authority, commission, and/or ratification of each of the remaining Defendants.
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4
5
—g-
7. Plaintiffs allege that the amount in controversy in the present action is in excess of the
$25,000 jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
—l^lalmiffs altege^harvenueimproper inthis Courtrbecauselhe-Tnrasher Property and the
7
Oriole Way Property are both situated in the County of Los Angeles, State of California and within
8
this jurisdictional district, and thus this Court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue for this action
9
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 392.
10
9. Plaintiff further alleges that the acts and events giving rise to the causes of action alleged
11
herein, occurred, in whole or, at least in part, within this jurisdictional district in the County of Los
12
Angeles, State of California, as alleged below.
13
14
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR TRESPASS
15
10. Plaintiffs incorporate hereat by reference paragraphs 1 through 9, inclusive, as set forth
16
17
18
above.
11. The Oriole Property and the Thrasher Property adjoin each other and share a common
property boundary line.
19
12. On or about July 1, 2004, Defendants and each of them commenced construction of
20
a basketball/sports court on the Oriole Property behind Defendants' home. In the process of
21
constructing the basketball/sports court on the Oriole Way Property, Defendants entered Plaintiffs'
22
Thrasher Property, cut and removed hedges and other plants that were the property of Plaintiff;
23
excavated earth, granite and bedrock that was part of Plaintiffs' property; and cut, excavated and
24
removed the toe of the slope located in part on the Thrasher Property and in part on the Oriole Way
25
Property, compromising and interfering with the lateral and subjacent support of Plaintiffs' land.
26
In doing the same, Defendants destabilized the hillside slope running behind Plaintiffs' Thrasher
27
Property to Defendants' Oriole Way Property and, in the process undermined the support for
28
Plaintiffs' deck and the pool above.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
O
13. Defendants' actions, as alleged above, were done without the consent or permission
of Plaintiffs, were done without authority and were done intentionally with Defendants' full
knowledge that they were encroaching on Plaintiffs' land and doing damage to Plaintiffs' Thrasher
Property. Said actions, taken by Defendants without Plaintiffs' permission, constitute a trespass
upon Plaintiffs' property.
-6-
-44^-Burifigand after the first-instance of trespass, Plaintiffs demanded that Defendants stop
trespassing on their land immediately and take no actions to excavate or otherwise harm Plaintiffs'
8
property. Defendants ignored Plaintiffs' demands and continued to trespass onto Plaintiffs'
Thrasher Property and damage it as set forth herein. Since the damage was caused by Defendants,
I!
10
Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendants assume financial responsibility for all the damage and
11
potential damage Defendants caused as well as the necessary repairs to stabilize the hillside, but
12
Defendants have refused, and continue to refuse, to assume financial responsibility for the same.
13
15. As a proximate result of Defendants' entry onto Plaintiffs' land and Defendants'
14
excavations, as set forth herein, the lateral and subjacent support to Plaintiffs' land was undermined
15
and compromised and Plaintiffs' property continues to be physically damaged to such an extent that
16
repairs are necessary to stabilize and restore the land to its condition prior to Defendants' actions,
17
all to Plaintiffs' damage in an amount according to proof at trial.
18
16. As a further proximate result of the aforementioned continuing trespass, Plaintiffs have
19
incurred damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3333 for detriment proximately caused, whether
20
anticipated or not, by the Defendants' wrongful conduct as set forth above, in an amount that will
21
be determined according to proof at the time of trial, including but not limited to, the amount
22
necessary to compensate Plaintiffs for (1) the reasonable cost of repair and restoration of the
23
Property to its original condition and to restore stability to the land; (2) the costs of recovering
24
possession pursuant to Civil Code section 3334; (3) present and prospective damages that are the
25
natural, necessary or reasonable incident of the taking of the Property; and (4) the difference in
26
value of the Property immediately before and immediately after the injury to the Property. As a
27
result of Defendants' conduct Plaintiffhas been damaged in a sum to be proven at time of trial, but
28
which is believed to exceed $250,000.00.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
4
17. The aforementioned acts of the Defendants were willful, oppressive or maliciiDusinthat
Defendants intentionally crossed Plaintiffs' property line and entered Plaintiffs' property without
permission, cut down Plaintiffs' hedges and excavated the earth on Plaintiffs' property with
knowledge that Plaintiffs' owned and possessed the Thrasher Property.
