1 Eric J.

Schindler (SBN 141386)

THE SCHINDLER LAW FIRM
2 384 Forest Avenue, Suite 20
Laguna Beach, California 92651
3 Voice: 949.464.9713
Fax: 949.464.9714
4 E-mail: eric@ArtofLaw.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated
6

7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT
9

10

11 KENNETH K. YORK, M.D., F.A.C.S., and Case No. BC316954

ANNETTE YORK, individually and on behalf of all
12 others similarly situated, Honorable Charles W. McCoy
Dept. 308
13
Plaintiffs,
CLASS ACTION
14
v. COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE
15 RELIEF AND RESTITUTION:
TOLUCA HILLS COUNTRY CLUB
16
APARTMENTS, a California Limited Partnership; 1. Unfair and Fraudulent Business
Practices [B&P Code § 17200]
17 R&B REALTY GROUP, a California Limited 2. False and Misleading
Partnership; OAKWOOD CORPORATE Statements [B&P § 17500]
18 HOUSING, INC., a California corporation; and 3. Breach of the Duty of Good
DOES 1 to 50; Faith and Fair Dealing
19 4. Breach of Contract
5. Breach of the Implied Warranty
20 Defendants. of Habitability (Common Area)
21 [Demand For Jury Trial]
22 Complaint Filed: 06.11.04
Trial Date: None
23

24

25 INTRODUCTION
26
1. Defendants own, advertise, manage and/or lease the upscale 1,151 unit Oakwood Toluca
27
Hills apartment complex at 3600 to 3720 Barham Boulevard, between Los Angeles and Burbank, California
28
(“Oakwood”). They market Oakwood as a “health & wellness” community for young professionals and

-1-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 families with children. When Defendants’ predecessors built Oakwood in 1971-1972, contractors sprayed
2
“cottage cheese” ceiling texture containing 7% to 10% chrysotile asbestos on the common area hallway
3
ceilings throughout the sprawling complex. Tenants wouldn’t know it, unless they read the fine print of
4

5
brochures nestled inside the welcome folder that they get after they pay the rent deposit and move in.

6 2. Defendants represent in the fine print that they have in place an operations and maintenance
7 (“O&M”) program, consistent with applicable federal and state safety requirements, to monitor, manage,
8
maintain and repair the asbestos containing material (“ACM”) to minimize the disturbance of the ACM, and
9
to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the air at Oakwood.
10

11 3. In fact there is no recognizable O&M program in place at Oakwood. The ACM in common

12 area corridors throughout Oakwood is delaminating and falling off. It is chipped, stapled, sanded,
13
perforated, scraped and patched by untrained maintenance crews with no respiratory protection. It is
14
scattered throughout the corridors, and re-entrained into the air by cleaning crews with brooms and vacuum
15
cleaners, creating an unreasonable and avoidable health risk for tenants, workers, and visitors. Defendants
16

17 don’t deliver the “health & wellness” accommodations they promise—and they unfairly profit by side-

18 stepping safe ACM practices at Oakwood.

19
4. Dr. and Mrs. York bring this class action and representative action against the Defendants
20
under California state law for themselves and for all tenants similarly situated for the four (4) years last past
21
for unfair and fraudulent business practices, false and misleading statements, breach of the duty of good
22

23 faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability as to common
24 area hallways.
25
THE PARTIES
26
5. Plaintiffs Kenneth K. York, M.D., F.A.C.S. (“Ken”) and his wife Annette York (“Annette”)
27

28
are residents of Los Angeles, California, where they live with their two young daughters: 7-year old

-2-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 Danielle York (“Danielle”) and 4-year old Madison York (“Madison”). The York family leased and lived
2
in Oakwood apartment D-304, 3708 Barham Boulevard, from May 16, 2003, to May 9, 2004.
3
6. Defendant Toluca Hills Country Club Apartments (“Toluca Hills”) is a California limited
4

5
partnership with a principal place of business at 2222 Corinth Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Toluca

6 Hills owns, manages, advertises and/or leases Oakwood.

7 7. Defendant R&B Realty Group (“R&B”) is a California limited partnership with a principal
8
place of business at 2222 Corinth Avenue, Los Angeles, California. R&B owns, manages, advertises and/or
9
leases Oakwood.
10

11 8. Defendant Oakwood Corporate Housing, Inc. (“Oakwood Corporate”), is a California

