On January 15, 2016, tenants at the Guardian Arms building in Los Angeles filed their Motion to Certify a Class of tenants who were forced to live through extensive construction -- which they allege is a violation of the Los Angeles rent control laws.
The lawsuit alleges that Guardian Arms exposed its tenants in a 90-unit building to asbestos, chemical fumes, and dangerous conditions. City officials initially ordered Guardian Arms to offer the tenants permanent relocation compensation. After the City made this determination, Guardian Arms announced that it was canceling the construction. At this point, city officials closed the case. Thereafter, construction continued.
Tenants seek an enforcement of the rent control law and back payment of relocation expenses required by the city's rent control law. A copy of the lawsuit is available here.
The lawsuit alleges that Guardian Arms exposed its tenants in a 90-unit building to asbestos, chemical fumes, and dangerous conditions. City officials initially ordered Guardian Arms to offer the tenants permanent relocation compensation. After the City made this determination, Guardian Arms announced that it was canceling the construction. At this point, city officials closed the case. Thereafter, construction continued.
The plaintiffs, Mr. Ryan Masalcas, Ms. Tarniesha Stimage, Mr. Brian Phelps, Mr. Andrew Roberts, Mr. Matthew Russell, and Mr. Masayoshi Sasaki (collectively the “Named Plaintiffs”), tenants of the building, brought a lawsuit alleging violations ofthe RSO and related causes of action, including those stemming from the landlord’s efforts to defraud city officials
All of the Named Plaintiffs had leases for their tenancy at the Guardian Arms property. The allegations made by each of the 6 named plaintiffs are corroborated by 6 additional witnesses, all of whom provided statements in support of the prosecution of the lawsuit. The testimony of the plaintiffs and the witnesses are available by clicking the names below:
The Guardian Arms Building is a large residential apartment complex in the City’s Hollywood neighborhood.As an example of its size, the building has over 90 residential units, (see Exhibit 3 to Decl. R. Masalcas).On February 21, 2013, the Property was transferred via grant deed to Defendant Guardian Arms Pacific, LP.(Ex. 15 - Grant Deed).
After Defendant purchased the Property, it used a company called Polaris Property Management to administer its property management duties. In the early Winter of 2013 and 2014, Defendant began renovations on the Property.[1] Thereafter, the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department (“HCID”) received tenant complaints about unlawful construction on the premises.
HCID conducted an initial inquiry and began communications with Defendant’s representatives. From that point, HCID required Defendant Guardian Arms to comply with the Rent Stabilization Ordinance’s (“RSO”) procedures for commencing construction on leased residential property. The RSO has special requirements for owners of rent-controlled buildings who undertake certain types of “primary renovation work.” (Ex. 16 – RSO Excerpts).
A landlord undertaking primary renovation work must apply for a permit with HCID, which includes filing a Tenant Habitability Plan (“THP”) per L.A.M.C. Ch. XV, Art. 2, § 152.03(B). (Ex. 16). Once the plan is accepted, it is reviewed by HCID for the proposed construction’s impact on, among other things, the common areas and to determine whether the landlord must pay for permanent relocation assistance. L.A.M.C. Ch. XV, Art. 2, §§ 152.03(C), 152.05. (Ex. 16).
HCID accepted the THP on April 17, 2014. As a part of HCID’s acceptance of the Landlord’s THP, HCID made a determination that the proposed renovations would impact the building’s habitability and therefore required the Landlord to offer relocation packages to the building tenants.
The Landlord served the THP to the building tenants on April 21, 2014, along with a Notice of Primary Work. As a part of this notice, Defendant Guardian included a statement that because the renovation work was scheduled to last over 30 days, Defendant was offering the tenants relocation assistance in the form of monetary compensation.
Specifically, the notice stated: “You (Tenant) are eligible for relocation because the work will take 30 days or more. Please see Permanent Relocation form attached. The deadline for choosing relocation is 15 days after the landlord serves you the plan.” 38 of the tenants filled out the Permanent Relocation form and returned it to the Landlord’s designated representative as instructed on or before the expiration date.
That form’s pre-printed text stated as follows: “I choose to voluntarily terminate my tenancy in exchange for permanent relocation assistance. I will move out of my unit no later than 60 days from the date I am served the Notice of Primary Work.”
No one who accepted Defendant’s relocation payment offer actually received payment. In response to tenant complaints regarding Defendant’s actions, HCID convened a hearing to address the matter on June 6, 2014. At that time, Guardian Arms transmitted a letter to HCID, which stated that it was withdrawing the THP on the grounds that it was not going to proceed with the construction set forth in the Scope of Work.[2] Based on the Landlord’s representation that the construction was canceled, HCID declined to further intervene in the tenants’ request for relocation assistance. A copy of HCID's determination is available here.
After HCID closed its investigation, the Guardian Arms continued with the construction .[3] In fact, in litigation, Guardian Arms took the position that the construction hadn't proceeded at all. Its position is reiterated several times in court documents.
