‬‭on‬‭the‬‭registration‬‭because‬‭he‬‭chose‬‭to‬‭finance‬‭his‬‭portion‬‭of‬‭the‬

‭purchase‬‭instead‬‭of‬‭paying‬‭cash‬‭like‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant.‬

‭40.‬ ‭After‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭fulfilled‬‭the‬‭terms‬‭of‬‭the‬‭installment‬‭contract‬‭with‬‭the‬

‭dealership,‬‭he‬‭added‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant’s‬‭name‬‭as‬‭a‬‭registered‬‭owner‬‭on‬‭the‬‭new‬‭title.‬ ‭The‬

‭Cross-Defendant’s‬‭name‬‭remained‬‭on‬‭the‬‭title‬‭as‬‭a‬‭co-owner,‬‭however,‬‭he‬‭signed‬‭the‬‭title‬‭thereby‬

‭releasing‬‭his‬‭interest‬‭in‬‭the‬‭vehicle.‬

‭41.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭after‬‭the‬‭purchase‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle,‬‭took‬‭immediate‬

‭possession‬‭of‬‭the‬‭said‬‭vehicle‬‭from‬‭the‬‭dealership.‬

‭42.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭had‬‭exclusive‬‭use‬‭and‬‭control‬‭over‬‭the‬‭vehicle,‬‭with‬‭the‬

‭exception‬‭of‬‭one‬‭occasion‬‭when‬‭he‬‭permitted‬‭his‬‭brother‬‭to‬‭use‬‭the‬‭vehicle.‬ ‭During‬‭this‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭10‬
5‬
‭

‭one-time‬‭use‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant's‬‭brother,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭was‬‭arrested‬‭and‬

‭incarcerated‬‭due‬‭to‬‭an‬‭outstanding‬‭warrant‬‭that‬‭predated‬‭the‬‭incident.‬

‭43.‬‭Upon‬‭his‬‭release‬‭from‬‭incarceration,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭immediately‬

‭regained‬‭possession‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭and‬‭continued‬‭to‬‭have‬‭exclusive‬‭use‬‭of‬ ‭until‬‭he‬‭attempted‬

‭to‬‭sell‬‭it‬‭to‬‭Plaintiff‬‭In‬‭2022.,‬

‭44.‬ ‭Earlier‬ ‭In‬‭the‬‭year‬‭of‬‭2022,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭was‬‭terminated‬‭from‬‭his‬

‭employment‬‭due‬‭to‬‭downsizing‬‭related‬‭to‬‭the‬‭COVID-19‬‭pandemic.‬ ‭Subsequent‬‭to‬‭his‬

‭termination,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭fell‬‭ill‬‭and‬‭became‬‭incapacitated‬‭due‬‭to‬‭a‬‭deteriorating‬

‭heart‬‭valve,‬‭rendering‬‭him‬‭unable‬‭to‬‭continue‬‭working.‬

‭45.‬ ‭After‬‭several‬‭months‬‭of‬‭medical‬‭examinations‬‭and‬‭hospital‬‭visits,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭determined‬‭by‬

‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant’s‬‭medical‬‭practitioners‬‭that‬‭he‬‭required‬‭a‬‭heart‬‭valve‬‭replacement‬‭surgery.‬

‭46.‬ ‭Approximately‬‭two‬‭weeks‬‭prior‬‭to‬‭the‬‭scheduled‬‭date‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant’s‬‭heart‬

‭valve‬‭replacement‬‭surgery,‬‭a‬‭dispute‬‭arose‬‭between‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭and‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant.‬

‭47.‬ ‭As‬‭a‬‭consequence‬‭of‬‭this‬‭dispute,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭communicated‬‭to‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭via‬‭text‬‭message‬‭that‬‭he‬‭was‬‭no‬‭longer‬‭allowed‬‭to‬‭reside‬‭at‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant’s‬‭property.‬

‭48.‬ ‭During‬‭the‬‭period‬‭of‬‭approximately‬‭eighteen‬‭months‬‭in‬‭which‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬

‭resided‬‭at‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant’s‬‭property,‬‭he‬‭had‬‭amassed‬‭a‬‭significant‬‭amount‬‭of‬‭personal‬

‭belongings,‬‭including‬‭electronic‬‭equipment‬‭and‬‭clothing,‬‭valued‬‭at‬‭several‬‭thousand‬‭dollars.‬

‭49.‬ ‭Upon‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant’s‬‭request‬‭to‬‭retrieve‬‭his‬‭personal‬‭belongings‬‭from‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant’s‬‭property,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭responded‬‭via‬‭text‬‭message,‬‭threatening‬‭to‬‭contact‬

‭a‬‭Simi‬‭Valley‬‭police‬‭detective,‬‭a‬‭personal‬‭acquaintance,‬‭and‬‭have‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭arrested‬

‭should‬‭he‬‭attempt‬‭to‬‭appear‬‭at‬‭the‬‭property.‬ ‭As‬‭a‬‭result,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭has‬‭been‬‭deprived‬‭of‬

‭all‬‭his‬‭possessions,‬‭including‬‭a‬‭sum‬‭of‬‭$4,000‬‭in‬‭cash‬‭that‬‭he‬‭had‬‭recently‬‭received‬‭from‬

‭unemployment‬‭benefits.‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭11‬
5‬
‭

‭50.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭due‬‭to‬‭the‬‭inability‬‭to‬‭retrieve‬‭his‬‭personal‬‭belongings‬

‭and‬‭lack‬‭of‬‭a‬‭place‬‭to‬‭reside,‬‭sought‬‭temporary‬‭shelter‬‭with‬‭a‬‭friend‬‭in‬‭Las‬‭Vegas,‬‭Nevada.‬

‭51.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭was‬‭advised‬‭by‬‭his‬‭medical‬‭practitioner‬‭that‬‭a‬

‭significant‬‭recuperation‬‭period‬‭would‬‭be‬‭necessary‬‭following‬‭the‬‭heart‬‭valve‬‭replacement‬

‭operation.‬ ‭This‬‭medical‬‭advice‬‭led‬‭to‬‭concerns‬‭about‬‭the‬‭financial‬‭resources‬‭required‬‭to‬

‭secure‬‭post-operative‬‭accommodation.‬

‭52.‬ ‭While‬‭residing‬‭in‬‭Nevada,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭due‬‭to‬‭the‬‭aforementioned‬

‭circumstances,‬‭withdrew‬‭several‬‭thousand‬‭dollars‬‭from‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant’s‬‭Bank‬‭of‬

‭America‬‭account.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭had‬‭previously‬‭provided‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬

‭with‬‭a‬‭Bank‬‭of‬‭America‬‭ATM‬‭card‬‭and‬‭the‬‭associated‬‭PIN‬‭number‬‭to‬‭be‬‭used‬‭in‬‭case‬‭of‬‭an‬

‭emergency.‬

‭53.‬‭Upon‬‭his‬‭return‬‭to‬‭California,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭endeavored‬‭to‬‭acquire‬

‭additional‬‭funds‬‭and‬‭attempted‬‭to‬‭sell‬‭his‬‭truck‬‭at‬‭Auto‬‭Outlet‬‭in‬‭North‬‭Hollywood.‬ ‭The‬

‭transaction‬‭was‬‭nullified‬‭due‬‭to‬‭the‬‭seizure‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭by‬‭the‬‭police‬‭department.‬

‭54.‬ ‭Despite‬‭lacking‬‭any‬‭proprietary‬‭interest‬‭in‬‭the‬‭vehicle,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬

‭contacted‬‭the‬‭Simi‬‭Valley‬‭Police‬‭Department‬‭and‬‭reported‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭was‬

‭attempting‬‭to‬‭dispose‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭without‬‭his‬‭consent.‬

‭55.‬ ‭The‬‭police‬‭impounded‬‭and‬‭released‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭to‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭who‬

‭had‬‭possession‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭despite‬‭the‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭it‬‭is‬‭unlawful‬‭to‬‭take‬‭back‬‭a‬‭gift‬‭by‬‭the‬

‭giver.‬ ‭California‬‭Code‬‭of‬‭Civil‬‭Procedure‬‭Section‬‭1148‬‭prohibited‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭from‬

‭taking‬‭back‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭from‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant.‬

‭56.‬ ‭Additionally,‬ ‭Cross-Defendant,‬‭knowingly‬‭and‬‭falsely‬‭represented‬‭to‬‭the‬‭law‬

‭enforcement‬‭authorities‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭had‬‭made‬‭unauthorized‬‭withdrawals‬

‭from‬‭a‬‭Bank‬‭of‬‭America‬‭account.‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭12‬
5‬
‭

‭57.‬ ‭This‬‭false‬‭representation‬‭was‬‭made‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭despite‬‭having‬

‭previously‬‭given‬‭express‬‭authorization‬‭to‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭to‬‭make‬‭such‬‭withdrawals‬

‭from‬‭the‬‭said‬‭account.‬ ‭Furthermore,‬‭the‬‭Defendant‬‭held‬‭in‬‭trust‬‭the‬‭proceeds‬‭from‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭of‬

‭the‬‭White‬‭Oak‬‭property,‬‭thereby‬‭acknowledging‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant's‬‭rightful‬‭claim‬‭to‬

‭the‬‭funds.‬

‭58.‬ ‭As‬‭a‬‭direct‬‭result‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant’s‬‭unfounded‬‭and‬‭false‬‭accusations,‬‭the‬

‭District‬‭Attorney’s‬‭Office‬‭of‬‭Ventura‬‭County‬‭has‬‭initiated‬‭criminal‬‭proceedings‬‭against‬‭the‬

‭ross-Complainant.‬ ‭These‬‭proceedings‬‭are‬‭currently‬‭pending‬‭and‬‭are‬‭a‬‭direct‬‭consequence‬‭of‬

‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭false‬‭representations.‬

‭59.‬ ‭Furthermore,‬‭Plaintiff‬‭has‬‭commenced‬‭the‬‭present‬‭civil‬‭action‬‭against‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭arising‬‭from‬‭the‬‭confiscation‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭by‬‭law‬‭enforcement‬‭officials.‬

‭60.‬ ‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭has‬‭requested‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭to‬‭either‬‭reinstate‬‭the‬

‭possession‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle,‬‭facilitating‬‭its‬‭return‬‭to‬‭the‬‭Plaintiff,‬‭or‬‭reimburse‬‭them‬‭for‬‭the‬‭vehicle’s‬

‭worth‬ ‭Notwithstanding‬‭these‬‭solicitations,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭has‬‭not‬‭received‬‭a‬‭satisfactory‬

‭reply‬‭from‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant.‬

‭FIRST‬‭CAUSE‬‭OF‬‭ACTION‬
‭(Breach‬‭of‬‭Oral‬‭Contract)‬

‭61.‬ ‭Cross-Complainant‬‭repeats,‬‭re-alleges,‬‭and‬‭incorporates‬‭by‬‭reference‬‭the‬‭allegations‬

‭contained‬‭in‬‭the‬‭preceding‬‭paragraphs.‬

‭62.‬ ‭In‬‭or‬‭around‬‭the‬‭year‬‭of‬‭2005,‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭and‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭entered‬

‭into‬‭an‬‭oral‬‭contract,‬‭wherein‬‭they‬‭agreed‬‭that‬‭the‬‭proceeds‬‭from‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Whiteoak‬

‭property‬‭would‬‭be‬‭deposited‬‭into‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭IRA‬‭and‬‭investment‬‭accounts.‬‭These‬

‭accounts‬‭were‬‭to‬‭list‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭as‬‭the‬‭sole‬‭beneficiary,‬‭with‬‭transfer‬‭on‬‭death‬

‭payment‬‭terms.‬

‭63.‬ ‭It‬‭was‬‭further‬‭agreed‬‭that‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭would‬‭establish‬‭an‬‭account‬‭or‬‭make‬‭funds‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭13‬
5‬
‭

‭available‬‭for‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭to‬‭withdraw‬‭as‬‭needed‬‭or‬‭in‬‭emergencies.‬

‭64.‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭has‬‭performed‬‭all‬‭conditions,‬‭covenants,‬‭and‬‭promises‬‭required‬‭on‬

‭their‬‭part‬‭in‬‭accordance‬‭with‬‭the‬‭terms‬‭and‬‭conditions‬‭of‬‭the‬‭agreement.‬

‭65.‬ ‭in‬‭or‬‭around‬‭the‬‭month‬‭August‬‭,‬‭2022‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭breached‬‭the‬‭oral‬

‭contract‬‭by‬‭reporting‬‭to‬‭the‬‭police‬‭department‬‭that‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭had‬‭withdrawn‬‭funds‬

