D'Aguiar v. City of Campbell

• Docket Number: H050663
• Decision Date: 11 October 2023
• Parties: FLOYD D'AGUIAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF CAMPBELL et al., Defendants and Respondents
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

FLOYD D'AGUIAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF CAMPBELL et al., Defendants and Respondents

H050663

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

October 11, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Order Filed Date 10/25/23

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 21CV376818

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND GRANTING MOTION TO AUGMENT AND DENYING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 11, 2023, be modified as follows:

On pages 26-27, the fourth full paragraph, second sentence delete "together with rent in the sum of $1,731.40" so the full sentence reads:

The trial court in that action granted summary judgment to Alvin's and ordered that Alvin's "have and recover from [D'Aguiar], judgment for restitution of possession of [the unit]." Immediately after this sentence, add the following as footnote 13, which will require all subsequent footnotes to be renumbered:

13 The order granting summary judgment in the unlawful detainer action stated that Alvin's recovered "rent in the sum of $1,731.40."

However, the judgment in the unlawful detainer action awarded Alvin's restitution of possession of the property only and made no reference to a monetary award. We grant Aguilar's motion to augment the record on appeal for petition of rehearing (filed on October 18, 2023), with two documents filed in the trial court on August 24, 2020, and August 27, 2020, after the entry of judgment in the unlawful detainer action, which together demonstrate that the reference to "rent in the sum of $1,731.40" in the trial court's summary judgment ruling was inadvertent and incorrect. The error did not affect the unlawful detainer judgment and does not alter our analysis of any issue related to the unlawful detainer action. Having granted the motion to augment the record on appeal, we deny Aguilar's third request for judicial notice in support of the petition for rehearing, which pertains to the same two exhibits as the motion to augment.

There is no change in the judgment. The appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

Danner, J.

Floyd D'Aguiar, proceeding as a self-represented litigant, sued the City of Campbell (City) and other entities and individuals involved in the City's affordable housing program. He contends they improperly terminated him from the affordable housing program and evicted him from his apartment after they refused to accept alternative documentation to establish his continuing eligibility for the program.

D'Aguiar appeals from orders of the trial court sustaining without leave to amend demurrers to his complaint, denying his motions for reconsideration, and imposing sanctions. He also attacks other aspects of the proceedings in the trial court including rulings on discovery and the impartiality of the bench officer who issued many of the challenged orders.

We reverse one of the sanctions orders but otherwise affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background^[1]

In 2016, D'Aguiar rented a subsidized apartment from Alvin's Corner at Penny Lane, LLC (Alvin's) through the City's Below Market Rate housing program (BMR program). The lease was for a period of 12 months and thereafter became a month-to-month tenancy. The lease D'Aguiar signed states that his unit "has been approved for sale to the public as a condominium." D'Aguiar signed a condominium notice that stated that he would be notified at least 90 days prior to any "offering to sell." (Capitalization omitted.)

Participation in the BMR program depended on an initial certification of financial eligibility and subsequent annual recertifications over which the City had final approval. Alvin's certified D'Aguiar's eligibility when he moved into the rental unit in 2016. Thereafter, Housekeys, Inc. (Housekeys) administered the BMR program.

The rental application guide for the BMR Program states that "all BMR tenants shall be recertified once per year, at the end of the lease term, for compliance with all [p]rogram requirements including, but not limited to income ...." It also states that "[r]efusal by tenant to promptly provide all required documents for re-certification will result in a 60-day [t]ermination of lease and a [n]otice to [v]acant [sic] will be sent out."

With respect to exception requests, the guide states, "Households or individual applicants unable to produce any particular document required in the application form for legitimate reasons beyond their control (natural disaster, military service, refugee status, domestic violence, witness protection program, disability etc.) may request an exception for that particular document. [¶] Upon such request, [a]dministrator may request a reasonably equivalent alternative document, and/or any additional supporting documentation deemed necessary by the [p]rogram [p]rocess and [p]rogram [u]nderwriter to verify eligibility of the [a]pplicant .... [¶] . . . The [a]dministrator may approve or deny such request. If denied, [a]pplicants may submit an appeal of such denial to the City."

