1 Michael Claiborne (SBN 281308) - Leadership Counsel

COMPLAINT Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Michael Claiborne (SBN 281308) Phoebe Seaton (SBN 238273) LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY (LCJA) 2210 San Joaquin Street Fresno, California 93721 Telephone: (559) 369-2790

Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

JUNTOS POR UN MEJOR OASIS, an unincorporated association; PEDRO ZACARIAS NICOLAS, an individual; MARIA DE JESUS DIEGO BAUTISTA, an individual; GERARDO PEREZ, an individual; JOSEFINA PANTOJA REGALADO, an individual; JESUS GARCIA CRUZ, an individual; JEANETTE AMAYA GONZALEZ, an individual; PEDRO CRUZ FELIPE, an individual; CECILIA HERNANDEZ CRUZ, an individual; BLANCA ESTELA GARCIA VERA, an individual; RICARDO CRUZ CHAVEZ, an individual; IRMA ESTEBAN NICOLAS, an individual; JOSE CARLOS VICENTE, an individual; MARIA de JESUS MULATO, an individual; MARIA JOSEFA MULATO, an individual; ALBERTO AYALA, an individual; LINDA ESPINOZA, an individual; IVETH ALANIS NUNEZ, an individual; MARCELI PEREZ RUIZ, an individual; EUGENIA QUITERO, an individual; NICOLAS MORAN, an individual; SUSANA NAVEDA, an individual; JUANITA MAGDALENA ARROYO, an individual,

Plaintiffs, vs.

SCOTT LAWSON, an individual dba Oasis Mobile Home Park; SABRINA LAWSON, an individual; DOES 1-25, inclusive,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.:

COMPLAINT FOR 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;2. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY

OF HABITABILITY;3. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT

OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;4. PRIVATE NUISANCE;5. PUBLIC NUISANCE;6. NEGLIGENCE;7. NEGLIGENCE PER SE;8. TRESPASS;9. CONVERSION;10. TRESPASS TO CHATTEL;11. BATTERY;12. VIOLATION OF THE MOBILEHOME

RESIDENCY LAW;13. BREACH OF STATUTORY

TENANTABILITY;14. RETALIATION;15. UNLAWFUL DISCLOSURE OF

IMMIGRATION STATUS;16. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION;17. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;18. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES;19. PERMANENT INJUNCTION; and20. DECLARATORY RELIEF

) ) )

COMPLAINT Page 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This case arises from unsafe and unhealthy living conditions at Oasis Mobile Home Park

(“Oasis” or the “Park”), as well as retaliation and fraudulent misrepresentation by Park ownership.

2. Oasis is a severely low-income community of mobile homes in Thermal, California that is

home to hundreds of people, likely exceeding a population of one thousand — including families, children,

and essential workers.

3. Caused by lack of investment and maintenance by Park ownership and management, the

living conditions at Oasis are wholly unacceptable and inconsistent with habitability and tenantability

standards.

4. Drinking water at Oasis (provided by groundwater wells and a distribution system owned

by Defendants) is contaminated with arsenic at levels nearly ten (10) times the drinking water standard.

Sewage disposal infrastructure in the Park consists of a makeshift collection system and series of

inadequate and improperly maintained septic tanks, causing sewage to pool and cesspools to form

throughout the Park. Water and electricity shutoffs and failures are common. Flooding occurs in the

unpaved streets during and after rain storms and when water pipes burst. Wild dogs roam unchecked

throughout the Park. Trash is allowed to accumulate in empty spaces, common areas, and at an

unpermitted onsite garbage dump.

5. When residents of Oasis have raised these issues with Park ownership and management,

they are often told that if they do not like the conditions they can move. Residents have also been subject

to retaliatory threats and actions for asserting their rights to potable drinking water and habitable

conditions, including but not limited to rent increases, threats of eviction and fines, and threats of referral

to and actual coordination with federal immigration authorities.

6. Additionally, Park ownership fraudulently charges residents excessive amounts for

electricity by inaccurately inflating the amount of electricity used by each household and misrepresenting

the rate and fees associated with the expense of electricity service.

II. PARTIES AND VENUE

7. Plaintiff JUNTOS POR UN MEJOR OASIS (“Juntos”) is an unincorporated association of

lessees and residents of Oasis formed on January 16, 2020. Pursuant to its adopted bylaws the purpose

COMPLAINT Page 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and mission of Juntos is to advocate for safe housing, safe and affordable drinking water, safe wastewater,

clean air, and improved living conditions for residents of Oasis. Voting members of Juntos reside in Oasis,

lease spaces from Defendants both currently and during the relevant time period, and are directly impacted

and harmed by the issues described in this complaint. Plaintiff Juntos and its members are directly and

beneficially interested in the relief sought by this complaint and are aggrieved by the conduct of

Defendants. Juntos brings this action on its own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of

residents of Oasis.

8. Plaintiffs PEDRO ZACARIAS NICOLAS, MARIA DE JESUS DIEGO BAUTISTA,

GERARDO PEREZ, JOSEFINA PANTOJA REGALADO, JESUS GARCIA CRUZ, JEANETTE

AMAYA GONZALEZ, PEDRO CRUZ FELIPE, CECILIA HERNANDEZ CRUZ, BLANCA ESTELA

GARCIA VERA, RICARDO CRUZ CHAVEZ, IRMA ESTEBAN NICOLAS, JOSE CARLOS

VICENTE, MARIA de JESUS MULATO, MARIA JOSEFA MULATO, ALBERTO AYALA, LINDA

ESPINOZA, IVETH ALANIS NUNEZ, MARCELI PEREZ RUIZ, EUGENIA QUITERO, NICOLAS

MORAN, SUSANA NAVEDA, and JUANITA MAGDALENA ARROYO are individuals who have and

continue to lease spaces in Oasis and who reside and continue to reside in Oasis (collectively “the

individual Plaintiffs”). Certain of the individual Plaintiffs are members of Juntos.

9. Defendant SCOTT LAWSON is an individual doing business as Oasis Mobile Home Park.

Defendant Lawson owns, operates, maintains and manages Oasis. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and

on that ground allege, that Defendant Lawson is a resident of Riverside County.

10. Defendant SABRINA LAWSON has entered into written lease agreements in her name

with residents of Oasis and has or continues to work at Oasis. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on

that ground allege, that Defendant Sabrina Lawson is a resident of Riverside County. Plaintiffs are

informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendant Sabrina Lawson was or is employed by

Defendant Scott Lawson during the relevant period, and that in all conduct alleged herein she acted as an

agent of Defendant Scott Lawson with actual or ostensible authority.

11. Defendants DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are sued under fictitious names because

Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names of DOES 1 through 25, inclusive. Plaintiffs are ignorant of their

true names and identities because that information is within the sole possession and control of Defendants

COMPLAINT Page 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

or third parties. Plaintiff will designate their true names in this proceeding when their true names are

discovered.

12. Venue is proper because Defendant Scott Lawson resides in Riverside County, a substantial

part of the acts, events, omissions and occurrences giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in

Riverside County, the subject lease agreements were entered into in Riverside County.

13. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, § 631, Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury

trial.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Oasis Mobile Home Park

14. Oasis is home to hundreds of people, likely exceeding a population of one thousand

residents, including families, children, and essential workers.

15. Oasis is and has been during the entirety of the relevant period owned, operated,

maintained, leased, and managed by Defendant Scott Lawson.

16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Oasis has been operated,

maintained, leased, and managed for at least a portion of the relevant period by Defendant Sabrina

Lawson.

17. The Park is located at 88740 70th Avenue in Thermal, California, near the north shore of

the Salton Sea within, in whole or in part, the boundaries of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

(“Torres Martinez”) Reservation.

B. Lease Agreements

18. During the relevant period, Defendants Scott Lawson and Sabrina Lawson entered into

written and oral lease agreements with members of Juntos, the individual Plaintiffs, and residents of Oasis.

