At Castelblanco Law Group, APLC, we fight to protect tenant rights. We concentrate our practice exclusively in Housing Law. We primarily represent tenants who live in substandard living conditions.Since the founding of the firm in 1995, we have represented thousands of tenants in actions filed against landlords for a variety of grievances related to unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Our representation has successfully secured numerous multi-million dollar awards from irresponsible landlords.The state of California guarantees everyone the right to live in safe, secure housing without threat of discrimination or persecution. Castelblanco Law Group, APLC is here to help any resident of California who feels that their rights were violated by their landlord. We devote our entire practice to helping tenants – never landlords. With our team of lawyers by your side you will never have to accept living in unsafe or unsanitary conditions again. We will fight to help you be awarded the most compensation possible from your landlord for violating your rights.For more detailed information on tenant rights in California please visit our other website: Tenant Hub.
We have obtained millions in total settlements for our clients in the last 10 years. Some of our settlements include the following:
TORTS LANDLORD AND TENANT
Plaintiffs v. Owner X and Y
SETTLEMENT: The case settled after three mediations for $1,047,500
FACTS: The Plaintiffs, 50 adults and 40 minor children, were tenants in a low income apartment complex on Western Avenue in Los Angeles. During the relevant time, the property was owned by Owners X and Y. The Los Angeles Housing Department cited the property for multiple habitability violations including cockroaches and vermin infestation throughout the property. The conditions were allegedly abated by Owner X. Title was then transferred to Owner Y. In the same year, the Housing Department cited the property for multiple violations. Virtually every unit inspected contained the same habitability problems found under the old ownership. Owner Y failed to abate and a Substandard Order was issued.
CONTENTIONS: The tenants alleged they suffered rodent and insect bites, allergies, rashes and other physical symptoms arising from the conditions. The tenants sought damages for physical injury, emotional distress, and restitution of rent, property damage and statutory penalties pursuant to C.C.P. Section 1941.1. Owner X claimed that the conditions during its ownership were adequate and that the citations, which were timely abated, did not affect the health and safety of the tenants. Owner Y claimed that the violations identified on its watch were the result of poor long-term maintenance by Owner X. Both owners also made the standard arguments that the tenants exaggerated the conditions, did not complain about the conditions and their physical injuries lacked healthcare provider corroboration.
TORTS LANDLORD AND TENANT
Plaintiffs v. Doe Landlord
SETTLEMENT: The case settled for $1.675 million after three mediations.
FACTS: The Plaintiffs, 60 adults and 30 minor children, were tenants in a low income apartment building on Florence Avenue in Los Angeles. They alleged that for four consecutive years the defendants and its management company allowed the building to fall into disrepair resulting in sewage spills, destroyed and dirty sheetrock, mold and mildew, cockroaches and vermin, common area problems and a multitude of maintenance issues. The Los Angeles Housing Department cited the property annually but the landlord failed to abate due primarily to shoddy repair work. The Housing Department consequently issued a “Substandard Order”.
PLAINTIFFS’ CONTENTIONS: The tenants alleged rodent and insect bites, allergies, rashes and other physical symptoms as well as emotional distress arising from the conditions and harassment by management. The tenants sought damages for physical injury, emotional distress, and restitution of rent, property damage and statutory penalties pursuant to C.C.P. Section 1941.1.
DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: The Defendants claimed that the tenants exaggerated the extent and duration of the conditions, failed to make complaints about the conditions, caused the health and safety conditions with their poor housekeeping and messy eating habits and that the alleged physical symptoms were note supported by medical records.