‭without‬‭his‬‭permission‬‭and‬‭by‬‭refusing‬‭to‬‭provide‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭with‬‭proof‬‭that‬‭he‬‭is‬

‭listed‬‭as‬‭the‬‭sole‬‭beneficiary‬‭on‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭accounts‬

‭66.‬ ‭As‬‭a‬‭direct‬‭and‬‭proximate‬‭result‬‭of‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭breach‬‭of‬‭the‬‭oral‬‭contract,‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭has‬‭suffered‬‭damages‬‭in‬‭an‬‭amount‬‭to‬‭be‬‭proven‬‭at‬‭trial‬

‭SECOND‬‭CAUSE‬‭OF‬‭ACTION‬
‭(Specific‬‭Performance)‬
‭67.‬ ‭Cross-Complainant‬‭repeats,‬‭re-alleges,‬‭and‬‭incorporates‬‭by‬‭reference‬‭the‬‭allegations‬

‭contained‬‭in‬‭the‬‭preceding‬‭paragraphs.‬

‭68.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭alleges‬‭that‬‭in‬‭or‬‭around‬‭May‬‭of‬‭2019‬ ‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬

‭promised‬‭to‬‭pay‬‭the‬‭difference‬‭for‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck‬‭if‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭traded‬‭in‬‭his‬‭old‬‭one.‬

‭69.‬‭Acting‬‭on‬‭this‬‭promise,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭sold‬‭his‬‭old‬‭truck‬‭to‬‭Simi‬‭Valley‬

‭Chevrolet‬‭for‬‭$6000‬‭and‬‭used‬‭this‬‭amount‬‭as‬‭a‬‭trade-in‬‭for‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck‬

‭70.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭paid‬‭the‬‭remaining‬‭balance‬‭by‬‭entering‬‭into‬‭an‬‭installment‬

‭agreement‬‭with‬‭the‬‭dealership.‬‭However,‬‭because‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭financed‬‭his‬‭portion‬‭of‬‭the‬

‭balance,‬‭the‬‭dealership‬‭registered‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭in‬‭his‬‭name‬‭instead‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant’s.‬

‭71.‬‭Subsequently,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭sold‬‭the‬‭vehicle.‬‭However,‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭was‬‭nullified‬

‭because‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭reported‬‭to‬‭law‬‭enforcement‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭sold‬‭the‬

‭vehicle‬‭without‬‭his‬‭permission.‬‭This‬‭is‬‭despite‬‭the‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭the‬‭purchase‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭by‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant‬‭was‬‭intended‬‭as‬‭a‬‭gift,‬‭and‬‭he‬‭had‬‭no‬‭ownership‬‭interest‬‭in‬‭the‬‭vehicle.‬

‭72.‬ ‭As‬‭a‬‭direct‬‭and‬‭proximate‬‭result‬‭of‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭breach‬‭of‬‭the‬‭oral‬‭contract,‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭14‬
5‬
‭

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭has‬‭suffered‬‭damages‬‭in‬‭an‬‭amount‬‭to‬‭be‬‭proven‬‭at‬‭trial‬

‭SECOND‬‭CAUSE‬‭OF‬‭ACTION‬
‭(Specific‬‭Performance)‬
‭73.‬ C
‭ ross-Complainant‬‭repeats,‬‭re-alleges,‬‭and‬‭incorporates‬‭by‬‭reference‬‭the‬‭allegations‬

‭contained‬‭in‬‭the‬‭preceding‬‭paragraphs.‬

‭74.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭alleges‬‭that‬‭in‬‭or‬‭around‬‭May‬‭of‬‭2019‬ ‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬

‭promised‬‭to‬‭pay‬‭the‬‭difference‬‭for‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck‬‭if‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭traded‬‭in‬‭his‬‭old‬‭one.‬

‭75.‬‭Acting‬‭on‬‭this‬‭promise,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭sold‬‭his‬‭old‬‭truck‬‭to‬‭Simi‬‭Valley‬

‭Chevrolet‬‭for‬‭$6000‬‭and‬‭used‬‭this‬‭amount‬‭as‬‭a‬‭trade-in‬‭for‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck‬

‭76.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭paid‬‭the‬‭remaining‬‭balance‬‭by‬‭entering‬‭into‬‭an‬‭installment‬

