Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)

Citation: Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)
Parent Document: Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-08-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4526968/winslett-v-1811-27th-avenue-llc/ ↗

Full Text

2,110 chars

2
had fallen into delinquency, the repairs she requested would be made. But after she paid her
rent bill, no repairs were made. Winslett believed Sagi and Vargas were ignoring her
complaints as a way to force her to move out. If she was so unhappy, she was told, she
should just leave.
Because of Sagi’s and Vargas’s inaction, Winslett called Alameda County Health
Care Services, Vector Control Services District (Vector Control), which, in August 2013,
sent an inspector to her apartment to document the habitability issues she identified. After
the inspection, the inspector spoke with Sagi and informed him the apartment needed to be
repaired. Sagi was furious at Winslett and told her she should not have contacted Vector
Control and not to call them again in the future. The inspector’s visit led Sagi to make a
few cosmetic repairs, such as painting over some water damage and mold, but within a few
months the rot reappeared.
According to Winslett, even after she called Vector Control, her continued
complaints to Sagi and Vargas were still ignored. At no point was she informed she had
rights under the Oakland Municipal Code or that she could contact the Oakland Rent Board.
Finally, in December 2014, Winslett felt she could not tolerate the situation anymore. She
told Sagi the mold was causing her children to be sick and that the cockroaches were
unbearable. She also told him she would not be paying her rent for January 2015 if these
conditions were not resolved.
By January, no repairs having been made, Winslett withheld her rental payment. In
response, Sagi served Winslett with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit and then an
unlawful detainer action when she failed to pay, which she believed was in retaliation for
her requests for repairs and her exercise of her right to withhold rent. Before the
commencement of the unlawful detainer trial, the matter settled. Winslett and Sagi agreed
that Winslett could remain in the apartment rent free for three months while looking for a
new place to live; that she would then move out at Sagi’s expense ($1,250 in moving

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text