THE DEVIL

Posted by ROBERT LACAMBRA at 4/01/2008 12:00:00 AM |
BASIC FACTS
Case Name: Lacambra vs. Shea Properties et al
Case No.: 07CC10666
Defendants: Shea Properties Management Inc., Gary J. Gough Esq. (Does 1-100)
Date Filed: November 9, 2007
Court: Superior Court, Central Justice Center - Santa Ana CA
Presiding Judge: Hon. Kazuharu Makino
Department: C-3
Status: Dismissed in the Superior Court and will be refiled in the US Courts (Southern CA District).


ABOUT THE NAME
The moniker “The Devil” was derived from the Case Number that was assigned to this action – 07CC10666. In the Bible’s Book of Revelations the number 666 was used to signify “The Beast” – the Anti-Christ or the Devil.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
(from the actual complaint)
If current laws were permissive of such atrocious relief - were the Plaintiff could ask “an eye for an eye”, I would ask from this Honorable Court that the Defendants be humiliated, stripped of their home, of their place of business, their well earned reputation, their credit standing and the respect of their family and loved ones.

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
This action stems from a previous "Unlawful Detainer Action" filed by Shea Properties against Robert in 2003. The dispute originated from an unsubstantiated allegation that Robert was stalking a resident and a neighborhood nuisance at the apartment complex - City Lights Apartments - while a resident there. In his lawsuit, Robert alleges that he was a victim of mistaken identity and was stopped while on a training run as he appeared to have been running from the scene of the crime. Robert countered with strongly worded letters seeking information about the incident - the identity of the accuser, security logs, among other things. Upon receiving his inquiry, Shea Properties abandoned the first "3-Day Notice to Quit" that specified "Neighborhood Nuisance" and served him with another "3 Day Notice to Quit" stating "Failure to Pay Rent" and declined payments when Robert made the offer.

At issue is Robert's rights as a renter who was deprived an opportunity to question his accuser. In his complaint, he alleged that the Defendants were of full knowledge of an egregious injustice but failed to abide by a "Tenant-Landlord Covenant" which required that they provide a fair and equitable manner by which parties can resolve such a dispute. After a hearing, Robert was evicted because at the time he lacked legal training and filed an answer in court that was technically deficient. In the end, he lost that particular case not because he was a deviant or a bad person but because he failed to navigate the world of law as it relates to an "Unlawful Detainer Action" (Eviction).

The issue that Robert tries to bring to the forefront of social consciousness could be found in this question: Should landlords take extra care when evicting a renter who also operates a business in their home? To bring this to focus, the following passage, which appears on his complaint is herein quoted - 
"This case has far reaching implications on the public discourse and the formulation of landlord-tenant laws in the future. As described earlier, the apartment served not only as Robert’s refuge – his home - but also his means of making a living and providing for his children. Many laws in the area of landlord-tenant relationships are antiquated. Many do not take into consideration that a substantial number of renters now work out of their homes. As evidenced by the extreme and malicious manner in which the matter was managed it had the injurious effect of not only displacing Robert as a tenant but it also shut down his small business."