Skip to Main Content
Mobile Home Park Home Owners Allegiance

Note: Lawsuits are displayed in chronological order with newest Filing Date (2017-12-12) first.

  • 2017-12-12 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: YC072532
  • Plaintiffs 1-28 vs. Knolls Manor LP, Sierra Corporate Management Inc
  • Case Type: Breach Rental/Lease
  • Status: Plaintiffs Won on 2019-08-14
  • Settlement Amount: $1,250,000
    Combined Total for Knolls Manor and Knolls Lodge, 25 Households

Complaint Summary: Nuisance, Breach of Contract, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Contract), Intentional Interference with Property Rights, Negligence, Breach of Statutes, Breach of Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Breach of Unfair Competition Law, Rescission Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

  • 2017-12-12 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: YC072533
  • Plaintiffs 1-12 vs. Knolls Lodge LP, Sierra Corporate Management Inc
  • Case Type: Breach Rental/Lease
  • Status: Plaintiffs Won on 2019-08-14
  • Settlement Amount: $1,250,000
    Combined Total for Knolls Manor and Knolls Lodge, 25 Households

Complaint Summary: Nuisance, Breach of Contract, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Contract), Intentional Interference with Property Rights, Negligence, Breach of Statutes, Breach of Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Breach of Unfair Competition Law, Rescission Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

  • 2017-02-16 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: LC105272
  • Plaintiffs 1-95 vs. Reseda MHP Associates LP (Reseda 2), Sierra Corporate Management, Reseda Mobile Associates LP (Reseda 1) (Daniel C. Fischer Company), DOES 1 through 50
  • Status Reseda 1: Good Faith Settlement on 2020-01-03
  • Settlement Amount: $400,000
  • Status Reseda 2: Further Status Conference on 2020-12-03

Complaint Summary: Nuisance, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Intentional Interference with Property Rights, Negligence, Breach of Statutes, Breach of Warranty of Habitability, Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Breach of Unfair Competition Law, Rescission, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

Dear Parkowner(s)/Management:

I write to you on my own behalf and on behalf of other current and former homeowners and residents of Reseda Mobile Homes (hereinafter “the Park”), located at 6545 Wilbur Ave., Reseda, CA 91335. We have retained the law firm of Allen, Semelsberger & Kaelin, LLP (ASK Law Group) to represent us regarding the maintenance of the Park. This letter is written on the firm’s letterhead in order to provide you with our attorneys’ contact information should you have any questions regarding this correspondence. To that end, please direct any questions you may have regarding this notice to our attorneys, who can be reached at the address and telephone number listed above.

California Civil Code section 798.84 requires that at least thirty (30) days prior to taking legal action against you, at least one homeowner on behalf of the residents, must send this notice. This notice lists the problems I and/or other homeowners and residents have had in the Park and the remedies we seek. This notice includes problems that at least one homeowner/resident has suffered in the last four years, and lists the potential legal remedies we may have.

Park maintenance problems, other inadequate Park conditions, management violations, and reduction or failure to provide services include, but are not limited to:

  1. General damages for all of the foregoing.
  2. Special damages according to proof, including but not limited to damages for wage loss, emotional distress, physical injury, medical expenses, and other physical problems.
  3. Prejudgment interest on the amount of any damages.
  4. Loss of use and enjoyment; damage to quiet enjoyment.
  5. Overpayment of rent.
  6. Property and home damage.
  7. Statutory penalties.
  8. Declaration of residents’ and managements’ rights and obligations.
  9. Treble and punitive damages.
  10. Attorneys’ fees and costs.
  11. Injunctions to enjoin owner’s, management’s and its agents’ conduct, abate nuisances and enjoin unfair and unlawful business practices.
  12. Disgorgement of profits and restitution of losses.
  13. Such other and further relief or remedy as a court may deem just and proper, or is allowed under any California or federal law.
Screenshot of Kort & Scott Financial Group Website Home Page

Many of these mobile home owners lost their homes (evicted) in an Unlawful Detainer Lawsuit filed by a KSFG named business entity. Mobile home parks are managed by Sierra Corporate Management.

Sampling of 478 Eviction Lawsuits
Chronological Order from 2000 through 2018

Complaint Summary: Complaint for Injunction, Civil Penalties, and Other Equitable Relief.

