SANTA ANA, Calif. (Legal Newsline) - A California apartment complex may have to defend itself in a lawsuit over claims of false advertising and allowing the property to be littered with dog feces and used condoms after an appeals court reversed a judge’s refusal to certify a class action by disgruntled former tenants.
The Arbors at California Oaks Luxury Apartments is accused of advertising itself as “a safe, habitable, and luxurious place to live,” when plaintiffs say the complex was an uninhabitable mess with overflowing garbage dumpsters, rats and no security patrols. They also accuse the management company of pilfering damage deposits by charging tenants for damage that was present when they moved in.
“The pools are dirty, and the fitness equipment is broken,” plaintiffs stated in a class action seeking more than $25 million in damages. “The complex is unsafe for tenants, especially children, and does not deliver on its material promises.”
A trial court rejected plaintiff lawyers’ request to certify the case as a class action, saying individual questions predominate. More than 1,000 leases were signed during the proposed class period, the trial judge concluded, and every tenant might have a different impression of whether the complex lived up to its advertising or whether they received fair value for their rent. The complex also presented evidence from an employee suggesting some plaintiffs never lived at the complex and others falsely claimed their apartments were damaged when they moved in to avoid losing their deposit on move-out.
The Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ruling the judge erred in multiple ways. The appellate ruling didn’t go as far as ordering a class to be certified, saying the trial judge still must decide if the class is large enough and the identity of class members can be ascertained. But in what could be the first published opinion on the issue in California state court, the appeals court said questions such as the habitability of an apartment complex’s common areas, the truthfulness of advertising and damage deposit policies may be eligible for class treatment.
The 42-page decision published April 6 cites numerous accounts by former tenants about alleged unsafe an unsanitary conditions while they lived at the complex. A plaintiff named Zachary declared “there were regularly dog droppings left near pool A. I often saw a family of skunks near pool A.” Cetta said “dog poop was littered throughout the complex. You had to always pay attention to where you walked.” Another plaintiff said dumpsters went from being emptied several times a week to once a week or less.
“In nearly every declaration, the declarants cited a combination of dog feces, trash, and pests in the common areas,” the appeals court noted. These are “common questions of fact because the condition of the dumpsters and the grounds is not an individualized issue—it is the same for everyone.”
The trial court also refused to certify a class because the plaintiffs didn’t present evidence of a single company policy to withhold damage deposits. The complex owner could respond to each claim by presenting evidence to offset the value of the deposit, the judge wrote, meaning these deposit-deduction inquiries would be highly individualized.”
The appeals court said that went too far into the merits of the claims, when class certification is only concerned with whether liability can be determined on a classwide basis. If the case goes to trial, the appeals court ruled, “defendants have options for proving the reasonableness of their deductions.”
The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs and remanded the case to Riverside County court to consider whether it meets requirements for numerosity and ascertainability, or identifying who belongs to the class.