‭agreement‬‭with‬‭the‬‭dealership.‬‭However,‬‭because‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭financed‬‭his‬‭portion‬‭of‬‭the‬

‭balance,‬‭the‬‭dealership‬‭registered‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭in‬‭his‬‭name‬‭instead‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant’s.‬

‭77.‬‭Subsequently,‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭sold‬‭the‬‭vehicle.‬‭However,‬‭the‬‭sale‬‭was‬‭nullified‬

‭because‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭reported‬‭to‬‭law‬‭enforcement‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭sold‬‭the‬

‭vehicle‬‭without‬‭his‬‭permission.‬‭This‬‭is‬‭despite‬‭the‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭the‬‭purchase‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭by‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant‬‭was‬‭intended‬‭as‬‭a‬‭gift,‬‭and‬‭he‬‭had‬‭no‬‭ownership‬‭interest‬‭in‬‭the‬‭vehicle.‬

‭78.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭seeks‬‭specific‬‭performance‬‭to‬‭rectify‬‭this‬‭situation.‬‭The/.‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭asserts‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant’s‬‭actions‬‭have‬‭caused‬‭hi/m‬‭harm‬‭and‬‭that‬‭the‬

‭Cross-Defendant‬‭should‬‭be‬‭compelled‬‭to‬‭fulfill‬‭the‬‭original‬‭agreement.‬‭This‬‭includes‬‭acknowledging‬

‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭has‬‭no‬‭ownership‬‭interest‬‭in‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭and‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭is‬

‭the‬‭rightful‬‭owner.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭requests‬‭the‬‭court‬‭to‬‭order‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭to‬‭take‬

‭necessary‬‭actions‬‭to‬‭transfer‬‭the‬‭vehicle’s‬ ‭registration‬‭into‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant’s‬‭name‬

‭THIRD‬‭CAUSE‬‭OF‬‭ACTION‬
‭(Declaratory‬‭Judgment)‬
‭79.‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭repeats,‬‭re-alleges,‬‭and‬‭incorporates‬‭by‬‭reference‬‭the‬‭allegations‬

‭contained‬‭in‬‭the‬‭preceding‬‭paragraphs‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭15‬
5‬
‭

‭80.‬‭Cross‬‭Complainant‬ ‭alleges‬‭that‬ ‭Cross-Defendant,‬‭Robert‬‭Collins‬‭promised‬‭to‬‭pay‬‭the‬

‭balance‬‭on‬‭a‬‭new‬‭truck‬‭if‬‭Cross-Cantomplainat‬‭traded‬‭in‬‭his‬‭old‬‭truck.‬

‭81.‬‭In‬‭or‬‭around‬‭May‬‭of‬‭2019,Cross-Complainant‬‭traded‬‭in‬‭his‬‭old‬‭vehicle‬‭to‬‭Simi‬‭Valley‬

‭Chevrolet‬‭for‬‭$6000‬‭and‬‭used‬‭the‬‭money‬‭for‬‭the‬‭down‬‭payment.‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭financed‬‭the‬

‭balance‬‭pursuant‬‭to‬‭an‬‭installment‬‭agreement‬‭made‬‭with‬‭the‬‭dealership.‬

‭82.‬‭The‬‭dealership‬‭put‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭name‬‭on‬‭the‬‭paperwork‬‭because‬‭he‬‭financed‬‭the‬

‭vehicle‬‭instead‬‭of‬‭paying‬‭cash‬‭like‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭Despite‬‭this,‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭did‬‭not‬‭have‬‭an‬

‭ownership‬‭interest‬‭in‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭pursuant‬‭to‬‭California‬‭law‬‭under‬‭CCP‬‭1148.‬

‭83.‬‭in‬‭the‬‭month‬‭of‬‭August‬‭2022,‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭reported‬‭to‬‭the‬‭police‬‭that‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬‭had‬‭sold‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭without‬‭his‬‭consent,‬‭withholding‬‭the‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭he‬‭had‬

‭purchased‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭as‬‭a‬‭gift‬‭for‬‭the‬‭Cross-Complainantant‬ ‭manipulating‬‭the‬‭police‬‭to‬‭seize‬‭the‬

‭vehicle‬‭and‬‭return‬‭it‬‭to‬‭Cross-Defendant.‬

‭84.‬‭An‬‭actual‬‭controversy‬‭has‬‭arisen‬‭and‬‭now‬‭exists‬‭between‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭and‬

‭Cross-Defendant‬‭regarding‬‭their‬‭respective‬‭rights‬‭and‬‭duties.‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭contends‬‭that‬

‭Cross-Defendant‬‭purchased‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭as‬‭a‬‭gift‬‭which‬‭is‬‭non‬‭revocable‬‭under‬‭California‬ ‭Civil‬ ‭code‬

‭1148,‬‭and‬‭therefore‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭had‬‭absolutely‬‭no‬‭right‬‭to‬‭complain‬‭to‬‭the‬‭police‬‭that‬

‭Cross-Complainant‬ ‭sold‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭to‬‭Plaintiff‬‭without‬‭his‬‭consent.‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭disputes‬‭these‬

‭contentions.‬

‭FOURTH‬‭CAUSE‬‭OF‬‭ACTION‬
‭(Unlawful‬‭Eviction)‬

‭85.‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭repeats,‬‭re-alleges,‬‭and‬‭incorporates‬‭by‬‭reference‬‭the‬‭allegations‬

‭contained‬‭in‬‭the‬‭preceding‬‭paragraphs.‬

‭86.‬‭In‬‭or‬‭around‬‭the‬‭month‬‭of‬‭August‬‭5,‬‭of‬‭2022‬ ‭Cross-Defendant‬‭wrongfully‬‭and‬

‭unlawfully‬‭evicted‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭from‬‭the‬‭premises‬‭located‬‭at‬‭3708‬‭Martz‬‭st.‬‭Simi‬‭Valley,‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭16‬
5‬
‭

‭CA.‬‭where‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭had‬‭been‬‭a‬‭lawful‬‭tenant‬‭for‬‭approximately‬‭one‬‭and‬‭a‬‭half‬‭years.‬

‭87.‬ ‭Cross-‬‭Defendant,‬ ‭informed‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭via‬‭text‬‭message‬‭that‬‭he‬‭had‬‭locked‬

‭the‬‭door,‬‭set‬‭the‬‭alarm‬‭and‬‭that‬‭he‬‭was‬‭no‬‭longer‬‭allowed‬‭to‬‭reside‬‭at‬‭the‬‭premises‬‭following‬‭a‬

‭disagreement‬

‭88.‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭further‬‭threatened‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭with‬‭arrest‬‭if‬‭he‬‭returned‬‭to‬‭the‬

‭premises,‬‭even‬‭to‬‭retrieve‬‭his‬‭personal‬‭belongings.‬

‭89.‬‭.‬‭As‬‭a‬‭result‬‭of‬‭Cross-Defendant's‬‭unlawful‬‭actions,‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭was‬‭unable‬‭to‬

‭retrieve‬‭his‬‭personal‬‭property,‬‭which‬‭included‬‭cash‬‭and‬‭other‬‭items‬‭valued‬‭at‬‭several‬‭thousand‬

‭dollars.‬

‭90.‬‭The‬‭Cross-Complainant,‬‭who‬‭was‬‭slated‬‭for‬‭a‬‭cardiac‬‭valve‬‭replacement‬‭procedure‬‭in‬

‭the‬‭ensuing‬‭weeks,‬‭was‬‭unjustly‬‭and‬‭illicitly‬‭dispossessed‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Cross-Defendant.‬‭The‬

‭aforementioned‬‭medical‬‭procedure‬‭necessitates‬‭a‬‭prolonged‬‭convalescence‬‭period.‬‭Consequently,‬

‭the‬‭Cross-Complainant‬‭has‬‭endured,‬‭and‬‭continues‬‭to‬‭endure,‬‭significant‬‭losses,‬‭emotional‬

‭turmoil,‬‭and‬‭inconvenience‬‭attributable‬‭to‬‭the‬‭̀Defendant’s‬‭illicit‬‭conduct.‬

‭WHEREFORE,‬ ‭C‭r‬ oss-Complainant‬‭pray‬‭for‬‭judgment‬‭against‬‭Cross-Defendants,and‬‭each‬