In 2017, 2018, and 2019, D'Aguiar declined, based on his concerns about identity theft and financial privacy, to give Housekeys documentation the organization required for recertification. D'Aguiar instead provided "alternate documentation" (i.e., redacted financial statements and IRS tax transcripts) that he created.

In September 2019, Alvin's served on D'Aguiar a "60-Day Notice to Quit," which asserted his tenancy was being terminated for violating the BMR program guidelines based on his refusal to provide unredacted financial documents. D'Aguiar contacted a representative for Alvin's and offered to show his financial statements to an employee at the City, but his offer was rejected. D'Aguiar did not vacate the apartment within 60 days.

In November 2019, Alvin's filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court an unlawful detainer action against D'Aguiar. Alvin's moved for summary judgment, and in January 2020 the trial court held a contested hearing on the motion. D'Aguiar appeared and represented himself. Alvin's argued that D'Aguiar was guilty of unlawful detainer under Code of Civil Procedure,^[2] section 1161, subdivision 1.^[3] D'Aguiar responded that the unlawful detainer action was "abusive and frivolous" and asserted he was a victim of identity theft. The court granted Alvin's summary judgment motion "on possession only." In February 2020, D'Aguiar surrendered possession of the property.

D'Aguiar received a demand for past-due payments related to the unit, but he disputed the amount owed. In June 2020, certain of the defendants referred the matter of the owed balance to a collection agency (I.Q. Data International, Inc. (IQ Data)), which thereafter reported the debt to credit reporting agencies, adversely affecting D'Aguiar's credit rating.

B. Complaint and First Amended Complaint

In January 2021, D'Aguiar, representing himself, filed a complaint asserting five causes of action against the City, Julius Nyanda (the owner of Housekeys) and Mark Robson (the owner of Alvin's).^[4] The trial court sustained initial demurrers to the complaint brought by the City, Nyanda, and Robson, and granted D'Aguiar leave to amend certain of his causes of action but not others.

On December 27, 2021, D'Aguiar filed a 114-page, first amended complaint alleging 27 causes of action (the operative complaint).

The first amended complaint names the City, Housekeys, Nyanda (individually and as trustee of the "NNN Trust"), Robson, Robson Properties, Inc. (Robson Properties), and Alvin's (collectively, defendants). It alleges that Robson was the alter ego for Alvin's, and Nyanda (individually and as trustee of the "MMMM Trust") was the alter ego for Housekeys.

The first amended complaint generally alleges that defendants wrongfully evicted D'Aguiar from his subsidized apartment, committed various torts, and violated his federal and state constitutional and statutory rights. It asserts Housekeys should have created a third-party verification system for tenant financial information and that its demand for unredacted financial information caused him extreme emotional distress.

The first cause of action is titled "due process violation"; "breach of the implied covenant of good faith &fair dealing" and "tortious interference with contract and/or economic advantage" (against City, Housekeys, Alvin's, and Robson Properties) (first cause of action). (Capitalization omitted.)

The second cause of action is titled "breach of quiet enjoyment" and "private nuisance" (against the City, Housekeys, Alvin's, and Robson Properties) (second cause of action). (Capitalization omitted.)

The third cause of action is titled "negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress" (against Housekeys, Alvin's, Robson, and Nyanda) (third cause of action). (Capitalization omitted.)

The fourth cause of action is titled "unfair business practice" in violation of "California Business and Professions Code [sections] 17200, et seq., 17500" and violation of "Consumer Legal Remedies Act [Civil Code] [section] 1750 et seq." (against Housekeys, Alvin's, and Robson). (Some capitalization omitted.)

The fifth cause of action is titled "unfair business practices and intentional misrepresentation of facts" (against all defendants). (Capitalization omitted.)

The sixth cause of action involves "multiple counts" (capitalization omitted) and alleges violations of Civil Code sections 51, 52, 52.1 and article 1, section 7 of the California Constitution (against all defendants).

The complaint groups the seventh through tenth causes of action together and alleges violations of federal and California credit reporting statutes, violation of Civil Code section...