Despite Guardian Arms's contention, photos, videos, and witness testimony all demonstrate that construction proceeded and that additional construction work has proceeded even beyond that which was listed on the Scope of Work.
Here is a video from February 7, 2015, depicting construction on the first floor of the building:
Here are additional videos depicting construction on the property:
The THP also stated that some of the work would include “hazardous material abatement.” A report detailing the presence of asbestos (40% Chrysotile of the friable type--you'll note that EPA action levels are at the 1% threshold for friable Chrysotile) is available here.
The report depicts the presence of asbestos in thermal insulation throughout the property and lead-based paint in select areas. Witnesses report that in the Spring of 2015, they watched contractors performing work in the ceiling area of the building’s entry way. (Matthew Russell; Elzabeth Portela). During the course of this work, thermal insulation collapsed from the ceiling, spilling out asbestos-containing fibers throughout the work area. Witnesses who described the work did not identify any procedures appropriate for the exposure of asbestos fibers, such as the use of HEPA vacuums or ventilation procedures mandated by state and federal guidelines.
In addition, since at least the Fall of 2014, there has been an enormous hole in the ceiling of one of the lobbies adjacent to the elevator bays and a large chunk of the wall near the elevators was removed, exposing the common areas the thermal insulating and asbestos fibers. (Matthew Russell; Elzabeth Portela).
During the prolonged periods of water interruptions, the fire safety systems were disabled.At the same time, the fire escape and other fire routes were obstructed by the construction materials, including waste materials and scaffolding.
Throughout the month of May of 2015, continuing through the present day, carpets in the hallways throughout the building were ripped off of the floor and not yet replaced.
Tenants received notices about the carpet removal process, which included warnings that certain stairwells would be inaccessible during this time period, limiting tenant access to fire safety and earthquake evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. (Decl. of R. Masalcas at Ex. 25.) At the same time, the industrial strength glue on the floors and associated chemical fumes were exposed and have remained exposed to the present day.
Associated with the constant construction has been excessive noise that tenants have been forced to live through.
[1] A summary of Guardian Arms's construction activities is itemized in the declarations of 12 witnesses who are current or former tenants of the building.
[2] This document, referred to herein as the “June Letter,” was sent to every member of the proposed class, as alleged in the Complaint. Each of the twelve witnesses referred to the June Letter in their Declarations and 11 of them authenticated the letter and attached it to their respective declaration as an exhibit.
[3] Each of the 12 witnesses describe in detail Defendant’s construction activities. But there is also photographic and video evidence. Attached to the Declaration of Ryan Masalcas are numerous photos depicting the construction on the Property at Exhibits 10-25. The Declaration of Tarniesha Stimage authenticates photos and videos of construction on the property as Exhibits 8-12. The Declaration of John Pakos (Ex. 9) authenticates photos of construction on the property as Exhibits 6-9.
On June 9, 2015, six tenants brought a class action lawsuit against landlord-developer Guardian Arms located at 5217 Hollywood Blvd. in Los Angeles, CA. A copy of the lawsuit is available here.
In January of 2014, the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID) responded to tenant complaints of illegal construction at Guardian Arms. HCID documented the illegal construction and ordered the Guardian Arms to offer and pay all of its tenants relocation assistance because, in HCID's words, the work impacted "tenant habitability." A copy of the letter is available here. The relocation assistance ranges from $7,600 to $19,000.00, a number established by the Los Angeles rent control law.
The lawsuit alleges that after tenants put forward their requests, Guardian Arms denied each and every request. Despite the order from HCID, construction continued. As a result of the construction, the lawsuit alleges, the tenants were subjected to asbestos exposure, chemical fumes, a complete shutdown of the building heat through winters in 2014 and 2015, frequent water shutoffs, and other construction activities that affected tenant health and safety. Details of the tenants allegations will be posted on this site. The lawsuit is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Masalcas, et al., v. Guardian Arms Pacific, LP, L.A.S.C. No. BC571867.
On February 6, 2015, a tenant at the 90-unit Guardian Arms building in Hollywood filed a class action lawsuit against his landlord and commercial developer. According to the lawsuit, the developer at Guardian Arms has undertaken renovations so substantial that it required the landlord to relocate tenants. The lawsuit is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Masalcas v. Guardian Arms Pacific, LP, L.A.S.C. No. BC571867.
In January of 2014, the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID) responded to tenant complaints of illegal construction at Guardian Arms. HCID documented the illegal construction and ordered the Guardian Arms to offer and pay all of its tenants relocation assistance because, in HCID's words, the work impacted "tenant habitability." A copy of the letter is available here. The relocation assistance ranges from $7,600 to $19,000.00, a number established by the Los Angeles rent control law.
The lawsuit alleges that after tenants put forward their requests, Guardian Arms denied each and every request. Despite the order from HCID, construction continued. More information about this lawsuit will follow.