  1. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17535, Defendants, and all partners, officers, directors, employees, agents, franchisees, contractors, affiliates, employees whose duties include any of the matters covered by the injunctive provisions and their successors and assigns, are permanently enjoined and restrained from directly or indirectly engaging in any of the following acts or practices in or from California:
    1. Violating the provisions of California Health and Safety Code section 18025 by selling, offering for sale, or transferring homes which fail to meet structural, fire safety, plumbing, heat producing, or electrical system code requirements;
    2. Violating the provisions of Health and Safety Code section 18046 by failing to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the home offered for sale and failing to disclose the any prospective buyer all facts materially affecting the value or desirability of that home that an investigation would reveal;
    3. Violating the provisions of Health and Safety Code section 18035 and 18059.5, by failing to use escrow accounts and to have purchase funds go through escrow agent for every transaction by or through a dealer to sell or lease with the option to buy a new or used manufactured home or mobilehome;
    4. Violating the provisions of Civil Code sections 1770(a)(19) and 1671(d) by collecting unreasonable and unconscionable amounts of money as a nonrefundable deposit, however, the parties to such a contract may agree therein upon an amount which shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by a breach thereof, when, from the nature of the case, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage;
    5. Violating the provisions of Health and Safety Code sections 13113.8, 17926, 18029.6, 18031.7, 18025, and 18550, by selling, offering for sale, or transferring homes or permitting occupancy in homes without said homes meeting required habitability and safety requirements (i.e., smoke alarms, carbon monoxide device, water heaters strapping, structural, fire safety, plumbing, heat-producing, or electrical systems, fuel, gas, water, electricity, or sewage connections);
    6. Violating Civil Code section 1102.3, 1102.6 and Health and Safety Code section 18046 by failing to provide the mandated disclosure statement timely and as soon as practicable before the transfer of title and/or by failing to disclose all that is required on the transfer disclosure statement after a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection;
    7. Violating the provisions of Health and Safety Code sections 18059, and 18101 and if, and as applicable, violating 18060.5(c) and 18101.5 by failing to promptly provide title to a buyer;
    8. Violating Health and Safety Code section 18035.3(a) by deviating from its requirements regarding purchase orders, conditional sales contracts or other document evidencing the purchase of a home; and
    9. Violating Health and Safety Code section 18039 by providing a provision in any agreement that buyers waive any right under section 18035 of the Health and Safety Code.
    10. As used in paragraph 6, the words “home,” “mobilehome,” and “manufactured home” are interchangeable and refer to those structures defined pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 18007 and 18008.
    11. As used in paragraph 6, the use of conjunctive language includes the disjunctive.
  2. Upon the start of the 15th day after the signing of the Final Judgment these injunctive terms shall take effect. However, during that 15 day time period, the People are not precluded from seeking ex Parte relief upon good cause (an alleged violation that requires immediate/emergency relief). This paragraph does not negate or affect any of the Defendants’ legal obligations to follow the law.

On Monday, March 19, 2015, Chair D. Ewing of the East Davis County Fire Protection District (EDCFPC) announced that a task force of nine (9) was being formed to investigate the questionable business practices of Sierra Corporate Management.
EDCFPD Minutes of March 2015

One year later, on Friday, March 25, 2016, The People of the State of California (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint for Injunction, Civil Penalties, and Other Equitable Relief against Davis Group LP, Sierra Corporate Management Inc, Western Ventures LP, Abraham Arrigotti and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive.
CV16-500 Complaint

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016, The People of the State of California won a Final Judgment and obtained an Injunction against Davis Group LP and Western Ventures LP.
CV16-500 Final Judgment

County of Yolo Press Release 2016-08-22

Fri, Apr 26, 2019 – “Department of Housing and Community Development, Yolo County secure settlement funds for California mobile home owners. Former mobile home dealer and salespeople operating in Davis, Tustin, and Covina, California agree to pay reimbursements.

Sacramento – More than two dozen mobile home owners in California will be reimbursed for the costs of their homes thanks to a settlement reached following a joint investigation by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Yolo County into the fraudulent practices of a former licensed mobile home dealer and salesperson in Davis, Tustin, and Covina.

As part of the settlement, Western Ventures LP, Abraham Arrigotti, and Svetlana Drita Bronkey agreed to pay $175,000 in restitution. Most of the money, $100,000, will be distributed to all affected homeowners. The remaining $75,000 will go to reimburse the costs of the investigation and legal costs incurred by HCD.