Defendants engaged in
such actions despite Plaintiffs' warnings to Defendants that the Defendants were trespassing, and
-in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs-property rights, that Defendants' were^ausing physicaWamage
7
to Plaintiffs' property, and that Defendants' were injuring Plaintiffs' well being. As a result of the
8
foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in addition to all other damages provided for
9
by law.
10
11
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR REMOVAL OF
12
LATERAL AND SUBJACENT SUPPORT
13
14
18. Plaintiffs incorporate hereat by reference paragraphs 1 through 17, inclusive, as set
forth above.
15
19. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care and skill in making the excavations on both
16
the Oriole Way Property and the Thrasher Property and Defendants failed to take reasonable
17
precautions to sustain the adjoining land of Plaintiffs in its natural state. In addition, Defendants
18
failed to give Plaintiffs reasonable notice stating the depth to which the excavation was intended
19
to be made and when the excavating would begin.
20
20. As a proximate result of Defendants excavating in the negligent manner alleged in this
21
complaint, Plaintiffs' land was deprived of its lateral support, and since approximately
22
July 1, 2004 Plaintiffs' soil has subsided and slipped into the excavation and structural
23
improvements on Plaintiffs' property have been threatened and are in danger of falling into the
24
excavation or otherwise being damaged, all to Plaintiffs damage in a sum not presently known, but
25
Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to state the precise amount when the same are
26
ascertained. The excavations alleged in this complaint threaten to cause further subsidence of
27
Plaintiffs' earth and soil on their land.
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR NUISANCE
21.
Plaintiffs incorporate hereat by reference paragraphs 1 through 20, inclusive, as set
forth above.
22. The removal of the lateral and subjacent support to Plaintiffs' land has caused an
obstruction to the free use of Plaintiffs' property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment
—ef the property because the land and structure supporting Plaintiffs' backyard, deck and_s_wimrning_
pool are now, as a result of Defendants' conduct, in danger of falling into the excavation created
8
by Defendants.
23. Defendants have created a nuisance by their conduct and Plaintiffs' request that the
10
Court order Defendants to abate said nuisance.
11
24. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs and failed to exercise ordinary care and
12
skill in making the excavations and failed to take reasonable precautions to sustain the adjoining
13
land of Plaintiffs in its natural state. In addition, Defendants failed to give Plaintiffs reasonable
14
notice stating the depth to which the excavation was intended to be made and when the excavating
15
would begin, all in violation of California Civil Code section 832.
16
25. As a proximate result of Defendants' excavating conducted in the negligent manner
17
alleged in this complaint, Plaintiffs' land was deprived of its lateral support, and since
18
approximately July 1, 2004 Plaintiffs' soil has subsided and slipped into the excavation and
19
structural improvements on Plaintiffs' property have been threatened and are in danger of falling
20
into the excavation or otherwise being damaged, causing damage to Plaintiffs in an amount that is
21
not presently known, but Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Complaint to set forth the precise
22
amount when the same is ascertained. Defendants' excavations alleged in this complaint threaten
23
to cause further subsidence of Plaintiffs' earth and soil on their land, all to Plaintiffs' damage in an
24
amount to be proven at the time of trial.
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FQR DAMAGES
1
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
2
1. General damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial,
3
2. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
4
3. For a Court order which orders Defendants to abate the nuisance set forth above;
5
4. For Plaintiffs' costs of suit incurred herein; and
eh other-and4urther
relief^sJhe^o
7
8
9
Dated: May
2007
David Glubok, Attorney for Plaintiffs
Ronald Linclau and Joan Linclau
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FI>R DAMAGES