‭of‬‭them,as‬‭follows‬

‭AS‬‭TO‬‭THE‬‭FIRST‬‭CAUSE‬‭OF‬‭4‬‭(Breach‬‭of‬‭Oral‬‭Contract)‬

‭1.‬ ‭For‬‭compensatory‬‭damages‬‭in‬‭an‬‭amount‬‭to‬‭be‬‭proven‬‭at‬‭trial,‬‭which‬‭damages‬‭are‬‭in‬

‭excess‬‭of‬‭$250,000‬

‭2.‬ ‭For‬‭exemplary‬‭and‬‭punitive‬‭damages‬‭in‬‭an‬‭amount‬‭sufficient‬‭to‬‭punish‬‭or‬‭set‬‭an‬‭example‬

‭of‬‭Cross-Defendants,and‬‭each‬‭of‬‭them,which‬‭amounts‬‭will‬‭be‬‭proven‬‭at‬‭trial,‬

‭AS‬‭TO‬‭THE‬‭SECOND‬‭CAUSE‬‭OF‬‭ACTION‬‭(For‬‭Specific‬‭Performance‬‭ownership‬‭of‬‭Chevy‬

‭Colorado‬‭Z71‬‭truck)‬‭)‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭17‬
5‬
‭

‭3.‬ ‭For‬‭a‬‭court‬‭order‬‭that‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭transfer‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭title‬‭into‬‭Cross-Complainants‬

‭name‬‭or‬‭alternatively‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭pay‬‭Cross‬‭Complainant‬‭the‬‭value‬‭of‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭of‬

‭which‬

‭4.‬ ‭will‬‭be‬‭determined‬‭at‬‭trial‬

‭AS‬‭TO‬‭THE‬‭THIRD‬‭CAUSE‬‭OF‬‭ACTION‬‭(Declaratory‬‭Judgement‬‭that‬‭California‬‭Civil‬‭Code‬

‭section‬‭1148‬‭prohibits‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭from‬‭taking‬‭back‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭from‬‭Cross-Complainant‬

‭5.‬ ‭For‬‭a‬‭judicial‬‭determination‬‭that‬‭Cross-Defendants‬‭purchased‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Chevy‬‭Colorado‬‭truck‬‭was‬‭a‬
‭gift‬‭for‬‭the‬‭cross-complaint‬‭according‬‭to‬‭the‬‭provisions‬‭of‬‭california‬‭civil‬‭code‬‭1148‬‭and‬‭that‬
‭those‬‭provisions‬‭prohibit‬‭the‬‭cross-defendant‬‭from‬‭taking‬‭the‬‭vehicle‬‭from‬‭Cross-Complainant‬
‭and‬‭that‬‭Cross-Defendant‬‭does‬‭not‬‭possess‬‭any‬‭ownership‬‭interest‬‭in‬‭the‬‭vehicle.‬
‭AS‬‭TO‬‭THE‬‭FOURTH‬‭CAUSE‬‭OF‬‭ACTION‬

‭6.‬ ‭For‬‭actual‬‭damages‬‭such‬‭as‬‭motel‬‭costs‬‭and‬‭other‬‭accrual‬‭damages‬‭as‬‭a‬‭result‬‭of‬‭cross‬

‭defendants‬‭illegal‬‭eviction‬‭of‬‭the‬‭cross‬‭complainant‬‭to‬‭be‬ ‭proven‬‭at‬‭trial.‬

‭7.‬ ‭Punitive‬‭damages‬‭of‬‭100,00‬‭per‬‭day‬‭beginning‬‭on‬‭or‬‭around‬‭August‬‭5,‬‭2022‬

‭8.‬ ‭for‬‭emotional‬‭distress‬‭related‬‭to‬‭concerns‬‭about‬‭post‬‭operation‬‭accommodations‬‭as‬‭a‬

‭result‬‭of‬‭cross-defendants‬‭illegal‬‭eviction‬‭of‬‭the‬‭cross‬‭complainant,‬

‭9.‬ ‭additional‬‭damages‬‭that‬‭the‬‭court‬‭determines‬‭are‬‭just.‬

‭Dated‬‭this‬‭25th‬‭day‬‭of‬‭November,‬‭2023‬

‭ ICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬
M
‭Defendant,Cross-Complainan‬
‭t”In‬‭Pro‬‭Prt”‬

‭CROSS‬‭COMPLAINT‬‭OF‬‭MICHAEL‬‭COLLINS‬‭18‬