The affected homeowners were sold below-standard homes without notification about the homes’ defects, later resulting in homeowners facing fees and penalties, violation notices, and/or eviction for not repairing their homes in a timely manner. In addition, many victims never obtained title and ownership of their homes after the sale, while others fought for years before titles were transferred into their names.

Mobile homes and manufactured homes are often the only affordable choice for many Californians, said HCD Director Ben Metcalf. HCD’s authority to hold licensed mobile home dealers and salespeople accountable is part of the bigger picture to ensure every Californian has access to a safe, affordable home.

HCD’s occupational licensing investigators and Legal Affairs Division thoroughly investigated and prosecuted the case with the assistance of Yolo County governmental offices, including the District Attorney's Office and the Office of Yolo County Supervisor Jim Provenza, who helped set up a task force with the County Sheriff and provided translators for affected homeowners who filed claims.”
HCD Press Release

HCD Press Release 2019-04-26

Sat, Feb 1, 2020, Annual Report Published: Tue, Jan 14, 2020 – “HCD helps secure $175,000 settlement for mobilehome owners following fraudulent practices by mobilehome dealer/salesperson.

HCD ensures that licensed mobilehome/manufactured home dealers and salespeople comply with laws and regulations governing licensing, escrows, and sales by educating, investigating complaints and illegal practices, and taking appropriate action against violators, including referrals to agencies that can prosecute.

Consumer complaints alleging violations are investigated by HCD field staff. When a violation is found, HCD issues an order to comply (if the situation can be corrected); and/or issues a citation or files an accusation asking an administrative law judge to revoke or suspend a license and often require the licensee to pay restitution to consumers harmed by the acts. In more serious cases, HCD can request the local district attorney or attorney general to file criminal charges.

This was the case when more than two dozen mobilehome owners in California were sold below-standard homes without notification about the homes’ defects, later resulting in homeowners facing fees and penalties, violation notices, and/ or eviction for not repairing their homes in a timely manner. In addition, many victims never obtained title and ownership of their homes after the sale, while others fought for years before titles were transferred into their names.

HCD’s investigators and legal team thoroughly investigated and prosecuted the case with the assistance of Yolo County governmental offices, including the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office and the Office of Yolo County Supervisor Jim Provenza, who helped set up a task force with the Yolo County Sheriff and provided translators for affected homeowners who filed claims.

Following a joint investigation by HCD and Yolo County into the fraudulent practices of a formerly licensed mobilehome dealer/salesperson operating in Davis, Tustin, and Covina, a settlement was reached in which Western Ventures LP, Abraham Arrigotti, and Svetlana Drita Bronkey agreed to pay restitution, with $100,000 distributed to all homeowners who filed claims, reimbursing them for the costs of their homes.”

  • 2015-08-13 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: BC591412
  • Plaintiffs 1-235 vs. Friendly Village GP LLC, Friendly Village MHP Associates LP, Sierra Corporate Management Inc, Kort & Scott Financial Group LLC
  • Status: Plaintiffs Won on 2019-11-18
  • Settlement Amount: $57,000,000+

Complaint Summary: Failure to Maintain Mobilehome Park, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Continuing Trespass, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, Inverse Condemnation, Unfair Business Practices, Retaliatory Eviction, Financial Elder Abuse.

Fri, Nov 22, 2019 – “Kabateck LLP attorneys representing hundreds of low-income mobile home residents in Long Beach, CA secured a nearly $57 million settlement, which is the largest settlement ever involving a mobile home park.

350 residents of Friendly Village Mobile Home Park who live in squalor will receive monetary compensation from the owners of the park, who failed to address serious maintenance problems, ignored complaints and hiked up the rent.

A bankruptcy judge approved a $42.5 million settlement for 151 families who filed lawsuits against the defendants, Michael Scott and Lee Kort. Those plaintiffs obtained $6.9 million paid from prior settlements.

As part of the settlement agreement, the mobile home park will be sold and a substantial portion of the proceeds of that sale, at least $7 million, will be divided between many of the residents, even those who are not part of the litigation.

This landmark agreement resolves litigation that found the owners negligent of unfair business practices, retaliatory eviction and financial elder abuse.”

