BASIC FACTS
Case Name: Lacambra vs. America's Best Inn et alCase No. 30-2008-00111417
Defendants: America’s Best Inn (Laguna Beach ) and SK Paul (Does 1-10)
Defense Counsel: Robert M. Connelly, Esq (Law Offices of Robert M. Connelly)
Date Filed: September 3, 2008
Superior Court, Central Justice Center – Santa Ana CA
Presiding Judge: Hon. Kirk H. Nakamura
Status: Trial Date has been set for July 13, 2009.
ABOUT THE NAME
The name “Seedy Operator” comes from the Preliminary Statement contained in the Complaint for Damages and is quoted below.PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
(from the actual complaint)
A motel is meant to be a retreat. Pay the rate and there are no questions – no credit reports, no rental history and no committees to decide if you can be a member. But, “Caveat Emptor” – Buyers Beware. In the world of travelers searching for the perfect memory, there lurks a seedy kind of operator – a crook in any other profession – who will draw you in with a welcoming smile, take your confidence, take your money and at a drop of the hat kick you out like a lump of used coal on a steaming asphalt road.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
Orange County, California has roughly 42 miles of coastline and draws tourists from all over the world. Along the same stretch are ample numbers of hotels, motels, B&B’s and Inns that cater to the traveler. According to the Orange County Business Journal, 44.3 million travelers visited Orange County in 2007, spending approximately $27.82 Billion for travel related expenses. This case hopes to give unethical hotel and motel operators seeking to cheat travelers a chilling effect.This case calls America’s Best Inn and its owner SK Paul to account for infractions of Civil Code Sections 1853 and 1865 (c)(1) that provides for standards of conducting business with travelers. The statutes are cited below:
1863. POSTING OF STATUTE AND RATES
(a) Every keeper of a hotel, inn, boardinghouse or lodginghouse, shall post in a conspicuous place in the office or public room, and in every bedroom of said hotel, boardinghouse, inn, or lodging house, a printed copy of this section, and a statement of rate or range of rates by the day for lodging. (b) No charge or sum shall be collected or received for any greater sum than is specified in subdivision (a). For any violation of this subdivision, the offender shall forfeit to the injured party one hundred dollars ($100) or three times the amount of the sum charged in excess of what he is entitled to, whichever is greater. There shall be no forfeiture under this subdivision unless notice be given of the overcharge to such keeper within 30 days after payment of such charges and such keeper shall fail or refuse to make proper adjustment of such overcharge.
1865. RIGHT TO EVICT GUEST
(c) In addition to, and not in derogation of, any other provision of law, every innkeeper shall have the right to evict a guest in the manner specified in this subdivision if the guest refuses or otherwise fails to fully depart the guest room at or before the innkeeper's posted checkout time on the date agreed to by the guest, but only if both of the following conditions are met:
(1) If the guest is provided written notice, at the time that he or she was received and provided accommodations by the innkeeper, that the innkeeper needs that guest's room to accommodate an arriving person with a contractual right thereto, and that if the guest fails to fully depart at the time agreed to the innkeeper may enter the guest's guest room, take possession of the guest's property, re-key the door to the guest room, and make the guest room available to a new guest. The written notice shall be signed by the guest.
The above laws were designed to ensure fair treatment and prevent operators of hospitality establishments from conducting “bait and switch” tactics. They are required to post rates inside the rooms and in conspicuous areas in the lobby. Furthermore, the operators are required to follow specific procedures when evicting a guest. In this instant case, the management had made arrangements for ROBERT to stay on a month-to-month basis and also allowed him 10 days to liquidate property to pay a month’s stay in advance. Without warning and disregarding a prior agreement made with the manager (Wendy), the owner, SK Paul, evicted ROBERT without any notice giving him approximately 1 hour to clear his belongings from the room.
The following is a passage from the complaint served by ROBERT on Defendants America’s Best Inn and SK Paul:
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(NEGLIGENCE)Paragraphs 1-23 is incorporated herein referenced as though fully set forth.
AM BEST, as required by law, failed to adhere to Civil Codes 1863 and 1865(c)(1). These laws were enacted to prevent hotel and motel operators from bilking guests for unfair rates. It also guards from unethical operators from simply evicting guests for financial advantage such as when another guest offers to pay a higher rate than what the current occupant is paying. To prove a negligence case, ROBERT must show that:
1) AM BEST deviated from the standard of behavior expected of a reasonable person/company and that the harm could have been prevented.
2) The deviation resulted in the injury.
It is indisputable that AM BEST violated the statutes described above. As a general principle, we as members of society are required by laws to reasonably protect others from being harmed. That evening, because of the callous actions by DEFENDANT PAUL and his organization, ROBERT was put out on the streets – homeless.