Certain written lease agreements were for a period of time measured in years (“annual lease”) and others

are month-to-month (“month-to-month lease”).

19. Each of the individual Plaintiffs are either a party to a written or oral lease agreement with

Defendants, or are a third party beneficiary of a written or oral lease agreement with Defendants.

COMPLAINT Page 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that there are different

versions of both the annual lease and month-to-month lease that Defendants used during the relevant

period.

21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that though the different

versions of the lease agreements vary in some respects, the provisions described herein are consistent

among all the lease agreements unless otherwise noted.

22. Typically, residents of the Park either own the mobile homes themselves or lease them

from a third party. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants also

lease the mobile homes themselves to certain residents of the Park.

23. Pursuant to the lease agreements Defendants agreed to lease mobile home spaces at Oasis

to tenants in exchange for monthly rent for the space.

24. Space rent and charges for water, drainage, and trash service totaled $475 per month until

late 2019 or early 2020 when Defendants raised the total charged for rent, water, drainage and trash service

to $575 per month.

25. Defendants charge a security deposit, and the lease agreements contain commitments

regarding its return at the termination of the lease.

26. Certain of the annual lease agreements include a provision stating “THE TENANT MUST

PROVIDE AT HIS OWN EXPENSE: WATER, ELECTRIC, AND PROPANE.”

27. The lease agreements reference and state required compliance with certain rules and

regulations at Oasis. For example, both agreements reference a rule related to the tenants’ responsibility

to keep their space clean.

28. The annual and month-to-month lease agreements, either in referenced rules and

regulations or in the agreements themselves, state that the Park provides trash collection on Wednesdays.

29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that the annual and month-

to-month lease agreements all either reference rules and regulations that contain a statement substantially

similar in all relevant respects to the following, or contain a statement substantially similar in all relevant

respects to the following in the agreements themselves:

COMPLAINT Page 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

It is the desire of Oasis Mobile Home Park to provide a safe and healthy

community to all of its tenants and their families. It is for this reason that

Oasis Mobile Home Park enforces and makes no exceptions to the rules

and regulations set forth herein. Your understanding, cooperation, and

participation are greatly appreciated.” (emphasis in the original.)

30. A true and correct copy of an example of an annual lease agreement and referenced rules

and regulations is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

31. A true and correct copy of an example of a month-to-month lease agreement is attached

hereto as Exhibit “B”.

C. Drinking Water

32. The drinking water provided by the Oasis water system is, and consistently has been during

the relevant period, polluted with high levels of arsenic.

33. Pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) established the operative maximum contaminant level for arsenic at ten

(10) parts per billion (“ppb”) in 2001.

34. Drinking water that exceeds that maximum contaminant level for arsenic can cause

significant health impacts including, but not limited to, cancer of the skin, bladder, lung, kidney, nasal

passages, liver, and prostate; cardiovascular and pulmonary disease; and immunological, neurological,

and endocrine disorders.

35. Water for drinking, cooking, sanitation, and other domestic purposes is provided to Oasis

residents by a water system owned and operated by Defendants. Because the water system serves more

than twenty-five (25) year-round residents, it is classified as a community water system under the Safe

Drinking Water Act. The water system includes an arsenic treatment facility for the purpose of filtering

naturally-occurring arsenic in the underlying groundwater.

36. Throughout the relevant period, water quality testing at Oasis has shown arsenic

concentrations that consistently exceed drinking water standards despite the arsenic treatment system,

with tests showing arsenic at concentrations up to 97 parts per billion, nearly ten (10) times the amount of

COMPLAINT Page 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

arsenic allowed per the drinking water standard, constituting an acute exposure threatening risk to health

from even short term exposure.

37. The arsenic pollution in Oasis’ drinking water is caused, in part, by improper and

inadequate operation and maintenance of the arsenic treatment system and improper siting and depth of

the groundwater wells.

38. Plaintiffs are informed and believed, and on that ground allege, that before April 2019

Oasis failed to conduct testing for arsenic at a reasonable and prudent frequency, that testing established

arsenic exceedances, and that Defendants failed to notify residents of exceedances for arsenic.

39. Testing conducted by or on behalf of Defendant Lawson in and after April 2019 found

arsenic in the Oasis water system at the following levels:

April 2019: 16 ppb

May 2019: 94 ppb

June 2019: 89 ppb

July 2019: 97 ppb

40. Despite these dangerous arsenic levels, and despite a legal requirement under the Safe

Drinking Water Act to do so, Defendant Lawson did not notify residents of Oasis that the water was unsafe

to drink.

41. As a result of the unlawfully high arsenic levels in the Oasis water system and Defendants’

failure to notify residents of the issue, U.S. EPA issued an emergency administrative order to Defendant

Lawson on August 27, 2019. The emergency administrative order required, among other things, that

Defendant Lawson provide notice to residents of the arsenic pollution, provide an alternative source of

drinking water to residents, hire a certified water system operator, and take steps to bring the water system

into compliance with the safe drinking water act.

42. By letter dated October 17, 2019, U.S. EPA notified Defendant Lawson of ongoing

violations of the emergency administrative order. The letter noted a failure to provide an adequate

alternative source of drinking water, stating “[b]ased on a recent inspection and interviews with Oasis’

residents, it appears that Oasis has failed to meet this requirement because it restricts the time and manner

COMPLAINT Page 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that alternative water is provided. Specifically, Oasis has limited hours of operation during the weekend

(9 am to 12 pm) and only allows the individuals named on the lease to pick up bottled water.”

43. The October 17, 2019 letter directed to Defendant Lawson noted that “...shortly after the

Order was issued, Oasis raised the rent by $100. While you assert that the raise in rent was scheduled prior

to the issuance of the Order, the timing of it gives the appearance that Oasis is attempting to recoup its

costs from its customers for providing water. If Oasis is attempting to recoup its costs of providing

alternative water to its customers, this would be a violation of the Order.”

44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that the rent increase was

not scheduled prior to the issuance of the emergency administrative order, and was in fact a retaliatory

attempt to recoup the costs of providing alternative water to Oasis residents.

45. The October 17, 2019 letter from U.S. EPA further noted that “Oasis continues to violate

the [public notice] requirement by posting misleading notices … suggesting to the System’s users that

water is now safe to drink. Sampling data still does not establish that Oasis is no longer in violation of the

arsenic MCL.”

46. By letter dated December 19, 2019, U.S. EPA again notified Defendant Lawson of ongoing

violations of the emergency administrative order. With respect to the requirement to provide an alternative

source of drinking water, the letter states:

Based on our visit on December 6 and 7 and information provided by Oasis’

residents, Oasis continues to violate this requirement because of the

restrictive manner it distributes the required alternative water. Specifically,

Oasis’ restrictive policies and procedures prevent many of its customers

from receiving bottled water in the following ways:

● The Oasis office closes promptly at 5 pm on weekdays and 12 pm

on weekends, even when people are standing in line waiting for

drinking water. Oasis residents explained that some people were

waiting up to 30 minutes but were turned away when the office

closed and they did not get bottled water.

COMPLAINT Page 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

● The Oasis office requires that the recipient be listed on the lease, but

if the person is 18 years old or younger, he or she cannot pick up

drinking water, even if the name is on the lease. This requirement

appears extremely restrictive. Children of lease holders should be

able to pick-up water for family members who are working or are

too elderly to go to the office themselves.

● The Oasis office does not provide drinking water to customers who

are not listed in the lease and requires a payment of $800 per person

to change an individual’s name and another $35 for each name to be

added. This makes it impossible for many residents to pick up water,

as the residents cannot afford this amount for even one person, much

less for all the individuals living in each trailer.

● The Oasis office also requires some form of identification even for

long-term residents. We were told of a case where the only person

in a household who could pick up drinking water was denied the

right to do so because the person had forgotten the identification at

home. The concern that people who are not Oasis residents are

trying to pick up water does not seem strong enough to deny

residents bottled water if they do not have identification on hand at

the time of picking up their required bottled water.

47. The December 19, 2019 letter thus required that Defendant Lawson “immediately adopt

alternative policies that are less restrictive and accommodate the lease holders, elderly and family

members who are living in Oasis. For instance, Oasis should allow customers to pick up water for more

than one day at a time to support residents that do not have the means to pick up bottled water on a daily

basis. Further, Oasis must update its tracking system to ensure each household has received sufficient

water.”

///

///

COMPLAINT Page 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

48. On May 28, 2020, U.S. EPA notified Defendant Lawson that the Oasis water system had

purportedly returned to compliance for arsenic and authorized him to stop providing alternative drinking

water.

49. However, testing completed on July 13, 2020 at the tap of three mobile homes at Oasis

showed arsenic levels at 70, 40 and 30 ppb, respectively. These results were obtained using a HACH

280000 Low Range test.

50. Further, testing by a California certified laboratory of water samples taken at the tap in

three homes on July 30, 2020 showed arsenic levels at 84, 83, and 86 ppb, respectively.

51. In response to these results, U.S. EPA required that Defendant Lawson complete additional

water quality testing. Defendant Lawson’s representatives, overseen by U.S. EPA, took samples in

individual homes, a water storage tank and at the entry point to the distribution system. The arsenic levels

taken at the taps of homes ranged from 78 to 90 ppb, the arsenic level at the water storage tank was 87

ppb, and the level at the entry point to the distribution system was 80 ppb.

52. U.S. EPA issued a second emergency administrative order on September 11, 2020. This

emergency administrative order again required Defendant Lawson to provide an alternative source of

drinking water and take steps to bring the system into compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

53. The September 11, 2020 emergency administrative order concludes that “EPA has

determined that arsenic-containing precipitate is likely collecting in the System’s piping and storage of

the distribution system as well as the plumbing infrastructure of Oasis residential homes and is being

released at concentrated levels. EPA believes this to be occurring because arsenic remaining in the water

precipitates and concentrates due to iron or other chemicals that can precipitate arsenic present in the water

or in galvanized piping. This phenomenon would also explain the discrepancy between recent sampling

events showing elevated levels of arsenic within the homes while, at least until the August 26, 2020

sampling event, levels of arsenic at the [entry point of the distribution system] have remained below the

MCL.”

54. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, the same arsenic-containing

precipitate has also collected in the pipes and fixtures within mobile homes owned by members of Juntos,

the individual Plaintiffs, and other residents of Oasis.

COMPLAINT Page 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

55. Despite the requirements of the currently applicable September 11, 2020 emergency

administrative order, water at Oasis remains unsafe to drink and the alternative bottled water is provided

by Defendants only at certain times and in quantities that do not meet the needs of many households in

Oasis.

D. Sewage Disposal

56. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that sewage collection and

disposal at Oasis is provided by a collection system feeding into one or more onsite septic tanks, all of

which are owned, maintained, and operated by Defendants.

57. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that the septic system is

improperly designed, constructed, operated, and maintained, such that raw sewage frequently pools near

residents’ homes and in common areas of the Park, and backs up into homes.

58. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that frequent sewage spills

and backups are a risk to the health of residents of the Park, interfere with the use and enjoyment of the

leased spaces and constitute a nuisance, a violation of the relevant leases, and a violation of habitability

and tenantability standards.

E. Trash Collection and Disposal

59. Residents at Oasis pay a monthly $50 fee to Defendants for trash collection and disposal.

60. Pursuant to certain rules and regulations at Oasis, Defendants represent that trash collection

is to occur every Wednesday.

61. However, trash collection does not take place every week and the time of collection is

instead irregular, infrequent, and unpredictable.

62. Additionally, Defendants allow and cause trash and green waste to pile up in empty spaces

and common areas throughout the Park, and operate an unpermitted trash dump in the Park.

F. Flooding

63. The streets in Oasis are unpaved and lack adequate drainage for stormwater.

64. As a result of the improper and negligent design, construction, and maintenance of the

streets and lack of stormwater drainage improvements, the Park is impacted by severe flooding when it

rains or, as occurred in October of 2020, a pipe in the water system bursts.

COMPLAINT Page 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

65. When flooding occurs, residents are unable to adequately travel within, into, or out of the

Park on foot or in a vehicle.

G. Stray Dogs

66. Defendants intentionally or negligently permit stray dogs to roam throughout the Park. The

dogs harass residents, restrict mobility, present a risk to the health and safety of residents of Oasis, and

defecate and urinate throughout the Park.

H. Electricity

67. Electricity at Oasis is provided by Imperial Irrigation District (“IID”) through a master

meter serving the Park. IID owns, maintains, and operates the electrical lines and equipment only to the

point of and including the master meter. IID provides monthly invoices to Defendant Lawson that detail,

among other things, the electricity usage for the immediately preceding month, the rate charged per unit,

and the total charged for electricity for the month.

68. Defendants constructed, designed, own, maintain, and operate the electrical lines and

equipment within the Park, including individual sub-meters purportedly measuring usage by the residents

of each space.

69. Defendants charge residents of the Park for electricity monthly in conjunction with their

monthly space rent.

70. Due to inadequate construction, design, operation, and maintenance by Defendants of the

electrical lines and equipment within the Park, Oasis is plagued by frequent power outages that last for

hours at a time.

71. These power outages impact residents of the Park in many significant ways, including but

not limited to loss of air conditioning, loss of heat, loss of refrigeration and resulting food spoilage,

expenses related to hotel rooms and the purchase and operation of electricity generators, and interruption

in water service.

I. Housing

72. The mobile homes at Oasis are all or nearly all at least several decades old.

COMPLAINT Page 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

73. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that though the mobile

homes were at one time capable of being safely moved, they are now all or nearly all in a condition that

makes it infeasible or impossible to move them without causing severe damage to the home.

74. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that all or nearly all of the

mobile homes at Oasis have been in the same space for many years or decades.

75. The mobile homes are all or nearly all in a state of severe disrepair and do not provide a

safe or healthy place to live.

76. Though certain of the members of Juntos, individual Plaintiffs, and residents of the Park

have spent several hundred or thousands of dollars to purchase their mobile homes, and hundreds or

thousands more in attempt to repair them, the homes are of such an age that they continue to be unsafe

and residents remain housed in unhealthy conditions.

77. Defendants have leased and continue to lease out spaces at Oasis with knowledge, intent,

and reckless disregard for the poor condition of the homes that are present in those spaces and without

causing the homes to be repaired, replaced or otherwise improved.

J. Misrepresentation and Fraud

78. Defendants currently and throughout the relevant period overcharge residents of the Park

for electricity.

79. The relevant leases state that residents will provide electricity “at his own expense.”

80. IID charges Defendants a fixed customer charge of $9.60 per month, a consumption charge

of approximately 11 cents per kilowatt hour, and “state mandated charges” that are based on the monthly

consumption and range between approximately $150 to $500 per month.

81. Defendants then invoice residents of Oasis significantly more than IID charges based on

inaccurate and fraudulent misrepresentations of the fees IID charges, the rate per kilowatt hour, and the

electrical consumption of the residents of each space.

82. Specifically, Defendants intentionally or negligently misrepresent inaccurately and

fraudulently to the residents of each space on the monthly space rent invoice all of the following:

a. The expense of electricity includes an “IID Fee” of $3.60 per space per month;

b. The rate for electricity is 18 cents per unit of electricity used by each space;

COMPLAINT Page 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c. Additionally, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that the

purported “quantity” of electricity used by each space does not accurately reflect the actual

usage of electricity by the residents of space.

83. Based on these inaccurate and fraudulent misrepresentations, Defendants collect from Park

residents hundreds or thousands of dollars each month more than IID charges to Defendants and

improperly profit. Residents are harmed by this misrepresentation and overcollection when they pay the

purported expense of electricity with their space rent.

K. Retaliation

84. Plaintiffs have asserted and exercised their rights to habitable and tenantable living

conditions at Oasis by complaining of the conditions in the Park and the overcharges for electricity to

Oasis management orally, in writing in a September 30, 2020 letter to Defendant Lawson, and in

exercising their rights to access alternative bottled water that the Park is required to provide pursuant to

the U.S. EPA orders described herein.

85. In retaliation, Defendants have engaged in retaliatory conduct including but not limited to

increasing rent, threatening to levy fines, requiring Plaintiffs to relocate space boundaries, and threatening

to coordinate with immigration authorities to harass and/or deport residents of the Park or their neighbors,

friends or family members.

86. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants followed

through on their threats to coordinate with immigration authorities in retaliation to the September 30, 2020

cease and desist letter to Defendant Lawson, resulting in federal immigration or law enforcement agents

driving through the Park less than twenty-four (24) hours after Defendant Lawson’s receipt of the letter.

IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND

A. Public Law 280 (28 USC § 1360)

87. 28 USC § 1360, part of a law commonly known as Public Law 280, states:

Each of the States listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in the areas of Indian country listed opposite the name of the State to the same extent that such State has jurisdiction over other civil causes of action, and those civil laws of such State that are of general application to private persons or private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State:

COMPLAINT Page 15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

… California - All Indian country within the State … (b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall authorize regulation of the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any Federal treaty, agreement, or statute or with any regulation made pursuant thereto; or shall confer jurisdiction upon the State to adjudicate, in probate proceedings or otherwise, the ownership or right to possession of such property or any interest therein. (c) Any tribal ordinance or custom heretofore or hereafter adopted by an Indian tribe, band, or community in the exercise of any authority which it may possess shall, if not inconsistent with any applicable civil law of the State, be given full force and effect in the determination of civil causes of action pursuant to this section.

B. Torres Martinez Tribal Ordinances

88. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Torres Martinez

has adopted certain ordinances applicable on tribal lands.

89. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Chapter 5.08.002

sets forth the Torres Martinez Mobile Home Ordinance.

90. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Section 2 of the

Mobile Home Ordinance states “The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate mobile home construction

and maintenance and mobile home park development within the Torres Martinez Reservation in order to

protect the health, safety and welfare of persons within the Torres Martinez Reservation, and to protect

the land and environment of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.”

91. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Section 10(h) of

the Mobile Home Ordinance states

In any lease, the mobile home park owner or operator shall be deemed to covenant and warrant to deliver and maintain throughout the period of the tenancy, premises which are safe, clean and fit for human habitation. This implied warranty of habitability requires the mobile home park owner to

COMPLAINT Page 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

provide adequate and reliable utility services, including safe electrical services, potable water and sewage disposal to a location on each park from which utilities can be connected to the mobile home. Adequate sewage disposal is one that does not affect the potability of the water supply, one that does not cause the wastewater to surface above the ground and one that does not cause backup into any mobile home. The warranty also requires the mobile home park owner to assure that the roads, common areas and facilities within the park are safe and fit for the purpose for which they are reasonably intended. This obligation shall not apply to property or utility services which are not owned by the mobile home park owner or operator.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract

(Alleged By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant Scott Lawson, Sabrina Lawson and DOES 1-25)

92. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the paragraphs set forth above.

93. Defendants Scott Lawson and Sabrina Lawson entered into annual and month-to-month

lease agreements with members of Juntos and the individual Plaintiffs.

94. Each of the individual Plaintiffs are either a party to a written or oral lease agreement with

Defendants or are a third party beneficiary of a written or oral lease agreement with Defendants.

95. Pursuant to the lease agreements Defendants agreed to lease mobile home spaces at Oasis

to tenants in exchange for monthly rent and payment of certain monthly charges.

96. Plaintiffs complied with their obligations under the lease agreements, including but not

limited to by paying rent.

97. Defendants breached the lease agreements by, among other things, failing to maintain the

common areas and physical improvements in the Park, failing to provide regular and consistent trash

service, failing to provide potable water, by charging more than the “expense” of electricity, and by

providing unreliable water and electricity service subject to regular shutoffs and failures.

98. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that with respect to breach

of the agreement to maintain the common areas and physical improvements, the annual and month-to-

month lease agreements, either in referenced rules and regulations or in the agreement itself, contain

statements substantially similar in all relevant respects to the following: “It is the desire of Oasis Mobile

Home Park to provide a safe and healthy community to all of its tenants and their families.” The lease

agreements further reference rules and regulations that require tenants to keep their spaces clean. The

COMPLAINT Page 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

agreements thus impose on the parties a mutual obligation to maintain the Park in clean, safe, and healthy

condition, with Defendants responsible for maintaining the common areas and physical improvements of

the Park.

99. Rather than performing pursuant to their obligation to maintain the Park in a clean, safe,

and healthy condition, Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide reliable potable water,

provide safe and reliable sewage disposal, provide reliable trash collection, keep common areas and empty

spaces free from trash and green waste, prevent stray dogs from roaming the Park, provide reliable

electricity service, and otherwise maintain the Park as described herein.

100. With respect to failure to provide trash collection service consistent with the terms of the

lease agreements, Defendants charged members of Juntos and the Individual Plaintiffs $50 per month for

trash service, either separately or included in the total space rent. Defendants agreed in the lease

agreements themselves and/or in referenced Park rules and regulations that the Park provides trash

collection on Wednesdays. Though Plaintiffs have paid the monthly fee for trash service, Defendants did

not and does not consistently or regularly provide weekly trash collection service, providing instead only

irregular collection. Additionally, Defendants allow and cause trash to accumulate in common areas and

empty spaces.

101. With respect to water service, Defendants charge $75 per month for water service, either

separately or included in the total space rent. Though Plaintiffs have paid the monthly fee for water,

Defendants have failed to provide potable water safe for drinking, cooking, washing food, and other

household and sanitary purposes, and water service is frequently interrupted due to water system failures

or shutoffs.

102. With respect to electricity service, the lease agreements state that Defendants are

responsible for paying the expense of electricity. As detailed herein, Defendants charged members of

Juntos, the individual Plaintiffs, and residents of the Park more than the expense of electricity by charging

residents a higher rate than IID billed to Defendants, by charging an “IID Fee” to residents that IID does

not in fact charge to Defendants, and by inflating Plaintiffs’ electricity usage. By overcharging residents

for electricity, and by failing to provide reliable electricity service free from regular power failures and

shutoffs, Defendants breached the lease agreements.

COMPLAINT Page 18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

103. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants have failed

and continue to fail to refund security deposits pursuant to the terms of the lease agreements.

104. Plaintiffs were and continue to be harmed by Defendants’ failure to perform as agreed in

the lease agreements.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

(Alleged By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant Scott Lawson and DOES 1-25)


106. Defendants entered into residential lease agreements with members of Juntos and the

individual Plaintiffs.

107. Plaintiffs complied with their obligations under the lease agreements, including but not

limited to by paying rent.

108. Common law imposes an implied warranty of habitability in all residential leases. Pursuant

to the implied warranty of habitability, the landlord covenants to maintain the premises in a habitable state

for the duration of the lease and the “bare living requirements” must be maintained.

109. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that the Torres Martinez

Desert Cahuilla Indians adopted a Mobile Home Ordinance that provides under Section 10(h):

In any lease, the mobile home park owner or operator shall be deemed to covenant and warrant to deliver and maintain throughout the period of the tenancy, premises which are safe, clean and fit for human habitation. This implied warranty of habitability requires the mobile home park owner to provide adequate and reliable utility services, including safe electrical services, potable water and sewage disposal to a location on each park from which utilities can be connected to the mobile home. Adequate sewage disposal is one that does not affect the potability of the water supply, one that does not cause the wastewater to surface above the ground and one that does not cause backup into any mobile home. The warranty also requires the mobile home park owner to assure that the roads, common areas and facilities within the park are safe and fit for the purpose for which they are reasonably intended. This obligation shall not apply to property or utility services which are not owned by the mobile home park owner or operator.

/// /// /// ///

COMPLAINT Page 19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

110. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that pursuant to 10(j) of the

Torres Martinez Mobile Home Ordinance, “[n]o lease shall contain any provision by which the occupant

or resident waives the protection of the implied warranty of habitability.”

111. Defendants have breached and continue to breach the implied warranty of habitability by

failing to maintain the Park, including common areas and physical improvements, in a habitable state

during the entirety of the relevant period and by failing to provide even the bare living requirements to the

residents of Oasis.

112. In particular, Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide, among other things:

potable water, reliable water service, safe and reliable electrical services, and a safe and reliable sewage

disposal. Defendants also failed to assure that the roads, common areas and facilities in the park are safe

and fit for the purpose for which they are reasonably intended by, as described herein, allowing and

causing trash and green waste to accumulate in common areas and empty spaces, allowing the unpaved

streets to flood when it rains or a water pipe bursts, and allowing stray dogs to roam throughout the Park

impairing mobility and threatening the health and safety of residents and cleanliness of the Park.

113. Each of these conditions constitutes a material defective condition affecting the premises

habitability.

114. Defendants have notice of each of these conditions. Residents of the Park have brought

them to Defendants’ attention and to the attention of Defendants’ employees and agents. Additionally, the

information related to these conditions was and is within Defendants’ possession and control during the

relevant period. Further, many of these conditions are patent and obvious to anyone who visits the Park.

115. Despite having a more than adequate and reasonable period of time to correct these

deficiencies, Defendants have failed to resolve them.

116. As a result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of habitability, Plaintiffs have

been harmed. Said harm includes but is not limited to the difference in value between the habitable

conditions that Plaintiffs contracted for, and the premises in their current inhabitable condition that

Defendants provided, bodily injury related to exposure to water contaminated with arsenic, bacteria and

unsafe living conditions, and serious emotional distress.

///

COMPLAINT Page 20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

117. In engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants are guilty of oppression, fraud,

and malice pursuant to Civil Code, § 3294.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing



119. Members of Juntos, the individual Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis entered into lease

agreements for spaces in Oasis.

120. Plaintiffs did all or substantially all of the things required of them under the lease

agreements, or were excused from doing them, including but not limited to by paying rent.

121. All conditions required for Defendants performance obligations occurred or were

otherwise excused.

122. Defendants conduct in failing to maintain the common areas and physical improvements

of the Park, and in fraudulently charging Plaintiffs for electricity beyond the expense and usage of

electricity, prevented Plaintiffs from receiving the benefits under the lease agreements.

123. By preventing Plaintiffs from receiving the benefits under the lease agreements,

Defendants did not act fairly and in good faith.

124. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing. Said harm includes but is not limited to the difference in value between the habitable conditions

that Plaintiffs contracted for, and the premises in their current inhabitable condition that Defendants

provided in fact, bodily injury related to exposure to water contaminated with arsenic, bacteria and unsafe

living conditions, and serious emotional distress.



FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Private Nuisance

(Alleged By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Scott Lawson, Sabrina Lawson and DOES 1-25)


COMPLAINT Page 21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

127. Residents of the Park, including members of Juntos and the individual Plaintiffs, have a

possessory interest in the spaces leased from Defendants and their mobile homes.

128. The conduct of Defendants described herein creates a condition at Oasis that is injurious

to health, is indecent and offensive to the senses, and obstructs the free use of property, so as to interfere

with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property.

129. Defendants have created and permitted a nuisance by, among other things:

a. Designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the Oasis water system in a manner

that delivers water that exceeds the drinking water standard for arsenic and that results in

frequent water shutoffs that last hours or days;

b. Designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the Oasis wastewater collection and

disposal system in a manner that causes sewage to pool in the spaces and common areas in

various parts of the Park;

c. Designing, constructing, and maintaining the roads at Oasis in a manner that permits

flooding to occur when it rains and when water pipes burst, restricting the mobility of

residents of Oasis;

d. Designing, constructing, maintaining, and operating the electrical system in the Park in a

manner that causes frequent electrical failures that often last for hours or days;

e. Allowing stray dogs to roam throughout the Park that harass residents and defecate and

urinate throughout Oasis;

f. Allowing and causing trash and green waste to accumulate in empty spaces and common

areas; and

g. Operating and maintaining an unpermitted garbage dump at Oasis.

130. The issues related to water, wastewater, trash, flooding, electrical failures, and stray dogs

each separately, and cumulatively, unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of

the spaces and mobile homes leased and owned by members of Juntos and the individual Plaintiffs.

131. As described infra and incorporated and realleged here by reference, the substantial failure

of Defendants to provide and maintain physical improvements in the common areas of the Park and

COMPLAINT Page 22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants’ substantial violations of Park rules constitute a nuisance per se. (See, e.g., Civil Code, §

798.87.)

132. Defendants’ conduct in designing, constructing, owning, operating, and maintaining the

physical improvements and common areas in the Park causing the nuisance is intentional, reckless and/or

negligent.

133. In unreasonably interfering with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their spaces and mobile

homes, Defendants have harmed Plaintiffs, entitling them to damages, injunctive relief, abatement, and

all other relief prayed for herein.



FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Public Nuisance



136. Residents of the Park, including members of Juntos and the individual Plaintiffs, have a

possessory interest in the spaces leased from Defendants and their mobile homes.

137. The conduct of Defendants described herein creates a condition at Oasis that is injurious

to health, is indecent and offensive to the senses, and obstructs the free use of property, so as to interfere

with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property.

138. Specifically, Defendants have created and permitted a nuisance by, among other things:


that delivered water that exceeds the drinking water standard for arsenic and that results in


b. Designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the Oasis wastewater collection and



COMPLAINT Page 23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c. Designing, constructing, and maintaining the roads at Oasis in a manner that permits


residents of Oasis;

d. Designing, constructing, maintaining, and operating the electrical system in the Park in a


e. Allowing stray dogs to roam throughout the Park that harass residents and defecate and


f. Allowing and causing trash and green waste to accumulate in empty spaces and common

areas; and

g. Operating and maintaining an unpermitted garbage dump at Oasis.

139. The issues related to water, wastewater, trash, flooding, electrical failures, and stray dogs

each separately, and cumulatively, unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of

the spaces and mobile homes leased and owned by members of Juntos and the individual Plaintiffs.

140. As described infra and incorporated and realleged here by reference, the substantial failure

of Defendants to provide and maintain physical improvements in the common areas of the Park and

Defendants’ substantial violations of Park rules constitute a nuisance per se. (See Civil Code, § 798.87.)

141. Defendants’ conduct in designing, constructing, owning, operating, and maintaining the

physical improvements and common areas in the Park causing the nuisance is intentional, reckless and/or

negligent.

142. The nuisance is public because it concurrently affects the entire community of Oasis.

143. In unreasonably interfering with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their spaces and mobile

homes, Defendants have harmed Plaintiffs, entitling them to damages, injunctive relief, abatement, and

all other relief prayed for herein.



///

///

///

COMPLAINT Page 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence



146. Defendants owe a duty of care to Plaintiffs to exercise due care in their activities related to

Oasis, including in owning, designing, constructing, maintaining, and operating that Park, and to maintain

the Park, physical improvements, and common areas in a clean safe condition as established in the relevant

lease agreements.

147. Defendants failure to exercise due care in owning, designing, constructing, maintaining,

and operating the Park has caused foreseeable harm to members of Juntos and the individual Plaintiffs,

who all reside or have resided in the Park during the relevant period and who all use the water, electricity,

and wastewater services and other physical improvements in the Park.

148. Defendants have breached the relevant standard of care by, among other things and as

otherwise described herein:




b. Failing to promptly and immediately notify Plaintiffs that the drinking water in the Park

exceeded the drinking water standard for arsenic when they learned of the exceedance;

c. Failing to test the water quality in the Park an adequate frequency to detect the arsenic

exceedance in a timely fashion;

d. Designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the Oasis wastewater collection and



e. Designing, constructing, and maintaining the roads at Oasis in a manner that permits


residents of Oasis;

COMPLAINT Page 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

f. Designing, constructing, maintaining, and operating the electrical system in the Park in a

manner that causes frequent electrical failures that often last for hours or days; and

g. Allowing stray dogs to roam throughout the Park that harass residents and defecate and

urinate throughout Oasis.

149. Defendants’ negligence is both the cause in fact, a substantial factor, and proximate cause

of the harm to Plaintiffs described herein, including but not limited to damages relating to buying bottled

water for drinking, cooking, washing vegetables and other sanitary purposes, damages to Plaintiffs’

mobile homes, costs related to hotel rooms, generators and fuel needed during power outages, bodily

injury related to injecting and skin exposure to arsenic and sewage spills, and serious emotional distress.



SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence Per Se



152. Defendants owe a duty of care to Plaintiffs to exercise due care in their activities related to

Oasis, including in owning, designing, constructing, maintaining, and operating that Park, and to maintain

the Park, physical improvements, and common areas in a clean safe condition as established in the relevant

lease agreements.

153. Defendants failure to exercise due care in owning, designing, constructing, maintaining,

and operating the Park has caused foreseeable harm to members of Juntos and the individual Plaintiffs,

who all reside or have resided in the Park during the relevant period and who all use the water, electricity,

and wastewater services and other physical improvements in the Park.

154. Defendants have breached the relevant standard of care by, among other things and as

otherwise described herein:




COMPLAINT Page 26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b. Failing to promptly and immediately notify Plaintiffs that the drinking water in the Park

exceeded the drinking water standard for arsenic when they learned of the exceedance;

c. Failing to test the water quality in the Park an adequate frequency to detect the arsenic

exceedance in a timely fashion;

d. Designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the Oasis wastewater collection and



e. Designing, constructing, and maintaining the roads at Oasis in a manner that permits


residents of Oasis;

f. Designing, constructing, maintaining, and operating the electrical system in the Park in a


g. Allowing stray dogs to roam throughout the Park that harass residents and defecate and


155. Said negligence constitutes negligence per se in violation of the Torres Martinez Mobile

Home Ordinance and the California Mobilehome Residency Law, as detailed herein.

156. Defendants’ negligence is both the cause in fact, a substantial factor, and proximate cause

of the harm to Plaintiffs described herein, including but not limited to damages relating to buying bottled

water for drinking, cooking, washing vegetables and other sanitary purposes, damages to Plaintiffs’

mobile homes, costs related to hotel rooms, generators and fuel needed during power outages, bodily

injury, and serious emotional distress.



EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Trespass



COMPLAINT Page 27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

159. Members of Juntos, the individual Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis leased, occupied, and

controlled spaces from Defendants during the relevant period, and continue to do so.

160. Members of Juntos, the individual Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis additionally owned,

leased, occupied, and controlled their mobile homes during the relevant period, and continue to do so.

161. Defendants intentionally, recklessly or negligently caused arsenic to enter into the spaces

and homes of members of Juntos, the individual Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis.

162. Plaintiffs did not consent to the entry of arsenic into the spaces or homes.

163. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be harmed by this trespass.

164. Members of Juntos and the individual Plaintiffs have suffered bodily injury and serious

emotional distress caused by exposure to arsenic in the water used for domestic purposes, including

drinking, cooking, washing vegetables, sanitary purposes, and bathing.

165. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that harm from the trespass

also includes damage to the homes themselves caused by precipitated and concentrated arsenic coating or

binding with the water pipes, faucets and other fixtures in the homes.



NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Conversion



168. Members of Juntos and the individual Plaintiffs owned, leased, possessed, and were

entitled to immediate possession of mobile homes in Oasis during the relevant period, and continue to do

so.

169. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants substantially

interfered with Plaintiffs’ property by knowingly or intentionally causing arsenic to enter their mobile

homes and precipitate in such a way as to coat or bind with the water pipes, faucets, and other fixtures in

the homes, thereby destroying the value and usefulness of the homes.

170. Plaintiffs did not consent to the conversion of their homes.

COMPLAINT Page 28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

171. Plaintiffs were harmed by the conversion because it diminished and destroyed the value of

the homes and the usefulness of the homes.

172. Defendants conduct in knowingly or intentionally causing arsenic to enter the mobile

homes was a substantial factor in causing the harm to Plaintiffs.



TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Trespass to Chattel



175. Members of Juntos and the individual Plaintiffs owned, leased, possessed, and were

entitled to immediate possession of mobile homes in Oasis during the relevant period, and continue to do

so.

176. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants substantially

interfered with use and possession of Plaintiffs’ property by intentionally causing arsenic to enter their

mobile homes and precipitate in such a way as to coat and bind with the water pipes, faucets and other

fixtures in the homes, thereby destroying the value and usefulness of the homes.

177. Plaintiffs did not consent to the trespass to their mobile homes.

178. Plaintiffs were harmed by the trespass to their mobile homes because it diminished and

destroyed the value of the homes and the usefulness of the homes.

179. Defendants conduct in knowingly or intentionally causing arsenic to enter the mobile

homes was a substantial factor in causing the harm to Plaintiffs.



ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Battery



COMPLAINT Page 29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

182. Defendants intentionally caused Plaintiffs to be touched with arsenic present in the

drinking water at Oasis, and acted in willful disregard of the exposure of Plaintiffs to arsenic and impacts

to their health and safety.

183. Plaintiffs did not consent to contact with, exposure to, or ingestion of arsenic.

184. Members of Juntos, the individual Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis have been and continue

to be harmed by contact with, exposure to, and ingestion of arsenic, including by suffering bodily injury

and severe emotional distress.

185. A reasonable person in Plaintiffs’ position would be harmed and offended by the contact.



TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Mobile Home Residency Law (Civil Code § 798 et seq.)



188. Members of Juntos and the Individual Plaintiffs have been, and continue to be, residents

of Oasis during the relevant period and lease spaces from Defendants.

189. As described herein, Defendants have failed and continue to substantially fail to maintain

the physical improvements and common facilities in the Park in good working order and condition,

constituting a nuisance pursuant to Civil Code, § 798.87.

190. Said substantial failure to maintain includes, but is not limited to, the failure to maintain

the drinking water system in a manner that provides safe, reliable and potable water, the failure to maintain

the sewage collection and septic systems in a manner the provides reliable service and protects the health

and safety of residents, the failure to maintain streets in a manner the prevents flooding and permits

mobility of residents, the failure to provide regular trash service and prevent trash accumulation in

common areas and empty spaces, the operation of an unpermitted and unauthorized garbage dump on the

premises, the failure to provide reliable electricity service, and the failure to prevent stray dogs from

roaming the Park.

COMPLAINT Page 30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

191. Defendants have and continue to overcharge members of Juntos, the individual Plaintiffs,

and residents of the Park more than the reasonable charge for services actually rendered, including but not

limited to, by charging for trash service that is not provided consistently, water service that provides water

that is not potable, and by charging for electricity service that exceeds the expense of electricity billed to

Oasis by IID.

192. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants have and

continue to demand security deposits of a value that exceed two months’ rent, demand security deposits

following initial occupancy, and fail to refund security deposits according to the timeline and requirements

of Civil Code, § 798.39.

193. Each and every violation of the Mobilehome Residency Law alleged herein was willful on

the part of Defendants entitled Defendants to punitive damages and statutory penalties pursuant to Civil

Code, § 798.86.

194. On September 30, 2020, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendants demanding that they

immediately resolve the habitability and tenantability issues described herein and cease and desist from

retaliatory conduct and threats. The September 30, 2020 letter, as well as prior notices from U.S. EPA and

residents of the Park, constitute notice of intention to commence action based on failure to maintain

physical improvements in common facilities or reduction in service in substantial conformity with Civil

Code, § 798.84. Additionally, as described herein, the instant action is one for personal injury and prior

notice is not required pursuant to Civil Code, § 798.84(f).

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Statutory Tenantability (Civil Code §§ 1941 et seq.)



196. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants have leased

and continue to lease dwellings to members of Juntos, certain individual Plaintiffs, and residents of Oasis.

197. Defendants have failed and continue to fail to put the spaces and homes they lease to

members of Juntos, the individual Plaintiffs and residents of the Park into a condition fit for such

COMPLAINT Page 31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

occupation, and have failed and continue to fail to repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof, which render

the spaces and homes untenantable.

198. Conditions that render the dwellings untenantable include, but are not limited to, the lack

effective waterproofing and weather protection, broken windows and doors, lack of plumbing facilities

that conform to applicable law and that are maintained in good working order, lack of a water supply

approved under applicable law, lack of heating facilities that conform with applicable law at the time of

installation and that are maintained in good working order, electrical lighting, wiring and electrical

equipment that conformed with applicable law at the time of installation and that are maintained in good

working order, failure to keep buildings, grounds and appurtenances and all areas under the control of

Defendants clean, sanitary, and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents, and

vermin, lack of an adequate number of appropriate receptacles for garbage and rubbish, in clean condition

and good repair at the time of the commencement of the lease or rental agreement, lack of trash receptacles

under his or her control in clean condition and good repair, and failure to keep floors, stairways, and

railings maintained in good repair.

199. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that they are harmed by the

lack of tenantability of the dwellings they lease from Defendants by exposure to unsafe and unhealthy

living conditions, and are thus entitled to injunctive relief, damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Retaliation Pursuant to Civil Code, § 1942.5



201. Plaintiffs have asserted and exercised their rights to habitable and tenantable living

conditions at Oasis by complaining of the conditions in the Park and the overcharges for electricity to

Oasis management orally, in writing in a September 30, 2020 letter to Defendant Lawson, and in

exercising their rights to access alternative bottled water that the Park is required to provide pursuant to

the U.S. EPA orders described herein.

202. In retaliation, Defendants have engaged in conduct including but not limited to increasing

rent, threatening to levy fines, requiring Plaintiffs to relocate space boundaries, and threatening to

COMPLAINT Page 32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

coordinate with immigration authorities to harass and/or deport residents of the Park or their neighbors,

friends or family members.

203. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants followed

through on their threats to coordinate with immigration authorities in retaliation to the September 30, 2020

cease and desist letter addressed to Defendant Lawson, resulting in federal immigration agents driving

through the Park less than twenty-four (24) hours after Defendant Lawson’s receipt of the letter.

204. This conduct constitutes retaliation in violation of legal prohibitions, including but not

limited to Civil Code, § 1942.5.

205. Based on these retaliatory and prohibited acts, Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages,

punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to law and statute, including but not

limited to Civil Code, § 1942.5(h), (i).

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unlawful Disclosure of Immigration Status (Civil Code, §§ 1940.3, 1940.35.)



207. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants and their

agents disclosed to one or more persons or entities information regarding or relating to the immigration

or citizenship status of certain tenants, prospective tenants, occupants, or prospective occupants of the

Oasis for the purpose of, or with the intent of, harassing or intimidating said tenants, prospective tenants,

occupants, or prospective occupants and for the purpose of retaliation for the exercise of their rights.

208. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants disclosed to

immigration authorities, law enforcement agencies, or a local, state, or federal agency information

regarding or relating to the immigration or citizenship status of one or more tenants, occupant, or other

person known to the landlord to be associated with a tenant or occupant, for the purpose of, or with the

intent of, harassing or intimidating a tenant or occupant, retaliating against a tenant or occupant for the

exercise of his or her rights, influencing a tenant or occupant to vacate a dwelling, or recovering possession

of the dwelling, irrespective of whether the tenant or occupant currently resides in the dwelling.

COMPLAINT Page 33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

209. In particular, in a September 30, 2020 letter addressed to Defendant Scott Lawson,

Plaintiffs asserted their rights to habitable and tenantable living conditions and demanded that Defendants

cease and desist from retaliatory threats of fines.

210. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants in retaliation

of the assertion and exercise of rights in the September 30, 2020 letter, disclosed to immigration

authorities, law enforcement agencies, or another local, state or federal agency information regarding or

relating to the immigration or citizenship status of one or more residents of Oasis.

211. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants disclosure

of information regarding to or relating to the immigration or citizenship status of one or more residents of

Oasis caused federal immigration authorities or law enforcement agencies to drive to Oasis.

212. Federal immigration authorities or law enforcement agencies spent hours driving through

the Park less than twenty-four (24) hours after Defendant Lawson’s receipt of the letter.

213. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that ground allege, that Defendants have

disclosed information regarding or relating to immigration or citizenship status to immigration authorities

or law enforcement agencies before and after the incident described herein that occurred on or around

September 30, 2020 and October 1, 2020.

214. For purposes of these allegations, “immigration or citizenship status” includes a perception

that the person has a particular immigration status or citizenship status, or that the person is associated

with a person who has, or is perceived to have, a particular immigration status or citizenship status.

Plaintiffs make no allegation regarding the actual immigration or citizenship status of any of the members

of Juntos, individual Plaintiffs or residents of the Park.

215. Defendants’ conduct described herein constitute a violation of Civil Code, §§ 1940.3(b)

and 1940.35(a).

216. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages and injunctive relief pursuant to

Civil Code, § 1940.35(b).

///

///

///

COMPLAINT Page 34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Misrepresentation



218. Defendants intentionally and falsely represented in leases that lessees would be charged

for only the “expense” of electricity, and subsequently in monthly rent invoices, intentionally and falsely

represented to Plaintiffs an inaccurate representation of the expense of electricity.

219. Defendants intentionally concealed and failed to disclose the true and accurate expense of

electricity at Oasis and overcharged and are overcharging Defendants and residents of Oasis Mobile Home

Park for electricity throughout the relevant period.

220. IID provides electrical service to Oasis Mobile Home Park through a master meter

agreement, and does not meter or have a customer relationship with the residents of any individual space

within the Park. IID bills Defendants monthly and charges a flat “consumer charge” of totaling $9.60 per

month plus a consumption charge at the rate of approximately eleven (11) cents per kilowatt hour and

certain “state mandated charges” that are based on the monthly consumption and range between

approximately $150 to $500 per month.

221. Defendants represented in certain lease agreements that “THE TENANT MUST

PROVIDE AT HIS OWN EXPENSE: WATER, ELECTRIC, ANO PROPANE.”

222. In monthly invoices to Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park, Defendants

falsely represented that the charge for electricity included an “IID Fee” charged to each tenant of $3.60

per month, as well as a consumption charge calculated at a rate of eighteen (18) cents per kilowatt hour.

223. Defendants falsely represented, concealed and failed to disclose that they charged

Defendants and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park substantially more for electricity than IID charged

Defendants.

224. Defendants falsely represented, concealed and failed to disclose that IID does not charge

an “IID Fee” that amounts to $3.60 per month per space.

225. Defendants knew the falsity of their representations when they made them and made the

representations recklessly and without regard to their truth. IID provided Defendants monthly invoices

COMPLAINT Page 35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that detailed the flat customer charge, consumption charge and rate, adjustments and state mandated

charges. Defendants received and paid, or at minimum typically paid, these invoices. The invoices

provided Defendants knowledge that the representation in the relevant leases that tenants would be

charged only for the “expense” of electricity and in the monthly invoices to tenants that IID charged an

“IID fee” amounting to $3.60 per month per space and charged for consumption at a rate of eighteen (18)

cents per kilowatt hour were false. Defendants also had knowledge that they collected substantially more

for electricity from residents of the Park than they were charged by IID.

226. Defendants intended to defraud and induce reliance of Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis

Mobile Home Park in order to profit from overcharging for electricity.

227. Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park reasonably relied on the false

representations regarding the expense of electricity in the relevant leases and monthly invoices to tenants

by paying the monthly invoices, including the “IID fee” and consumption charges billed at a rate of

eighteen (18) cents per kilowatt hour. Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park are not direct

customers of IID, were not provided with the IID invoices, and were unaware that IID charges Defendants

substantially less for electricity than Defendants charge to Plaintiffs and residents of the Park.

228. Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park were harmed by the intentional

misrepresentation of Defendants in the amount they paid to Defendants for electricity during the relevant

period that exceeded the expense of electricity used by each space.

229. Plaintiffs’ reliance on the representations of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing

the Plaintiffs’ harm.



SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Misrepresentation

(Alleged By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Scott Lawson, Sabrina Lawson, and DOES 1-25)


COMPLAINT Page 36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

232. Defendants falsely represented in leases that lessees would be charged for only the

“expense” of electricity, and subsequently in monthly rent invoices, falsely represented the accurate and

true expense of electricity and the usage of each space.

233. Defendants concealed and failed to disclose the true and accurate expense of electricity at

Oasis and the true and accurate usage of each space, and overcharged and are overcharging Defendants

and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park for electricity throughout the relevant period.

234. IID provides electrical service to Oasis Mobile Home Park through a master meter

agreement, and does not meter or have a customer relationship with the residents of any individual space

within the Park. IID bills Defendants monthly and charges a flat “consumer charge” totaling $9.60 per

month plus a consumption charge at the rate of approximately eleven (11) cents per kilowatt hour and

certain “state mandated charges” that are based on the monthly consumption and range between

approximately $150 to $500 per month.

235. Defendants represented in certain lease agreements that “THE TENANT MUST

PROVIDE AT HIS OWN EXPENSE: WATER, ELECTRIC, ANO PROPANE.”

236. In monthly invoices to Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park, Defendants

falsely represented that the charge for electricity included an “IID Fee” charged to each tenant of $3.60

per month, as well as a consumption charge calculated at a rate of eighteen (18) cents per kilowatt hour.

237. Defendants falsely represented, concealed and failed to disclose that they charged

Defendants and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park substantially more for electricity than IID charged

Defendants.

238. Defendants falsely represented, concealed and failed to disclose that IID does not charge

an “IID Fee” that amounts to $3.60 per month per space.

239. Defendants may have honestly believed that their representations were true, but if so they

had no reasonable grounds for believing the representations were true when they made them. IID provided

Defendants monthly invoices that detailed the flat customer charge, consumption charge and rate,

adjustments and state mandated charges. Defendants received and paid, or at minimum typically paid,

these invoices. The invoices provided Defendants knowledge that the representation in the certain lease

agreements that tenants would be charged only for the “expense” of electricity and in the monthly invoices

COMPLAINT Page 37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to tenants that IID charged an “IID fee” amounting to $3.60 per month per space and charged for

consumption at a rate of eighteen (18) cents per kilowatt hour were false. Defendants also had knowledge

that they collected substantially more for electricity from residents of the Park than they were charged by

IID.

240. Defendants intended that members of Juntos, the individual Plaintiffs, and residents of

Oasis rely on their representations and, in doing so, pay the invoiced monthly charge for electricity billed

with the monthly space rent.

241. Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park reasonably relied on the false

representations regarding the expense of electricity in the relevant leases and monthly invoices to tenants

by paying the monthly invoices, including the “IID fee” and consumption charges billed at a rate of

eighteen (18) cents per kilowatt hour. Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park are not direct

customers of IID, were not provided with the IID invoices, and were unaware that IID charges Defendants

substantially less for electricity than Defendants charge to Plaintiffs and residents of the Park.

242. Plaintiffs and residents of Oasis Mobile Home Park were harmed by the intentional

misrepresentation of Defendants in the amount they paid to Defendants for electricity during the relevant

period that exceeded the expense of electricity used by each space.

243. Plaintiffs’ reliance on the representations of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing

the Plaintiffs’ harm.



EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unfair Competition (Business & Professions Code, §§ 17200 et seq.)



246. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition by, as described herein, engaging in

unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices, including but not limited to failing to maintain

the common areas and physical improvements of the Park and fraudulently overcharging residents for

electricity.

COMPLAINT Page 38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

247. Plaintiffs have suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a result of the unfair

competition, surrendering and forced to pay more for space rent and charges purportedly for electricity,

water and trash service than they would have absent Defendants unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business

acts and practices.

248. Plaintiffs have suffered diminished property values in their mobile homes as a result of

Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices, and have suffered personal

bodily injury and severe emotional distress from exposure to arsenic and the unsafe and inhabitable

conditions of the Park.

249. Plaintiffs are entitled to specific, preventative and injunctive relief, including appointment

of a receiver, to enjoin Defendants’ from continuing to engage in unfair competition and to restore to

Plaintiffs their interest any money and property, real and personal, which was acquired by means of such

unfair competition. Plaintiffs are also entitled to restitution, disgorgement, relief from unjust enrichment.

NINTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Permanent Injunction



251. As described herein, Defendants have and continue to own, operate, and maintain Oasis in

a manner that inter alia constitutes breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of habitability,

private nuisance, public nuisance, negligence, negligence per se, trespass, conversion, trespass to chattel,

battery, violation of the Mobilehome Residency Law, violation of statutory tenantability standards,

retaliation, unlawful disclosure of immigration status, intentional misrepresentation, negligent

misrepresentation, and unfair business practices.

252. Absent injunctive relief restraining Defendants’ unlawful and fraudulent conduct and

requiring affirmative steps to bring the Park into compliance with habitability and tenantability standards,

Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm.

253. Monetary damages will not be sufficient to remedy Plaintiffs’ injury.

254. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction requiring inter alia that

Defendants all necessary steps to bring the Park up to habitability and tenantability standards and abate

COMPLAINT Page 39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the public and private nuisance, and enjoining Defendants’ intentional and/or negligent misrepresentations

related to the expense of electricity service.

TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION

Declaratory Relief



256. As set forth above, Defendants’ conduct constitutes breach of contract, breach of the

implied warranty of habitability, private nuisance, public nuisance, negligence, negligence per se, trespass,

conversion, trespass to chattel, battery, violation of the Mobilehome Residency Law, violation of statutory

tenantability standards, retaliation, unlawful disclosure of immigration status, intentional

misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair business practices.

257. An actual and present controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants over whether

Defendants’ conduct does in fact constitute a violation of common law, statutory law, and Tribal law, as

detailed herein. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ conduct violates common law, statutory law, and

Tribal law, whereas Defendants contend it does not.

258. Defendants’ acts deprive Plaintiffs of a safe and habitable place to live and cause harm to

Plaintiffs as detailed herein.

259. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants’

conduct violates common law, statutory law and Tribal law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

1. Injunctive relief;

2. Specific Performance;

3. Abatement of public and private nuisance and nuisance per se;

4. Appointment of a Receiver to maintain and operate Oasis Mobile Home Park and oversee

physical improvements and repairs;

5. Declaratory relief;

6. Damages, according to proof at trial;

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

Documents

1 Michael Claiborne (SBN 281308) - Leadership Counsel