Wed, Nov 20, 2019 – “The owners of a mobile home park that is sinking due to its location on a former landfill have agreed to pay roughly $50 million to 151 families who sued over the conditions, an attorney representing the residents announced today. He made the announcement after a judge approved the settlement earlier this week.

As part of the agreement, residents in the park on Paramount Boulevard will also share in a portion of the proceeds from the sale of Friendly Village Mobile Park after the owners declared bankruptcy. The sale is expected to generate an additional $7 million to be divided among the residents, even those who were not part of the lawsuit that culminated in a civil trial and jury verdict a year ago.

Phil Woog, an attorney for the park’s owners – Friendly Village MHP Associates, Sierra Corporate Management and Kort & Scott Financial Group – declined to comment in a brief phone interview.

Kabateck and his partner, Gary Fields, said the settlement will be divided among residents based on their individual conditions. None of the residents will get rich, he said – but he said hopes it will be enough to help them find a new home.”

Estimated Awards: $57,000,000 − $25,650,000 (45% Attorney’s Fees) = $31,350,000 ÷ 151 families = $207,616 per family, but only if it were divided equally which is NOT how it will work. This calculation is only provided as an example and does not reflect the actual individual settlements to be awarded to the 151 families.

Kabateck LLP Press Release 2019-11-22
  • 2015-04-01 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: 34-2015-00177316-CU-PO-GDS
  • Plaintiffs 1-XX vs. Larchmont Associates LLC, Larchmont Associates LP, Sierra Corporate Management Inc
  • Complaint:

    12. Defendants maintained both a per se public nuisance and a common-law nuisance on their property by substantially failing to provide and maintain the Park's common areas, facilities, services, and physical improvements in good working order and condition.

    1. The Park's sewer system spills sewage needlessly endangering the safety of the public and residents. This sewage flows down streets, in front of homes and onto some of the lots. The poor maintenance of the sewage system has also caused sewage to back-up inside residents' homes. The smell of sewage goes inside residents' homes and can be smelled throughout the Park. Sewage spill and/or backups have resulted in damage to residents' homes and personal property.
    2. The Park's water system provides contaminated, discolored, rusty, dirty and odorous water needlessly endangering the safety of the public and residents. The water pressure is low and management has failed to provide residents with advanced notice of shut-offs of water service. Residents have been overcharged for water. The water has caused some residents to become sick.
    3. The Park's electrical system provides inadequate power needlessly endangering the safety of the public and residents. Residents have experienced power outages that have affected multiple homes in the Park simultaneously. Residents have also experienced problems with power surges and flickering and dimming lights in their homes. Residents are unable to run multiple appliances at one time, because the Park provides insufficient electrical power to adequately supply needs of homeowners. Residents have noticed exposed or inadequately covered electrical wires in the Park. Electrical boxes have caught on fire. Problems associated with the Park's electrical system have damaged residents' kitchen appliances and home electronics and home appliances. Residents have had to spend money to replace food that had spoiled as a result of extended power outages.
    4. Residents are being overcharged for electricity. The electrical meters are not properly maintained and do not work properly.
    5. The Park's drainage system fails to safely remove water from residents' lots needlessly endangering the public and residents. The Park drains do not work properly. Improper drainage has caused the ponding of water in front of, around or under homes, as well as in streets, common areas, in driveways and on spaces. These drainage problems usually occur after rainfall or when sprinklers are used. Some homes have sustained damage, as the improper drainage has caused homes to become unleveled and sink. There are sinking areas on residents' spaces.
    6. The Park's failure to safely manage and maintain the common areas has needlessly endangered the public and residents. Streets have potholes, cracks, bumps, and depressions. Poor street conditions, along with improper lighting conditions, make it difficult for residents to walk, and put residents at risk for personal injury. Driveways are not maintained by the Park. Driveways are deteriorating and sinking.
    7. The swimming pool is not available for residents' use. The pool is filthy and poorly maintained. The water in the pool is murky and dirty.
    8. There is limited lighting in the Park. The lighting is either not turned on or not working, is inadequate, and/or is out for long periods of time. There have been unreasonable delays to replace broken and burned out bulbs. The light poles are not maintained. Residents do not feel safe walking at night in the Park due to the poor lighting.
    9. The clubhouse is not available for residents to use. The Park lets people from outside the Park use it. The kitchen window is broken and boarded up. The Park charges residents a large deposit to rent the clubhouse.
    10. The laundry room is unavailable for residents' use. The laundry room is not maintained and there are not enough machines and they do not work well. There is no light in the laundry room.
    11. Trees and landscaping are not properly maintained or trimmed, and look unsightly. Tree roots are damaging residents' driveways.
    12. Park restrooms and showers are dirty and not maintained. Restrooms are not stocked with toilet paper, soap, or paper towels. The Park showers are closed. The showerheads are broken.
    13. There is a lack of maintenance of the trash area. There are an inadequate number of trash containers, resulting in frequent overflows and scattered debris.
    14. The perimeter fence is falling down and crumbling.
    15. The fence around the pool has missing bars and small children can fit through the bars making it a health and safety issue.
    16. The playground, storage, barbeque, and basketball areas are not maintained. The playground has dangerous equipment and the area is covered with cat and dog feces.
    17. The storage area locks have been changed and residents cannot get a key. The storage area is not secure.
    18. The carwash has been closed.
    19. There is no basketball hoop.
    20. Park Management has failed to properly maintain vacant homes, which are often left in the Park for long periods of time in poor condition with broken windows. The vacant homes are eye sores and homeless persons have broken in to sleep in them and to take things from inside.
    21. The overall poor maintenance of the Park, Park areas, vacant lots, utilities, and landscaping, results in a rundown appearance and affects home sales.
    22. Lack of security and lighting has resulted in vandalism, graffiti, criminal and drug activity, and theft of personal property.
    23. The Park's failure to properly supervise and manage its employees has needlessly endangered the safety of the public and residents.
    24. Management is unavailable or is difficult to communicate with.
    25. Management harasses or and threatens retaliation against Plaintiffs, disregards their safety, and demonstrates lack of concern for them and their needs.
    26. Management regularly refuses to respond to Plaintiffs' complaints, and harasses, threatens and retaliates against them for making complaints.
    27. Management comes onto resident's spaces without advance notice and selectively enforces Park rules or does not enforce them at all.
    28. The lack of proper management has resulted in overcharges or improper billings for utilities.
    29. Repairs by Park owner or agents are done poorly or incorrectly.
    30. Management refuses to make repairs or there are lengthy delays in making repairs.
    31. Management interferes with the use or enjoyment of Plaintiffs' leasehold and home.
    32. The Park has a stigma and bad reputation affecting home values.
    33. Defendants have removed Park amenities and decreased services.
    34. There is a deterioration of the Park infrastructure and Park appearance despite high increases in rent by Defendants resulting in Plaintiffs' difficulty and/or inability to sell homes.
    35. Defendants interfere with prospective sales of homes by:
      1. failing to maintain the Park's infrastructure and appearance;
      2. improperly withholding approval of prospective purchasers for resident owned homes but approving them for Park owned homes which it offers at reduce rates;
      3. failing to provide Group B Plaintiffs with title to the homes upon purchase from Defendants,
      4. charging some Group B Plaintiffs for the back-owned taxes on the homes and,
      5. charging excessive rents for the leasehold which are not worth the amount charged.
  • Status: Set for Jury Trial on 2017-10-10, Mandatory Settlement Conference on 2017-08-31
    Request for Dismissal with Prejudice Filed on 2017-04-24
    Civil Trial Assignment Vacated on 2017-08-22

Complaint Summary: Nuisance, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Intentional Interference with Property Rights, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Statutes, Breach of Unfair Competition Law, Breach of Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Covenant of Enjoyment, Breach of Translation Act, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

  • 2014-05-29 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: CIV528792
  • Plaintiffs 1-XX vs. Sierra Corporate Management Inc, Trailer Rancho Associates LP
  • Complaint:

    1. For families with lower incomes, mobilehomes provide a rare opportunity for affordable and stable homeownership. For cities and counties, mobilehome parks provide an important source of affordable housing in the community. Bayshore Villa Mobile Home Park ("Bayshore") is one of these parks. Located in unincorporated Redwood City, in the County of San Mateo, it is home for 136 households who rent the spaces on which their mobilehomes lie. However, the park tenants are now faced with illegal rent charges that are costing them thousands of dollars they can scarcely afford, and likely, their homes.

    2. The Mobilehome Residency Law ("MRL") regulates the relationship between mobilehome park owners and homeowners who are tenants in the park. Civil Code §798, et seq. Among the various provisions are requirements for written rental agreements with specified provisions and prohibitions on evictions without specific limited causes. Id. at §798.15, §798.17, §798.55. Certain long-term leases are exempt from a local mobile home rent control ordinance if they meet the requirements of the MRL. Id.

    3. The County of San Mateo, reacting to soaring rents at Bayshore and the County's one other mobilehome park, enacted a Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance in 2003 ("Ordinance").

    4. To circumvent the Ordinance, mobilehome park owners and operators, such as Defendants, have induced plaintiff mobilehome owners, through the promise of lower rents, to sign long-term leases that Defendants claim to be exempt from rent control. However, the leases contain terms that do not comply with the MRL's requirements for exempt leases.

    5. In reality, after two to three years, Defendants massively inflate the rents based on a conflicting amount stated in the lease. The resulting rent leaves plaintiffs paying hundreds of dollars more per month, and thousands more per year. For many of these families, the new space rents are completely unaffordable, putting them at serious risk of losing their homes and their investments in those homes.

    6. The long-term leases and rent increases offered by Defendants violate the MRL and San Mateo County's Rent Control Ordinance; are impermissibly vague, and are unlawful business practices that should be enjoined under Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.

  • Status: on 2020-03-05

    The Settlement, if approved, will result in the creation of a cash settlement fund of $225,000 (the “Settlement Amount”). In addition, Defendants have agreed to change certain lease terms for the current resident class members. The rent for current resident class members will be the actual rent amount currently paid, which will be increased by 6% on or June 1, 2019 with 90 days’ notice (which notice has already been provided), thereafter the rents will be increased by 5% on January 1, 2020, and an additional 5% on September 1, 2020. Thereafter increases shall be limited to 4% annually, (or an amount equal to the then applicable increase in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”)) if the increase is greater than 4%, to be taken in September of each year. All such increases will require 90 days’ notice. This relief from alleged arbitrary increases is in addition to the rent freeze which has been in effect for over four years for the Class as a result of the preliminary injunction. In addition, some lease terms will be clarified and further disclosures will be provided to prospective tenants regarding the local rent control ordinance.

Class Action Lawsuit: On Tue, Nov 15, 2016, the Court certified a class as follows: The Court certifies the first cause of action for violations of Civil Code §798.17(d), 798.19 and 798.56 on behalf of all persons who have paid rent for a mobile home space at Bayshore Villa Mobile Home Park since May 29, 2011, and who have entered into a long-term lease with Defendants, except those whose long-term lease provides the same amounts for beginning monthly rent and the rent actually charged for the beginning period of the lease.

  • 2012-01-13 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: YC066308
  • Plaintiffs 1-XX vs. Royal Western LP
  • Status: Plaintiffs Won on 2014-08-28
  • Settlement Amount: $1,700,000+
  • 2009-08-26 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: 30-2009-00125333
  • Plaintiffs 1-XX vs. Hollydale Uppertier/Operating LP
  • Status: Plaintiffs Won on 2010-10-22
  • Settlement Amount: Unknown

Complaint Summary: Nuisance, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Prima Facie Tort of Willful Conduct, Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Unfair Business Practices, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

  • 2009-03-13 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: GIC871748
  • Plaintiffs 1-XX vs. Greenfield Mobile Home Estates
  • Status: Defendants Won on 2010-03-02
  • Settlement Amount: $370,000+
  • 2006-09-22 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: 06AS04103
  • Plaintiffs 1-XX vs. Larchmont Associates LP
  • Status: Plaintiffs Won on 2008-06-05
  • Settlement Amount: $3,800,000+

Complaint Summary: Nuisance, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Intentional Interference with Property Rights, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Negligence Per Se, Unfair Business Practices, Breach of Warranty of Habitability and Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

  • 2004-05-28 – Civil Lawsuit Filed by Residents
  • Case Number: BC316282
  • Plaintiffs 1-XX vs. Royal Western LLC
  • Status: Plaintiffs Won on 2006-12-06
  • Settlement Amount: $1,300,000+

Complaint Summary: Nuisance, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Negligence Per Se, Unfair Business Practices, Breach of Warranty of Habitability and Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Declaratory Relief.