Thomas v. Shree Jalaram LLC, Case No. 18-cv-06409-LB
| Decision Date | 01 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-cv-06409-LB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | JOSEPH THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. SHREE JALARAM LLC, et al., Defendants. |
Re: ECF No. 62
The plaintiff, Joseph Thomas, who is representing himself, filed a complaint against the defendants based on allegedly unsanitary and untenable conditions at the National Budget Hotel, where he lived.1 He also alleged discriminatory practices by the owners and operators of the Hotel and retaliation against him for lodging complaints about the building.2
Defendants Balwantsinh Thakor, Kirasinh Thakor, and Shree Jalaram Lodging LP (erroneously sued as Shree Jalaram LLC) (collectively, the "Shree Jalaram defendants") move to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).3 Theyargue that the plaintiff's claims against them should be dismissed because (1) the plaintiff released all claims against them when he signed two settlement agreements with the parties and (2) the claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because each of his claims was either settled or litigated, or should have been raised in the previous proceedings.4 They also seek an injunction to enforce the covenant not to sue in the earlier settlement agreements.5
Under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court can decide the motion without oral argument. The court finds that the plaintiff's claims against these defendants are barred by the plain terms of the settlement agreements and the doctrine of res judicata and grants the motion to dismiss.
The plaintiff moved into the National Hotel Budget Inn ("the Hotel") in San Francisco, California in November 2012.7 The Hotel 8 The plaintiff "filed scores of complaints with [the] Department of Building Inspection and the Department of Public Health between 2014 and 2018."9 In July 2015, he was "the lead Plaintiff" in a lawsuit about "habitability issues" at the Hotel.10 The other plaintiffs were Jeffrey Scarcello, Ty Cook, and Christopher Soots.11 In October 2016, he settled the suit withBalwantsinh "Bill" Thakor.12 The settlement "stipulated [that] PLAINTIFFS would pay no rent until the City and County of San Francisco had approved all of the repairs and remodeling."13
The October 2016 Settlement Agreement listed the "released parties" as follows:
Balwantsinh Thakor, Lataban Thakor, Kirasinh Thakor and Shree Jalaram Lodging LP dba Budget Inn including, but not limited to, their respective current and former partners, owners, co-owners, principals, managers, associates, predecessors, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, heirs, employees, independent contractors, subcontractors, agents, representatives, officers, directors, parent entities, affiliated entities, predecessor entities, successor entities, insurers, members, and attorneys.14
Under the agreement, the defendants agreed to pay $300,000 to the plaintiffs.15 They also agreed not to collect new rents from the claimants in the suit "until after CCSF signoff of the remodel work presently being completed."16 Mr. Thomas agreed to "promptly withdraw" his appeals regarding the work permits and to "take no other steps to obstruct the completion of the bathroom and other upgrades to the Budget Inn."17
The Agreement contained the following mutual release:
CLAIMANTS hereby release and forever discharge the RELEASED PARTIES of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, liens, . . . damages, any sanctions awarded by any court against RELEASED PARTIES related to the SUBJECT ACTION, losses, costs, attorney's fees and expenses of every kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, fixed or contingent, which they may now have, against the RELEASED PARTIES by reason of any matter, cause, or thing arising out of or connected with their occupancy, as tenants, guests, or otherwise, at the premises commonly known as the Budget Inn, 1139 Market Street, San Francisco, California, any injury to or damages of CLAIMANTS occurring at or arising out of said premises, or by reason of any matter, cause or thing arising out of or connected with any landlord tenant relationship existing between the RELEASED PARTIES, or any one of them, and the CLAIMANTS, or any one of them, at any time. The subject matter of this released includes without limitation or exclusion any and all causes of action, actions, claims or demands, known or unknown, of CLAIMANTS existing or accruing at anytime against the RELEASED PARTIES up to the effective date of this Agreement, including but not limited to those alleged in the SUBJECT ACTION. CLAIMANTS are not releasing future claims or damages as they relate to any harm suffered for actions or inactions of RELEASED PARTIES which take place after execution of the release.18
The Agreement contained the following provision:
In December, 2016, Tenderloin Housing Clinics ("THC") took over the management of the Hotel and converted it into "supportive housing."20 Mr. Thomas alleges that the THC clients brought "needles, sexual liaisons, bedbugs, roaches, noise, dogs, and visitors" to the building and turned it into a "safe-injection site."21 Mr. Thomas asked THC "about housing in a building that wasn't 'supportive housing;' but THC never responded."22 He alleges that THC "has a history of churning tenants in order to get higher rents."23 The plaintiff's "quiet enjoyment of the premises" lasted one month before the THC clients moved in.24
Between February and August 2017, the plaintiff was "forced to leave the building for weeks or months at a time" because of "noise and unsanitary conditions."25 He alleges that THC "continued the remodeling work, using unlicensed contractors and unskilled labor."26 His complaints to THC went unheeded.27 The plaintiff listed the following "violations" that occurred between January and September 2017:
Broken light fixtures, less than required number of ceiling fans, smoke alarms not working properly, fire alarms not working properly, security system frequently malfunctions, heat cannot be regulated by tenants or staff, inadequate heat, heat not turned on, thermostat does not work, insufficient hot water, inadequate water pressure, rust/discoloration in water, inadequate drainage, toilet leaks, shower leak, feces on toilets, walls, floors, door handles and light switches, showers dirty/no curtains, no mats in bathrooms, dog waste in the halls and stairways, flooring dislodged, floors and stairs filthy, windows do not open or close, windows have no screen, front door often does not close securely, stairways and halls dirty, dust accumulation, walkways and stairways have trop hazards, laundry room dirty, inadequate trash and recycling bins/pickup, rodents, cockroaches, bedbugs, spiders, flies/mosquitoes, fleas, mold/mildew, tobacco and "crack" smoke from tenants in building, drug trafficking on the premises, "activity" in halls all night, syringes left in common areas, criminal acts by other tenants, prostitution in the building, moving contaminated items through the building without containment, and no rear fire exit that can be used by most of the tenants.28
The plaintiff's "complaints to DPH finally result[ed] in one tenant who was near death being relocated to a place he could receive proper care, and to DBI issuing Notices of Violation."29 In July 2017 the plaintiff was "attacked by one of the janitors (Ricardo) working for THC, because [the] manager Mwangi Mukami told him [he] had complained about his work."30
In September 2017 the plaintiff contacted California Senator Diane Feinstein's office about conditions at the Hotel.31 The Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD")"conducted an investigation, but found nothing, despite" the conditions documented by the plaintiff.32 "Immediately after the HUD investigation," the plaintiff received an eviction notice.33
In October 2017, Shree Jalaram Lodging LP filed an unlawful-detainer action against Mr. Thomas in San Francisco Superior Court.34 The plaintiff "fought" the eviction, and the parties "reach[ed] a settlement where they [paid] him $30,000, and [he] agree[d] to leave by February 1, 2018."35 The Shree Jalaram defendants attached the November 2017 Settlement Agreement to their motion.36 Pursuant to the agreement, Shree Jalaram would pay Mr. Thomas $30,000, with $10,000 payable within five days of the date of agreement.37 In return, Mr. Thomas agreed that he would vacate the unit by February 1, 2018.38 The agreement stated that if Mr. Thomas complied with his obligations under the agreement, Shree Jalaram would "waive all remaining accrued and unpaid rent and unlawful detainer damages" and would "tender the remaining $20,000 immediately" to Mr. Thomas.39 The agreement contained a mutual release of all claims.40 The relevant portions of the release are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial