Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BALDWIN and
CAROL C. BALDWIN
2
In Proper Persons
3 8032 Red Pine Court
Citrus Heights, CA 95610-4626
4 Phone: 916-729-5213
5 Fax: 916-729-7468
24 G. PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
25
H. JURISDICTION AND VENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
26
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
27
28 CHARLES F. & CAROL C. BALDWIN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Page 2 of 53.
1 J. STATEMENT OF DAMAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2
Disability Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Denial of Civil Rights - Unruh Civil Rights Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
5 Denial of Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Denial of Due Process Constitutional Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 Breach of Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 Breach of Fiduciary Duty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION
11
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
12 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Civil Conspiracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13
14 K. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
19 A. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS
20 NOTE: All BOLD and underscore contained herein are for emphasis only and have been added
21 by Cross-Complainants unless otherwise stated.
22
23 1. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (hereinafter “FEHA”) (Gov.
24 Code § 12900 et seq.; subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Government Code),
25 Cross-Complainants CHARLES F. BALDWIN and CAROL C. BALDWIN, as Trustees of the
26 CHARLES F. & CAROL C. BALDWIN LIVING TRUST and CHARLES F. BALDWIN
27
28 CHARLES F. & CAROL C. BALDWIN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Page 3 of 53.
1 (hereinafter individually as “Mr. Baldwin”) and CAROL C. BALDWIN (hereinafter individually
2 as “Mrs. Baldwin”), as natural persons (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Cross-
3 Complainants” and/or “The Baldwins”) allege the following complaints against Cross-Defendant,
4 SUNRISE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., a California nonprofit mutual benefit
5 corporation, (hereinafter the “HOA”), and DOES 1 through 250 (hereinafter collectively referred
6 to as the “Cross-Defendant”).
7 2. Cross-Defendant unlawfully, arbitrarily, capriciously, and maliciously practiced acts of
8 discrimination on the basis of Mrs. Baldwin’s legal physical disability by refusing “to make
9 reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when these accommodations
1
10 may be necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling” for
11 its disabled homeowner association members. (§§ 12927, subd. (c) (1), 12955; 42 U.S.C. §
12 3604(f)(3)(B); see Selmon v. Pourtsmouth Drive Condo. Ass’n, 89 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 1996).) “The
13 simple fact that an accommodation would provide a ‘preference’ – in the sense that it would permit
14 the [person] with a disability to violate a rule that others must obey – cannot, in and of itself,
15 automatically show that the accommodation is not ‘reasonable.’” (U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535
16 U.S. 391, 397 (2002) (italics in original); Bryant Woods Inn v. Howard County, 124 F.3d 597, 603
17 (4th Cir. 1997) (cited in Colon-Jimenez v. GR Management Corp., 218 F. App’x 2 (1st Cir. 2007)).
18 3. In this matter, Cross-Complainants, CHARLES F. BALDWIN and CAROL C.
19 BALDWIN, sought “reasonable accommodations” from their homeowners association development
20 Board of Directors (hereinafter “board”) through two separate Department of Fair Employment and
21 Housing (hereinafter “DFEH”) Complaints filed by the Cross-Complainants plus multiple United
22 States Postal Service certified mailings to Cross-Defendant board and architectural control
23 committee requesting Internal Dispute Resolution (hereinafter “IDR”) (See Civil Code § 1363.810).
24 In addition, Cross-Complainants agreed to non-binding mediation with Cross-Defendant on three
25 separate occasions, only to be rejected by Cross-Defendant and further deprived by the HOA board
26
1
27 See 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(B).
22 3
Mrs. Baldwin, SSgt, USAF, a 100% medically retired post Viet Nam veteran, required a reasonable
23 accommodation/modification involving the installation of an electric powered retractable awning across the width of
the Baldwin’s garage door necessary to her mental and physical enjoyment of the dwelling.
24
4
Mrs. Baldwin’s garage was built in 1973 with this pre-existing shortened condition and remained as such
25 when the home was purchased in 1990 from the previous 100% disabled, double leg amputee, U.S. Army Viet Nam
26 War veteran owner, namely Mr. Ronald K. Deeds (deceased). Lot 197, a/k/a 7982 Stone Canyon Circle, was also
build in 1973 with a even more significantly shortened garage depth by a 100% Korean War U.S. Air Force veteran
27 original owner, namely Mr. Antonio S. Di Biaso (deceased).
9 8. By California Law and precedent and pursuant with the Supreme Court of the United
10 States, pro se ( pro per) Pleadings MAY NOT be held to the same standard as a lawyer’s and/or
11 attorney’s and whose motions, pleadings and all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and
12 never their form. See: Haines v. Kerner; Platsky v. CIA; Anastasoff v. United States. Pro Se (pro
14 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421; In re Haines: pro se (pro per) litigants are held to less
stringent pleading standards than admitted or licensed bar attorneys. Regardless of the
15 deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit
evidence in support of their claims.
16
17 Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 25; In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se (Pro
per) litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.
18
Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000); In re Anastasoff: litigants'
19 constitutional (guaranteed) rights are violated when courts depart from precedent where
20 parties are similarly situated.
21 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed
2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233. Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard
22 to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of
23 perfection as lawyers.
24 Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938); "Pleadings are intended to serve as
a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They
25 should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is
26 important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end
of a just judgment."
27
28 CHARLES F. & CAROL C. BALDWIN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Page 7 of 53.
1 Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982); "Due to sloth, inattention or desire
to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices ... the glacial
2 pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect
3 for the law."
4 Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973); "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed
upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
5
C. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
6
9. Cross-Complainants realleges, and incorporate by reference herein, each and every
7
allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
8
10. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act is to be “construed liberally” and
9
is not intended to repeal other anti-discriminatory measures “unless those provisions provide less
10
protection to the enumerated classes of persons ...” (§ 12933, subd. (a).) Section 12955.6 reinforces
11
the broad scope of FEHA by providing that nothing in FEHA provisions “shall be construed to
12
afford to the [protected classes] fewer rights or remedies than the federal Fair Housing
13
Amendments Act of 1988 [FHA] ... and its implementing regulations ..., or state law relating to fair
14
employment and housing as it existed prior to the effective date of this section ... This part may be
15
construed to afford greater rights and remedies to an aggrieved person than those afforded by
16
federal law and other state laws.” (Also see Konig v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (2002)
17
28 Cal.4th 743, 750.) The FHAA at §§ 3607 through 3619 uses the term “handicap” instead of the
18
term “disabled.” Both terms are interchangeable and have identical meanings (Bragdon v. Abbott,
19
524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998).) The 1988 Amended FHAA at § 804(f)(2)(A) states that it is unlawful
20
“[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges ... because of a
21
handicap of ... that person.”
22
11. “FEHA in the housing area is thus intended to conform to the general requirements of
23
federal law in the area and may provide greater protection against discrimination.” (Brown v. Smith
24
(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 767, 780.). In other words, the FHAA provides a minimum level of
25
protection that FEHA may exceed. Courts often look to cases construing FHAA, the Rehabilitation
26
Act of 1973, and the Americans for Disability Act of 1990 when interpreting FEHA. (Spitzer v.
27
28 CHARLES F. & CAROL C. BALDWIN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Page 8 of 53.
1 Good Guys, Inc. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384.) Similarly, principles at issue in cases of
5
2 employment discrimination are often applied in housing discrimination cases.
6
3 12. Unlawful housing discrimination under FEHA includes the “refusal to make
4 reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when those accommodations
5 may be necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” (§
6 12927, subd. (c) (1)). Multiple Sclerosis as a disability that falls within the purview of this
7 provision and, at the time of this litigation, included “[a] physical or mental impairment that
8 substantially limits one or more of a person’s major life activities.” (Stats. 1992, ch. 182, § 10, P.
9 919.)
10 D. MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES and DISCRIMINATION
11 13. Cross-Complainants realleges, and incorporate by reference herein, each and every
12 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 12 inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
7
13 14. “Major life activities” is to be broadly construed, and includes “physical, mental, and
14 social activities [e.g.; attending and participating in all HOA open meetings and enjoyment
8
15 at common area functions] and working.” (§ 12926, subd. (I)(1)(C); See Toyota Motor
16 Manufacturing v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).) The Cross-Defendant HOA published a June
17
18 5
Cross-Complainant Mr. Baldwin admitted at ¶ 17 of their “ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT”
19 to operating “... professional and administrative professions ... permitted by applicable governmental ordinances”
out of their Lot since July/August of 1990 (See ¶¶ 10 through 12 above) because of Mrs. Baldwin’s disability and
20 need of 24/7 care.
21 6
“[D]iscrimination includes ...the refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable
modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modification may be necessary
22 to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises ...” 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(A).
23 7
The Code of Federal Regulations - Title 24 - Section 100.201 defines "Major Life Activities" functions as
caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.
24
Other Federal statutes have broader definitions to include physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
25 one or more major life activities but does not include current illegal use of, or addiction to a controlled substance, or
being a transvestite.
26
8
24 CFR § 100.204(a) makes it clear that the obligation to reasonable accommodations extends to “public
27 and common use areas.”
26 through 2008.
14
27 Vice-President of the HOA board of directors from May 2007 through present.
24 92. California law implies that every contract has an implied covenant of good faith and
25 fair dealing whereby parties to a contract must act in good faith in the performance of the contract
26 so as to not deprive another party to the contract of its benefits and/or protection (See April
27 Enters., Inc. v. KTTV, 147 Cal. App. 3d 805, 816, 195 Cal. Rptr. 421, 425 (1983); Harm v.
14 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 118 inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
15 120. All Cross-Defendants, and each of them, were obligated to perform in good faith
16 their duties as elected directors, managers, and Architectural Control Committee members of the
17 HOA. The Texas Supreme Court wrote in Texas Bank & Trust Company v. A.E. Moore, 595
19 “When persons enter into fiduciary relations each consents, as a matter of law, to have
his conduct towards the other measured by the standards of the finer loyalties exacted by
20 courts of equity. That is a sound rule and should not be whittled down by exceptions. If
21 the existence of strained relations should be suffered to work an exception, then a
designing fiduciary could easily bring about such relations to set the stage for a sharp
22 bargain…mischief would result more often from engrafting exceptions upon the general
23 rule than from a strict adherence thereto.”
24 121. As a purported non-profit mutual benefit homeowners association, the HOA officers
25 and/or board of directors owed and always owes a fiduciary duty, care, loyalty, good faith, full
26 disclosure, candor, oversight, etc. to its members, including Charles F. Baldwin and Carol C.
27
28 CHARLES F. & CAROL C. BALDWIN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Page 35 of 53.
1 Baldwin, to conduct themselves with fidelity and integrity and not act arbitrarily, capriciously,
2 or in violation of the Baldwins’ rights (See Smith v. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 858, 872 (Del. 1985);
3 Ivanhoe Partners v. Newmont Mining Corp., 535 A.2d 1334,1345 (Del. 1987); In re Walt Disney
4 Co. Derivative Litigation, 906 A.2d 27 (Del. 2006).
5 122. Said Cross-Defendant, and each of them, breached their fiduciary duty owed to the
6 HOA membership as a whole by their arbitrary and capricious conduct as aforesaid and are
7 specifically guilty of constructive fraud against Charles F. Baldwin and Carol C. Baldwin (See
8 UCIOA § 3-103(a); LaSalle National Trust v. Board of Directors of the 1100 Lake Shore Drive
9 Condominium (1997) 677 N.E.2d, 1378.). In re Cohen v. Kite Hill Community Ass’n, 142 Cal.
10 App. 3d 642,651, 191 Cal. Rptr. 290 (1983), the court declared:
11 “The business and governmental aspects of the association and the association’s
relationship to its members clearly give rise to a special sense of responsibility upon the
12 officers and directors... . This responsibility is manifested in the requirements of fiduciary
13 duties and the requirements of due process, equal protection, and fair dealing.”
14
123. Cross-Defendant, by their deliberate breaches of fiduciary duty, have engaged in, and
15
demonstrate they will continue to engage in, the pattern and unlawful practice of housing
16
discrimination described herein unless and until the Court shall enjoin these parties by Court
17
Order, pursuant to the police power granted by §§ 12920 and 12920.5, and pursuant to §
18
12989.2(a), from failing or refusing to comply with the mandates of the FEHA, § 12900, et seq.
19
124. In taking the actions herein above described, Cross-Defendant did so with the
20
intention on their part of depriving Mrs. Baldwin’s expectation of “reasonable accommodations”
21
based on her legal physical disability status, as well as depriving the Baldwins of their
22
constitutional rights, property rights, and other legal rights so as to cause Charles F. Baldwin and
23
Carol C. Baldwin irreparable harm, doing so maliciously, oppressively and in conscious disregard
24
of the Baldwins’ rights, continuing to subject Mrs. Baldwin to cruel and unjust hardship, ridicule,
25
and humiliation so as to justify an award of exemplary damages, according to proof, including
26
reasonable fees and court costs.
27
28 CHARLES F. & CAROL C. BALDWIN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Page 36 of 53.
1 EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
2
(As to all Cross-Defendants)
3 125. Cross-Complainants realleges, and incorporate by reference herein, each and every
4 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 124 inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
5 126. Courts have noted that to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress
6 (hereinafter “IIED”), the conduct of the defendant would be such that it would cause a reasonable
7 person to exclaim “Outrageous!” in response. Some of the general factors necessary to persuade
14 intentionally malicious and reckless, and was pursued and performed with the intention of
15 annoying, harassing and inflicting emotional distress upon the Baldwins as well as the mental
16 suffering of Mrs. Baldwin. Mrs. Baldwin has been hospitalized twice during this litigation (since
17 September 2009) for a total of 29 days which has caused her emotional and anti-seizure
18 medications to be increased. Said conduct as aforesaid was unreasonable and beyond the bounds
20 128. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe and therefore allege that Massey
21 deliberately continued to harass and inflict emotional distress upon Mr. Baldwin by the release
22 of “secret balloting information” in a public document. In that document, Massey caused to have
23 written “Charles Baldwin wrote in his name and cast 3 votes for himself.” This is an intentionally
24 malicious and reckless disregard for the integrity of the election voting process as protected by
27 distress upon the Baldwins resulted in their suffering extreme and long-standing emotional
25 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 131 inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
26 133. “The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of
27 the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of the
8 Cross-Defendants, and each of them, colluded to “self-serve” themselves through the initiation
9 of a Sacramento County Superior Court civil suit, Case No. 05AS04991, against the HOA and
11 138. When that action failed, their duplicitous agreement was revised to remove the entire
12 existing HOA board and replace them with CCSH members, and then cause the HOA’s legal and
13 attorney fees regarding recovery action against Ma Gill to be dropped by the Court.
14 139. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Cross-
15 Defendant Massey canvassed the residents of the HOA beginning in late 2005 through the spring
16 of 2006 gathering some 120 “proxies” under the guise that he and the proxy givers objected to
17 proposed covering of the common area pool complex (see ¶¶ 28 - 30 above). However, at the
18 Monday, April 24, 2006 Annual Meeting of the HOA Members, Massey and Ma Gill, in
19 conspiracy with Mary Elliott, one of the two election tellers, [Massey and Ma Gill] waited until
20 all other ballots were submitted and the voting was declared ‘Closed’, then Massey delayed the
21 voting process by declaring that he hadn’t voted his “proxies” and therefore knowing what the
18
22 approximate vote running tally was from Mrs. Elliott proceeded to vote what he determined
23 was needed necessary to manipulate and influence the outcome of the election to his and Ma
24
25
26 18
Mary Elliott was a member of the CCSH group headed by Gifford D. Massey (see ¶ 26 above.) and one of
27 the two 2006 Annual HOA Meeting Election Tellers.
25 //
26 /
27
28 CHARLES F. & CAROL C. BALDWIN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Page 47 of 53.
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 CASES
3 40 West 67th Street Corporation v. Pullman, 790 N.E. 2d 1174 (N.Y. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4
A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co., 22 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . 34
5
Advocacy Ctr. for Persons With Disabilities, Inc. v Woodland Estates Ass’n, Inc. (MD Fla 2002)
6 192 F Supp 2d 1344, 1348 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 105 S. Ct. 712, 83 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8
Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9
10 April Enters., Inc. v. KTTV, 147 Cal. App. 3d 805, 816, 195 Cal. Rptr. 421, 425 (1983) . . . 28
17 Cohen v. Kite Hill Community Ass’n, 142 Cal. App. 3d 642,651, 191 Cal. Rptr. 290 (1983)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
18
19 Costa Serena Owners Coalition v. Costa Serena Architectural Committee, 175 Cal. App. 4th
1175, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 170 (4th Dist. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
20
Cunningham v. Superior Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
21
22 Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
26 Gittleman v. Woodhaven Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 972 F. Supp 894 (D.N.J. 1997) . . . . . . 12
27
28 CHARLES F. & CAROL C. BALDWIN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Page 48 of 53.
1 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Harm v. Frasher, 181 Cal. App. 2d 405, 417, 5 Cal. Rptr. 367, 374 (1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3
Harrison v Frye (1957) 148 CA2d 626, 307 P2d 76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4
HUD v. Ocean Sands, Inc., No HUD DALJ 04-90-0231-1 (HUD Office of Admin. Law Judges
5 9-3-93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6
In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation, 906 A.2d 27 (Del. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 382 (1970), (Black, J., dissenting) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8
9 Ironwood Owners Ass’n IX v. Solomon 178 Cal. App. 3d 766, 772, 224 Cal. Rptr. 18 (1986)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
10
Ivanhoe Partners v. Newmont Mining Corp., 535 A.2d 1334,1345 (Del. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . 36
11
12 Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp. (N.D.Cal. 2000) 169 F.Supp.2d 1133,1135
(Janush) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
13
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
14
15 Konig v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 743, 750 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
16 Lake Development Enterprises, Inc. v. Kojetinsky, Mo.App. 410 S.W.2d 361, 367 . . . . . . . 34
17 LaSalle National Trust v. Board of Directors of the 1100 Lake Shore Drive Condominium (1997)
18 677 N.E.2d, 1378 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
19 Marsh v. Alabama, 6 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 461, 493-94 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
20 Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
21
Mox Incorporated v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677-678 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
22
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominimum Ass’n (1994) 8 C4th 361, 33 CR2d 63 . . . . 19
23
24 Nelson Radio & Supply Co., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 200 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1952) . . . . . . . . 39
25 Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233. . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Assn., 81 Cal. App. 3d 688, 146 Cal. Rptr. 695 (1st Dist.
1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5
6 Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7 Schantz v. The Village Apartments, 998 F. Supp. 784, 791 (E.D. Mich. 1998); 994 F. Supp. At
1255 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8
9 Selmon v. Pourtsmouth Drive Condo. Ass’n, 89 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
19 Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Dep’t., 352 F.3d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
20 U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 397 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
21
United States v. California Home Management Co., 107 F.3rd 1374, 1390 (9th Cir. 1997) . 10
22
Wooded Shores Property Owners Association Inc. v. Mathews, 37 Ill. App.3d 334, 345 N.E.2d.
23 186, 189 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
24
STATUTES
25 10 Cal. Code Regs. § 2792.21(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
26 18 U.S.C. § 371 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
27
28 CHARLES F. & CAROL C. BALDWIN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT Page 50 of 53.
1 24 C.F.R. § 100.80(b)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 24 CFR § 100.203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3
24 CFR § 100.204(a) ........................................................... 9
4
24 CFR § 100.65(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 28
5
6 24 CFR §100-203(a) ........................................................... 5
13 42 U.S.C. § 3617 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
14 42 U.S.C.A. § 12181(9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
15
42 USC § 3604 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
16
California Civil Code § 1350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
17
18 California Government Code § 12927, subdivision (e) and 12924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19