12 corporation with a principal place of business at 2222 Corinth Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Oakwood
13
Corporate owns, manages, advertises and/or leases Oakwood.
14
9. Plaintiffs do not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,
15
or otherwise, of Defendant Does 1 through 50. Pursuant to California CCP §474, Plaintiffs sue these
16

17 defendants under the fictitious name “Doe.” Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that each of the Doe

18 defendants is legally responsible in some manner for Plaintiffs’ damages. If and when Plaintiffs learn their
19
real names and identities, Plaintiffs will ask the Court for permission to amend this complaint to sue them
20
under their real names.
21
10. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that each defendant is the agent, employee or
22

23 representative of the other defendant, and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of that
24 agency. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that each defendant has ratified and approved the acts of
25
its agent.
26

27

28

-3-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2
11. Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims for restitution and
3
equitable relief occurred at Oakwood—within this judicial district. Plaintiffs are seeking restitution in
4

5
excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. This court also has jurisdiction under California

6 Business & Professions Code §17203. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County and in this judicial district
7 because Plaintiffs’ causes of action arose here.
8
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
9
12. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of themselves and all other tenants
10

11 who are similarly situated. The class is composed of all persons who leased an Oakwood apartment at any

12 time during the four (4) years last past, between June 10, 2000, and the present. Defendants and their
13
officers, directors, employees, affiliates and family members are excluded from the class.
14
13. The members of the class are so numerous that joining them all individually would be
15
impracticable. Plaintiffs don’t know the exact number of the members of the class at this time, but the
16

17 number and identity of the class members is easily ascertainable through Defendants’ business records.

18 Plaintiffs estimate that there are several thousand members of the class.
19
14. Plaintiffs have the same interest in this matter as all other members of the class.
20
15. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of all the members of the class.
21
16. A well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involving all members
22

23 of the class exists.

24 17. Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that may affect only
25
individual class members.
26
18. Common questions of law include:
27

28

-4-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 a. the nature and application of Defendants’ statutory and common law duties to avoid
2
unfair and fraudulent business practices;
3
b. The nature and application of Defendants’ statutory and common law duties to avoid
4

5
false and misleading communications about the real estate offered for lease and the

6 management services offered along with it;

7 c. the nature and application of the Defendants’ duties with respect to the operation and
8
maintenance of the ACM in place in Oakwood common area hallways;
9
d. Defendants’ applicable standard of care with respect to the operation and maintenance of
10

11 the ACM in place in Oakwood common area hallways;

12 19. Common questions of fact include:

13
a. Defendants’ breach of their statutory and common law duties to avoid unfair and
14
fraudulent business practices;
15
b. Defendants’ breach of their statutory and common law duties to avoid false and
16

17 misleading communications about the real estate offered for lease and the management

18 services offered along with it;

19
c. Defendants’ breach of their duties with respect to the operation and maintenance of
20
ACM in place in Oakwood common area hallways;
21
d. the measure of restitution Defendants owe to Plaintiffs and class members resulting from
22

23 the breach of their duties with respect to the operation and maintenance of ACM in place
24 in Oakwood common area hallways;
25
20. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of all class member claims because all class members’ claims
26
for equitable relief and restitution arise from Defendants’ failure to carry out an O&M program to manage
27

28
the ACM in place in Oakwood common area hallways, including Defendants’ unfair and fraudulent

-5-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 business practices, false and misleading statements, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach
2
of contract, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and the class members’ overpayment for
3
promised ACM-managed accommodations that they didn’t receive. The evidence and the legal issues
4

5
regarding Defendants’ wrongful conduct are substantially identical for Plaintiffs and all of the class

6 members.
7 21. Defendants have acted or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to all class members,
8
making equitable relief—e.g., restitution to each class member—appropriate to the class as a whole.
9
22. The court should certify the class because common questions of law and fact predominate
10

11 over individual questions. Legal issues regarding duty and standard of care are common to all class

12 members’ claims. Factual issues regarding breach and the measure of restitution are common to all class
13
members’ claims. For example, the financial detriment suffered by each member of the class may be
14
determined with respect to the difference between the fair market value of the ACM-managed
15
accommodations that the Defendants promised to the class and the fair market value of the asbestos-strewn
16

17 accommodations that they delivered to the class. Alternatively, the financial detriment suffered by each

18 member of the class may be determined with respect to ill-gotten profits generated by Defendants by
19
promising—but not delivering—an O&M program consistent with applicable federal and state safety
20
requirements, to monitor, manage, maintain and repair the ACM in place in Oakwood common area
21
hallways to minimize the disturbance of the ACM, and to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the air.
22

23 23. A class action is superior to all other available procedures for the fair and efficient
24 adjudication of these claims. Even if any individual class member could afford individual litigation, it
25
would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the separate lawsuits would proceed. A single class
26
action is preferable to separate, individual lawsuits because it provides the benefits of unitary adjudication,
27

28
economies of scale, and comprehensive adjudication by a single court.

-6-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 24. Plaintiffs Ken and Annette are educated, articulate, medical professionals who will fairly and
2
adequately protect the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiffs do not have interests that are contrary
3
to or in conflict with those of the members of the class they seek to represent. Plaintiffs’ undersigned
4

5
counsel is experienced and capable of managing a class action of this anticipated size and complexity, and

6 will vigorously prosecute the class claims.

7 25. The prosecution of separate, individual lawsuits by individual members of the class would
8
create a risk of inconsistent or contradictory findings of fact and law—which could impose incompatible
9
standards of conduct for Defendants—and would lead to repetitious trials of the numerous common
10

11 questions of fact and law. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of

12 this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. As a result, a class action is superior to
13
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of these claims.
14
26. Class members may be identified and notified of developments in this class action through
15
Defendants’ billing data base, Defendants’ marketing data base, Defendants’ website at www.oakwood.com,
16

17 and through state or nationwide publications.

18 27. Plaintiffs and class members have suffered financial losses and irreparable harm as a result of
19
Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Without a class action Plaintiffs and members of the class will continue to
20
suffer losses, thereby allowing Defendants’ wrongful conduct to proceed without remedy, and allowing
21
Defendants to retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten profits contrary to California law and public policy.
22

23 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

24 28. Plaintiffs bring these claims as private attorneys general on behalf of the class and the
25
general public pursuant to Business & Professions Code §17204. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants from
26
engaging in the unfair and fraudulent business practices alleged, and to require Defendants to make
27

28
restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained through their unfair and fraudulent business practices. A

-7-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 private attorney general/representative action is necessary and appropriate because Defendants have
2
engaged in the wrongful acts alleged as a general business practice.
3
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
4

5
29. Defendants Toluca Hills, R&B, Oakwood Corporate, and Does 1 to 50 own, manage,

6 advertise and/or lease the upscale 1,151 unit Oakwood Toluca Hills apartment complex at 3600 to 3720
7 Barham Boulevard between Los Angeles and Burbank, California (“Oakwood”). They market Oakwood as
8
a “health & wellness” community for young professionals and families with children. When Defendants’
9
predecessors built Oakwood in 1971-1972, contractors sprayed “cottage cheese” ceiling texture containing
10

11 7% to 10% chrysotile asbestos on the common area hallway ceilings throughout the sprawling complex.

12 30. Ken is a board-certified ophthalmic surgeon with a clinical practice in Glendora, California.
13
Annette manages his medical practice, and runs after their children, 7-year old Danielle and 4-year old
14
Madison. In May 2003 Ken and Annette needed temporary housing pending completion of an extensive
15
remodel on their home in Hollywood Hills. Defendants marketed Oakwood through internet, billboard and
16

17 flyer advertising as a “health & wellness,” kid-friendly, family-friendly, professional-friendly apartment

18 community. Ken and Annette leased apartment D-304, a 2-bedroom, 2-bath, furnished apartment, and
19
moved in on the evening of May 16, 2003. They received a rental deposit receipt, but were never given a
20
written rental agreement or lease. Their monthly rent was charged to their credit card.
21
31. There were no asbestos warning signs posted. No one at Oakwood called the ACM to their
22

23 attention. They never thought about ACM. They were handed a welcome folder that included their rental
24 deposit receipt, brochures, and advertisements. They put the welcome folder in the to-be-filed stack on the
25
desk, where it sat for most of their tenancy.
26
32. In the fine print of brochures included in their welcome folder Defendants represent that they
27

28
have in place an operations and maintenance (“O&M”) program, consistent with applicable federal and state

-8-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 safety requirements, to monitor, manage, maintain and repair the asbestos containing material (“ACM”) to
2
minimize the disturbance of the ACM, and to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the air. Ken and
3
Annette first noticed the asbestos warnings in the brochures in the welcome folder shortly before they
4

5
moved out in May 2004.

6 33. In fact there is no recognizable O&M program in place at Oakwood. The ACM in common
7 area hallways throughout Oakwood is delaminating and falling off. It is chipped, stapled, sanded,
8
perforated, scraped and patched by untrained maintenance crews with no respiratory protection. It is
9
scattered throughout the corridors, and re-entrained into the air by cleaning crews with brooms and vacuum
10

11 cleaners, creating an unreasonable and avoidable health risk to tenants, workers and visitors.

12 34. The deteriorated condition of the ACM, and the release, discharge and dispersal of the ACM
13
and asbestos fibers into the air and onto surfaces, fixtures and personal property presents an avoidable,
14
unreasonable health risk to Plaintiffs and class members. These are not the upscale “health & wellness”
15
accommodations that Plaintiffs and class members bargained for. These are not the ACM-managed
16

17 accommodations Defendants promised. Defendants have unfairly profited by their conduct to the detriment

18 of Plaintiffs and class members.

19
35. Defendants’ misconduct was deliberate, and undertaken with oppression, fraud or malice
20
within the meaning of California Civil Code § 3294, justifying an award of exemplary damages sufficient to
21
punish Defendants and to deter them from such misconduct in the future.
22

23 FIRST COUNT FOR UNFAIR AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES

(Against all Defendants and Does 1 to 50)
24

25
36. Plaintiffs and class members incorporate paragraphs 1 through 35 in support of this count.

26 37. Defendants’ wrongful conduct constitutes unfair and fraudulent business practices that can
27 and have in fact deceived Plaintiffs and class members in violation of California Business & Professions
28

-9-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 Code §17200 et seq. (“UCL”). Defendants’ wrongful conduct in violation of the UCL includes, but is not
2
limited to:
3
a. false and misleading representations about the O&M program at Oakwood
4

5
b. failure to carry out an O&M program at Oakwood common area hallways

6 c. discharge, dispersal and release of ACM and asbestos onto surfaces, fixtures and
7 personal property at Oakwood common area hallways
8
d. overcharging Plaintiffs and class members for ACM-managed accommodations that
9
were not provided
10

11 38. Defendants’ wrongful conduct is part of an ongoing pattern or systematic course of conduct

12 which is repeated daily at Oakwood.

13
39. Defendants’ wrongful conduct adversely impacts the public interest.
14
40. Defendants’ wrongful conduct is a factual and legal cause of financial harm to Plaintiffs and
15
class members. Plaintiffs and class members would not have leased at Oakwood at the rates paid, had they
16

17 been aware of Defendants’ unfair and fraudulent business practices and wrongful conduct.

18 41. Plaintiffs and class members request that the court enter such orders as may be necessary to
19
restore to Plaintiffs and class members all sums which Defendants wrongfully acquired by means of unfair
20
and fraudulent conduct, as provided in Business & Professions Code §17203, Civil Code §3345, and for
21
other appropriate relief.
22

23 42. Defendants’ misconduct was deliberate, and undertaken with oppression, fraud or malice
24 within the meaning of California Civil Code § 3294, justifying an award of exemplary damages sufficient to
25
punish Defendants and to deter them from such misconduct in the future.
26
SECOND COUNT FOR FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS
27
(Against all Defendants and Does 1 to 50)
28
43. Plaintiffs and class members incorporate paragraphs 1 through 35 in support of this count.

-10-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 44. California Business & Professions Code § 17500 provides:
2
§ 17500. False or misleading statements generally
3
It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with
4 intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services,
5
professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to
enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or
6 disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or disseminate or cause to be made or
disseminated from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other
7 publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other
8
manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real
or personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning any
9 circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed performance or disposition
thereof, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of
10
reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm, or
11 corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or disseminated any such
statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not to sell that personal property or
12 those services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein, or as so
advertised. . .
13

14 45. Defendants made untrue and misleading statements about the implementation of the O&M

15 program to manage the ACM in place at Oakwood common area hallways.

16
46. Defendants failed to carry out an O&M program to manage the ACM in place at Oakwood
17
common area hallways.
18
47. As a direct result of Defendants’ violation of §17500, Defendants have been and will be
19

20 unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs, class members, and the general public.

21 48. Pursuant to §17535 Plaintiffs and class members seek an order awarding Plaintiffs and class
22
members restitution of all monies wrongfully acquired by the Defendants by means of false statements, plus
23
interest and attorneys fees pursuant to, inter alia, CCP § 1021.5.
24

25
49. Defendants’ misconduct was deliberate, and undertaken with oppression, fraud or malice

26 within the meaning of California Civil Code § 3294, justifying an award of exemplary damages sufficient to
27 punish Defendants and to deter them from such misconduct in the future.
28

-11-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 THIRD COUNT FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY
OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
2
(Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 50)
3
50. Plaintiffs and class members incorporate paragraphs 1 through 35 in support of this count.
4

5
51. Plaintiffs and class members entered into rental agreements with Defendants for apartments

6 at Oakwood throughout the four (4) years last past.

7 52. Plaintiffs and class members performed all covenants and satisfied all conditions precedent,
8
concurrent and subsequent to the rental agreements not otherwise waived or excused.
9
53. California law imposes a duty of good faith and fair dealing on the parties to a contract,
10

11 which requires that neither party do anything to unreasonably and without proper cause impair the other’s

12 right to receive the benefits of the contract.

13
54. Defendants breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing by promising Plaintiffs and class
14
members an ACM-managed facility without any intention of continuing to carry on the O&M program in
15
order to unjustly enrich themselves to the financial detriment of Plaintiffs and class members.
16

17 55. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Defendants breached the duty of good faith

18 and fair dealing by other acts or omissions of which Plaintiffs are presently unaware, and which will be
19
shown according to proof at the time of trial.
20
56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered financial
21
losses, costs and prejudgment interest in an amount to be shown at the time of trial, but in an amount in
22

23 excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

24 FOURTH COUNT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
25
(Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 50)

26 57. Plaintiffs and class members incorporate paragraphs 1 through 35 in support of this count.
27 58. Plaintiffs and class members entered into rental agreements with Defendants over the four
28
(4) years last past.

-12-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 59. Defendants did not provide a copy of a written rental agreement to Plaintiffs.
2
60. Plaintiffs and class members performed all covenants and satisfied all conditions precedent,
3
concurrent and subsequent to the rental agreements not otherwise waived or excused.
4

5
61. Defendants breached the rental agreements as set forth herein.

6 62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs and class members have
7 suffered financial losses, costs and prejudgment interest in an amount to be shown at the time of trial, but in
8
an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
9
FIFTH COUNT FOR BREACH OF THE
10
WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY (COMMON AREA)
11 (Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 50)

12 63. Plaintiffs and class members incorporate paragraphs 1 through 35 in support of this count.
13
64. Defendants owed Plaintiffs and class members a duty of due care to inspect, detect, prevent,
14
manage, repair, maintain and correct avoidable unsafe, unhealthy, and unreasonably dangerous conditions in
15
the Oakwood common area hallways.
16

17 65. Defendants owed Plaintiffs’ minor children and class members’ minor children a higher

18 degree of care to protect them from avoidable unsafe, unhealthy, and unreasonably dangerous conditions in
19
the Oakwood common area hallways.
20
66. Defendants breached their duty by failing to inspect, manage, maintain, repair, and remediate
21
ACM and released asbestos in the Oakwood common area hallways, thereby breaching the implied
22

23 warranty of habitability.
24 67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs and class members have
25
suffered financial losses in an amount to be proven at trial, including rent abatement, attorneys fees and
26
costs pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1941.1 and 1942.4.
27

28

-13-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 68. Defendants’ misconduct was deliberate, and undertaken with oppression, fraud or malice
2
within the meaning of California Civil Code § 3294, justifying an award of exemplary damages sufficient to
3
punish Defendants and to deter them from such misconduct in the future.
4

5
REQUEST FOR JUDGMENT

6 Plaintiffs ask for entry of judgment in their favor as follows:

7 1. For an order certifying that this action proceed as a class action with Plaintiffs as the class
8
representatives;
9
2. For an order that this action proceed as a representative action with Plaintiffs as
10

11 representative private attorney generals;

12 3. For an order prohibiting Defendants’ unfair and fraudulent business practices and false and
13
misleading statements or in the alternative requiring Defendants to carry out the O&M
14
program as promised;
15
4. For an order of restitution to Plaintiffs and all class members;
16

17 5. For punitive damages as to the 1st, 2nd, and 5th causes of action;

18 6. For pre-judgment interest;

19
7. For costs and reasonable attorneys fees; and
20
8. For any further relief the Court finds fair and appropriate.
21
Dated: June __, 2004 THE SCHINDLER LAW FIRM
22

23
___________________________
24 Eric J. Schindler
25
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
27

28
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this action on all counts and issues of fact triable to a jury.

-14-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution
 1 Dated: June __, 2004 THE SCHINDLER LAW FIRM
2
___________________________
3
Eric J. Schindler
4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-15-
Complaint for Equitable Relief and Restitution