SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): CVSW2305337 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): Christopher Nomura YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Joseph Athey and Melissa Athey NOTICE!

You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The Court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.

Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion.

Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no pueda pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.

Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes del California, (www.sucorte.cagov) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.

The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direccion de la corte es):

Superior Court, County of Riverside - Southwest Justice Center

30755-D Auld Road, Murrieta, CA 92563

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):

Nada Dhahbi, Esq. 19069 Van Buren Blvd Ste 114-398 Riverside, CA 92508 (951) 414-1300

DATE: (Fecha) 06/29/2023

Clerk, by (secretario) Evelin Hernandez, Deputy (Adjunto)

AVISO!

COMPLAINT FOR:

(1) BREACH OF CONTRACT

(2) TORTUOUS BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY (3) BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Joseph Athey and Melissa Athey allege as follows:

Plaintiffs pray for the following damages and relief:

1. Actual and compensatory damages in a sum according to proof at time of trial;

2. Consequential and incidental damages in a sum according to proof at time of trial;

3. General damages, including damages for mental and emotional distress, in a sum according to proof at time of trial;

4. For restitution under Business and Professions Code Section 17200;

5. Payment of Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys, to the full extent authorized by statute, contract or law.

6. Pre-judgment interest at the legal prevailing rate;

7. For costs of suit herein incurred; and

8. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

WHEREFORE,

The Press-enterprise Published: 1/26, 2/2, 2/9, 2/16/24

(4) BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ. (5) NEGLIGENCE

PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs Joseph Athey and Melissa Athey (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") are a married couple residing in Oxnard, California.

2. Defendant Christopher Nomura (hereinafter "Defendant") is an individual residing in Riverside County, in the state of California.

3. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of Defendants named herein as Doe 1 through Doe 20 are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sue these Defendants by their fictitious names. Plaintiff will ask for leave to amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. The allegations of this complaint have evidentiary support or are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because the Defendant resides in the County of Riverside in the state of California. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because the events that are the subject of this lawsuit took place in the County of Riverside, in the state of California. The parties purposefully directed their activities to the State of California. As a result, the parties caused an event or events to occur in California, and more particularly in the County of Riverside.

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter also because this lawsuit involves the lease of real property located at 42134 Thornton Avenue Hemet CA 92544 which is in the state of California and in the county of Riverside.

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to the general jurisdiction granted to it by the California Constitution as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.10.

7. Venue is proper in Riverside County pursuant to Section 395.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure because the contract that is the subject of the dispute were entered into and performed within Riverside County; and the breach complained of occurred in Riverside County.

8. Venue is proper for this Court because the Defendant resides in the County of Riverside.

9. Venue is proper for this Court also because this lawsuit involves the lease of real property located at 42134 Thornton Avenue Hemet CA 92544, which is in Riverside county.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

10. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a contract for the lease of real property located at 42134 Thornton Avenue Hemet CA 925449 (hereinafter "Property") on May 20, 2019. The Plaintiffs were the lessees and the Defendant was the lessor.

11. Plaintiffs paid $2,900.00 as the security deposit for leasing the Property. Plaintiffs paid an additional $506.31 for occupying the Property from May 25, 2019 to May 31, 2019. Plaintiffs paid Defendant a total of $3,406.31 upon move-in.

12. Property had a problem with pest control since the time of move-in. Property was overrun by insects and vermin. This problem was the responsibility of Defendant to handle and resolve. Plaintiffs did not get any assistance from Defendant. Plaintiffs paid $2,400.00 for pest control services during the course of their stay at Property (see Exhibit 1).

13. At the time of move-in, Property had a leaky roof that was later revealed to be a hazardous mold problem as well, including mushrooms growing out of the ceiling. (See Exhibit 2). Plaintiffs attempted to address this problem and repeatedly asked Defendant to hire a professional to assess and resolve this problem. When Defendant did not do as he requested, Plaintiff Joseph Athey sent him an email stating that he would hire someone himself and deduct the cost from the rent (See Exhibit 3). Defendant responded by having a contractor come out the following month. The contractor removed a section of drywall that measured 4 feet by 8 feet and replaced it with new drywall. The contractor didn’t paint over the repaired section. The roof continued to leak and the mold returned again. Defendant acknowledged that the roof was not repaired properly and the mold problem was not resolved (See Exhibit 4). The last time Plaintiffs asked Defendant about dealing with the roof leak he told them he was putting the house on the market for sale.

14. Property had problems with areas outside the home since the time of move-in. These problems were the responsibility of Defendant to handle and resolve. Plaintiffs did not get any assistance from Defendant. Plaintiffs spent the following amounts of money to resolve the problems themselves; $361.90 on back yard seed and fertilizer, $1948.64 on front yard sprinklers, $199.01 on front yard solar lights, $250 on bee removal from a pillar, and $240 on landscaping (See Exhibit 5). Plaintiffs spent a total of $2,999.55 on these costs. Defendant did not compensate Plaintiffs for any of this amount.

15. Property had problems with the pool and spa since the time of move-in (See Exhibit 6). These problems were the responsibility of Defendant to handle and resolve. Plaintiffs did not get any assistance from Defendant. Plaintiffs spent the following amounts of money to resolve the problems themselves; $2700 on Hemet pool services and $1210.40 for spa draining and repair. Plaintiffs spent a total of $3,910.40 on these costs. Defendant did not compensate Plaintiffs for any of this amount.

16. Property had problems within the house since the time of move-in. These problems were the responsibility of Defendant to handle and resolve. Plaintiffs did not get any assistance from Defendant. Plaintiffs spent the following amounts of money to resolve the problems themselves; $153.04 on main water line repairs, $1,259.48 on electrical diagnostics/troubleshooting, $1,277.35 on electrical sub panel installation and circuit relocation, $381.08 on the master bathroom toilet, $133.04 on kitchen blinds, $20 on hanging blind slats, $35.56 on HVAC filters, and $146 on carpet cleaning. Plaintiffs spent a total of $3,405.55 on these costs. Defendant did not compensate Plaintiffs for any of this amount.

17. Plaintiffs moved out of property in March 2023.

18. On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff Joseph Athey sent a text message to Defendant asking him to return his security deposit.

19. On March 19, 2023, Plaintiff Joseph Athey, Defendant, and a realtor had a walk-through at the Property. At that time, Defendant confirmed to Plaintiff Joseph Athey that he would get his security deposit back and it would take 2 weeks to get through all of his other obligations and send him the money.

20. On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff Joseph Athey sent Defendant a text message to follow up on their previous discussion about the return of his security deposit. Defendant responded with a text that contradicted his earlier conformation that Plaintiffs would get their security deposit back (See Exhibit 7).

21. On May 2, 2023, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendant demanding the return of their security deposit (See Exhibit 8). Defendant did not send any money to Plaintiffs.

22. Defendant sent an itemized billing statement to Plaintiffs (See Exhibit 9). Many of the items on the billing statement were for issues that already existed when the Plaintiffs moved into Property. Defendant charged Plaintiffs $2,000 to paint the interior and exterior walls of Property. The walls were in need of a new paint job and repairs upon move-in (See Exhibit 10). Plaintiffs did not cause any damage to the walls that would require additional repairs or a new paint job during their stay at Property. Defendant charged Plaintiffs $1,163.00 for "Drywood termite damage to eve's and patio joists. (Due to lack of Periodic Pest Control treatment." Property had a problem with pest control since the time of move-in. Property was overrun by insects and vermin. This problem was the responsibility of Defendant to handle and resolve. Plaintiffs did not get any assistance from Defendant. Plaintiffs paid $2,400.00 for pest control services during the course of their stay at Property (see Exhibit 1). Defendant charged Plaintiffs $600 due to "Electronic Sprinkler system damaged. Needs replacement." Plaintiffs paid $1948.64 on sprinklers for Property themselves during their stay at Property. If anything was damaged, it was on an item they paid for originally that they were not required to.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract - Against All Defendants)

23. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.

24. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a written contract in the form of a lease on May 20, 2019.

25. Plaintiffs performed all their obligations under the contract.

26. Defendant breached his obligations under the contract by not returning Plaintiff's security deposit, not resolving the pest control problem, not resolving the issues with the needed repairs and poor conditions in the residence and outside the residence.

27. Defendant's breach of the contract directly and proximately caused Plaintiff's damages. Plaintiffs spent $15,375.50 on trying to resolve the above-listed problems with the Property.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Tortuous Breach of Warranty of Habitability - Against All Defendants)

28. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporate by reference every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.

29. The defective conditions alleged herein constitute violations of state and local housing laws and posed severe health and safety hazards and breached the implied warranty of habitability.

30. Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the defective conditions alleged herein, but despite such notice, failed to adequately repair and abate the conditions at the Property.

31. Plaintiffs did not cause, create or contribute to the existence of the defective conditions alleged herein.

32. By failing to correct said defective conditions, Defendant has breached the warranty of habitability implied in all rental contracts under California law.

33. Defendant knew or should have known that permitting said defective conditions to exist threatened the physical and emotional health and well being of Plaintiffs, and posed a serious threat and danger to their health and safely.

34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of the warranty of habitability. Plaintiffs have sustained special, general and property damage in amounts to be determined at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment - Against All Defendants)

35. Plaintiffs re-allege, and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.

36. Implied in the lease agreement between Defendant and Plaintiffs is a covenant that the Defendant would not and will not interfere with Plaintiffs' quiet enjoyment of the Property during the term of their respective tenancies. This covenant of quiet enjoyment is codified in California Civil Code Section 1927.

37. Defendant has breached the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment as alleged herein, including, but not limited to: his failure and refusal to repair the alleged habitability violations and to maintain the Property in a habitable condition and in a condition consistent with the purpose for which it was rented.

38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the value of the leasehold held by Plaintiff has been materially diminished. Consequently, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be established at trial.

39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs have sustained general, special and property damage in amounts to be determined at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. - Against All Defendants)

40. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.

41. Defendant engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices prohibited by California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. by virtue of the foregoing acts and omissions.

42. Plaintiffs were harmed as a result of said practices by paying full monthly rent for the Property with material deficiencies.

43. The foregoing acts and omissions were and are the regular business practices of the Defendant at the Property.

44. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions, the Defendant have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution in an amount to be proven at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence - Against All Defendants)

45. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth herein.

46. The Defendant owed Plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable care in the ownership, management and control of The Property.

47. These duties owed by Defendant to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care include, but are not limited to: the duty to refrain from interfering with Plaintiffs' full use of and quiet enjoyment of their rented premises; the duty to comply with all applicable state and local laws governing Plaintiffs' rights as tenant; the duty to maintain Plaintiffs' premises in a safe, healthy and habitable condition for the entire term of Plaintiffs' tenancy and the duty to not obstruct Plaintiffs' full use and occupancy of their rented residences.

48. Defendant, by the conduct alleged above, so negligently and carelessly maintained, operated, and managed the Property as to breach the duties that they owed to Plaintiffs.

49. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendant, Plaintiffs have sustained general, special and property damage in amounts to be determined at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs Joseph Athey and Melissa Athey hereby demand trial by jury in this action. Dated: 06/14/2023 /s/ Nada Dhahbi, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs Joseph Athey and Melissa Athey

City of Hemet

Notice of Public Hearing

The City of Hemet is providing alternative measures for the public to attend/view this public hearing. If you have a comment, please visit hemetca.civicweb. net/portal/citizenengagement. aspx to create a Public Comment Form.” The meeting will be livestreamed online at hemetca. gov/388/agendas-minutes . Residents may also speak on an item during Public Comment by using the following zoom link: https://us02web.zoom. us/j/81634563343 ,Webinar ID: 816 3456 3343 , Webinar Passcode 702164

ON THE FOLLOWING:

Environmental

Location of Property:

Applicant:

Applicant:

Palm Communities

Environmental

Location of Property:

National Tube Supply

Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: Place of Hearing: :

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE

CITY OF HEMET PLANNING COMMISSION

Proposed Project: Site Development Review 23-008, Tentative Parcel Map 38450 MAP 23-009, and Variance 23002 (Palm Villas Apartments).

The applicant requests approval to construct a 157-unit affordable housing community on a 7.84acre site. The project includes the development of five 3-story family apartment buildings totaling 57,046 square feet, up to 45 feet in height, including a 3,203 square-foot 2-story community building with a manager's unit, and 425 square-foot single-story maintenance building. The apartment buildings will consist of a mix of two and three-bedroom dwelling units ranging in size from 753 to 1,003 square feet of living area. Resident amenities include outdoor recreation areas and a tot lot. The project also includes a Tentative Parcel Map to create two parcels and three lettered parcels from six parcels and lot line adjustment dedication to the County of Riverside property of 469 feet due to resolve building encroachment over an existing lot line. A variance is requested to exceed the fence wall height of 6 feet to 8 feet for security. Pursuant to Government Code §65913.4(a) (5), §65915(b), §65915(d)(2), §65915(e), and §65915(p), the applicant is seeking waivers and concessions to the development standards for parking, open space design, driveway design, balcony configuration, entry design, architectural criteria, and reduction of landscape setback areas in accordance with Density Bonus Law.

Determination:

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.40 under Assembly Bill (AB 1449) signed into law on October 11, 2023.

The project property is located at the northwest corner of State Street and Menlo Street. 761 & 785 North State Street and 160, 260, & 320 West Menlo Avenue. (APNS 439060-009; 10; 11 ;14; 15; and 439281-035.

Proposed Project: Site Development Review 23-00 2 and Lot Line Adjustment 23-005 (Lot Merger).

The applicant requests approval to merge two existing parcels to develop a new two-story 89,317 square feet (SF) industrial warehouse building on the 5.76acre site. The proposed Project would also include an option for future expansion of the facility by 17,280 SF of warehousing area, which would be expanded from the east of the building area. The first floor would include 80,280 SF of warehouse space and 4,703 SF of potential office space. An additional 4,334 SF of office space is proposed and would be included as the second floor of the office area. The building would also have a height of 45 feet and 6 inches and a FAR of 0. 42 at final build-out. Additionally, the Project applicant is proposing a lot merger of the two existing parcels on site, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN’S) 456-040-028 and -029, which have the same land use and zoning designations.

Determination:

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are “consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. The project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with the City of Hemet General Plan 2030 Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) (SCH # 2010061088) previously certified by the City of Hemet in 2012.

Southwest of the intersection at Wentworth Drive and South Sanderson Avenue

February 20, 2024 6:00 PM

City Council Chambers, 450 E. Latham Avenue, Hemet, CA 92543

Should you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Monique Alaniz-flejter at (951) 765-2370 or mflejter@ hemetca.gov

ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE HEARING OR APPEAR AND PRESENT ANY INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. A COPY OF THE PROJECT APPLICATION(S) AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION. DUE TO COVID, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER TO INSPECT DOCUMENTS. AS A RESULT OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENTS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY BE EITHER ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED, MODIFIED, OR DENIED. IF YOU CHALLENGE THE NATURE OF THE ABOVE LISTED ITEM IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OFFICES, AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.

The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed, in writing, within ten calendar days to the City Council. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director and accompanied by the required fee The Press-enterprise

Published: 2/9/24