Civil Complaint filed

Cal. Super. - 5th Dist.June 23, 2021

-1- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (State Bar No. 298078) Law Offices of Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza 9025 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 550-6000 Facsimile: (310) 861-9000 Email: ilan@hotelinjurylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff JASON RUBOTTOM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO Plaintiff, JASON RUBOTTOM, complains of and alleges as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This action arises out of personal injury and monetary damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of bedbug bites during his stay at a hotel owned and operated by Defendants in Fresno, California. 2. Plaintiff, JASON RUBOTTOM (hereinafter, “Ms. Rubottom,” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT FRESNO; JULEE MAY; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive (“Defendants,” or collectively, “Defendants”). II. PARTIES 3. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff is a resident of the state of Georgia. JASON RUBOTTOM, Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT FRESNO; JULEE MAY; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. Unlimited Jurisdiction COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Battery 2. Negligence 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 4. Fraudulent Concealment 5. Public Nuisance (Demand for Jury Trial) E-FILED 6/23/2021 9:36 PM Superior Court of California County of Fresno By: A. Ramos, Deputy 21CECG01815 -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 4. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation with its principal place of business in Bethesda, Maryland, is the parent corporation of COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT FRESNO, located at 140 East Shaw Ave, Fresno, California 93710. 5. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant, COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT FRESNO, a business form unknown, owns, operates, manages, and is doing business as COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT FRESNO, located at 140 East Shaw Ave, Fresno, California 93710. 6. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant, JULEE MAY, an individual, manages and operates the COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT FRESNO, located at 140 East Shaw Ave, Fresno, California 93710 (hereinafter, the “Courtyard by Marriott” or the “hotel”). 7. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true identity and capacity of Defendants designated as DOES 1 through 20, but will amend the Complaint when their identities have been ascertained according to proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that each and every DOE Defendant is in some manner responsible for the acts and conduct of other Defendants, and were and are, responsible for the injuries, damages and harm incurred by Plaintiff. 8. Plaintiff is informed, believe and thereon allege, that at all times relevant during the liability period, that Defendants, and each of them, including without limitation those Defendants herein sued as DOES, were acting in concert or participating with each other, or were joint participants and collaborators in the acts complained of, and were the agents or employees of others in doing the acts complained of herein, each and all of them acting within the course and scope of said agency and/or employment by others, each and all of them acting in concert with the other and all together. III. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 9. Venue is proper in this Court because the injuries alleged in this Complaint occurred within the County of Fresno. 10. This Court has unlimited jurisdiction over the parties named in this Complaint as -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000. Defendants are subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. IV. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 11. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”), Cimex lectularius, more commonly known as “bed bugs,” are “small, flat, parasitic insects that feed solely on the blood of people and animals while they sleep.” They are “found across the globe from North and South America, to Africa, Asia and Europe. Although the presence of bed bugs has traditionally been seen as a problem in developing countries, it has recently been spreading rapidly to parts of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and other parts of Europe. Bed bugs have been found in five-star hotels and resorts and their presence is not determined by the cleanliness of the living conditions where they are found.” (See www.cdc.gov/parasites/bedbugs/ accessed June 1, 2021). 12. According to the CDC, “one of the easiest ways to identify a bed bug infestation is by the tell-tale bite marks on the face, neck, arms, hands, or any other body parts while sleeping.” Additionally, “because bed bug bites affect everyone differently, some people may have no reaction and will not develop bite marks or any other visible signs of being bitten. Other people may be allergic to the bed bugs and can react adversely to the bites. These allergic symptoms can include enlarged bite marks, painful swellings at the bite site, and, on rare occasions, anaphylaxis.” (See www.cdc.gov/parasites/bedbugs/faqs.html accessed June 1, 2021). 13. It is also known that bedbugs are able to travel between rooms in hotels [see https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/pests/bedbugs.htm, accessed June 1, 2021], requiring thorough inspection and treatment of adjacent rooms when bedbug activity is found in a hotel. 14. On or about June 24, 2019, Plaintiff, Mr. Rubottom checked in at the hotel and was assigned Room 153 (the “room” or “Plaintiffs’ room”). 15. On or about June 25, 2019, Mr. Rubottom woke up and discovered bites on the skin of his legs. However, Mr. Rubuttom did not initially know the cause of the bites. 16. On or about June 26, 2019, Mr. Rubuttom woke up and discovered that his injuries had worsened and that he had been bitten further. -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 17. On or about June 27, 2019, Mr. Rubuttom woke up and discovered once more that his injuries had worsened and that he had been bitten again. Mr. Rubottom had about 100 bites on his skin. 18. Thereafter, on or about June 27, 2019, Mr. Rubottom checked out of the hotel. 19. Upon returning home, on or about June 27, 2019, Mr. Rubuttom discovered a dead bedbug that had fallen off a piece of his clothing that he had hung up to dry after cleaning the clothing that he had brought with him to the hotel. 20. A couple days after Mr. Rubottom’s stay at the hotel, Mr. Rubuttom wrote the hotel management a letter notifying them of the bedbug infestation. Mr. Rubuttom also contacted the City of Fresno Code Enforcement and Housing Complaints and notified them of the bedbug infestation. 21. On or about July 5, 2019, Mr. Rubuttom presented himself to his primary care physician located at 35 Collier Road Northwest, Suite M260, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Here, he was diagnosed with having been bitten by bedbugs and was prescribed medication for his injuries. 22. Due to the extensiveness of the bedbug bites and the constant itching and pain she was experiencing from them, Mr. Rubottom decided to seek further medical attention. Mr. Rubottom still has physical scarring on his body and emotional scarring as a result of the bedbug bites. 23. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff incurred various expenses, including medical costs, the cost of the hotel room, the replacement cost of his luggage and clothing, along with other belongings exposed to the infestation at the hotel, and other costs. 24. The hotel also has a prior and/or ongoing history of bedbug infestations and guests complaining of such infestations. As of the date of this Complaint: ▪ At least one prior complaint in reviews discussing an experience of bedbugs at the hotel is listed on the website, www.yelp.com; and ▪ At least one prior complaint in reviews discussing an experience of bedbugs at the hotel is listed on the travel website, www.tripadvisor.com. 25. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, deliberately and recklessly chose not to -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 inspect or otherwise ensure that Plaintiff’s room was free of Cimex lectularius (“bedbugs”) immediately before Plaintiff’s stay at the hotel, willfully disregarding knowledge of the prior bedbug infestation known to Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20. 26. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, failed to eradicate a prior bedbug infestation of Plaintiff’s room and did not ensure that the bed in Plaintiff’s room was free from bedbugs before renting it to Plaintiff, despite knowledge of the prior infestation in that room. 27. Although Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, had prior knowledge of bedbug infestations in their hotel, Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, failed to eradicate such infestations, including an infestation in the room that Plaintiff was provided. 28. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, deliberately chose not to notify, or otherwise failed to notify Plaintiff, of the presence of Cimex lectularius in Plaintiff’s room. 29. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, knew that their hotel had a prior bedbug infestation. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, deliberately and recklessly chose to turn a blind eye to this infestation and previous guest complaints. Management did not place adequate safeguards to protect clients from an ongoing bedbug exposure. Instead of making a change to management to protect clients from inadequate oversight, Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, has kept management in place. 30. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified housekeeping staff at the hotel to either not change bed skirts on a regular basis or to not inspect and ensure that bed skirts are free from a Cimex lectularius (“bedbug”) infestation in Plaintiff’s room prior to Plaintiff’s arrival. 31. Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, actions before, during, and after Plaintiff’s injury, including the hotel’s routine practice of authorizing housekeeping staff to not change bed skirts regularly or to not properly inspect and ensure that such bed skirts are free from bedbugs prior to a guest’s arrival, show that Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, have a pattern and culture of extreme indifference and reckless disregard for the value of human life and the rights of their guests. 32. As part of Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, pattern and culture of extreme -6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 indifference, the hotel management did not implement adequate policies and procedures to sufficiently train employees of the hotel to inspect rooms for bedbug infestations and to protect hotel guests from exposure to bedbug infestations prior to Plaintiff’s stay. Management, who oversaw these infestations, has not been replaced by Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, nor has management changed any procedures to safeguard their guests against bedbug infestations. 33. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the conduct of the hotel employees by: (1) not terminating such employees responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries; (2) not training or retraining such employees regarding Cimex lectularius (“bedbug”) infestations; (3) turning a blind eye to previous complaints and not terminating management who has inadequately protected guests against bedbug infestations at the subject hotel; (4) allowing and tolerating a common practice and culture of extreme indifference by employees who do not change the bed skirts regularly or who do not properly inspect and ensure that the bed skirts are free from bedbug infestations; (5) not implementing adequate policies and procedures prior to Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent Cimex lectularius infestations; and (6) not implementing any new policies and procedures after Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent any further Cimex lectularius infestations. 34. At no time, either prior to or subsequent to Plaintiff’s stay at the Courtyard by Marriott, has Plaintiff observed bedbugs in his residence or experienced bites from bedbugs in his residence. 35. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, rented the room to Plaintiff despite having knowledge, as of June 23, 2019, that there was a bedbug infestation present in the hotel and specifically, Plaintiff’s Room. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, concealed this bedbug infestation and deliberately chose not to notify, or otherwise failed to notify Plaintiff of the presence of Cimex lectularius (“bedbugs”) in Plaintiff’s room upon his arrival. 36. An officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the fraudulent conduct of the hotel employees by failing to remedy prior bedbug infestations and deliberately concealing the fact of their presence in the hotel. 37. Plaintiff has suffered and continue to suffer physical injuries (including, but not limited to, bedbug bites, itching, and permanent scarring) and emotional injuries (including, but -7- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 not limited to, severe embarrassment, annoyance, discomfort, pain, apprehension, tension, anxiety, and emotional distress) as a direct result of his stay at the Courtyard by Marriott. V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION By Plaintiff Against All Defendants, and Does 1-20, Inclusive (Battery) 38. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 39. During Plaintiff’s stay, Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, intentionally and recklessly did acts that were unconsented to by Plaintiff and therefore resulted in offensive contact with his person, including but not limited to: (1) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, deliberate choice not to eradicate a Cimex lectularius infestation in the hotel; (2) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, deliberate choice not to inspect or ensure that Plaintiff’s room, was free of Cimex lectularius immediately before Plaintiff’s stay at the hotel; (3) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, deliberate and reckless choice not to inspect the bed skirts in Plaintiff’s room to protect against and prevent a Cimex lectularius infestation; (4) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, willful disregard of a Cimex lectularius infestation that was either known or should have been known from prior infestations in Plaintiff’s room; (5) Defendants’ deliberate and reckless choice not to notify Plaintiff of the presence of Cimex lectularius in the hotel and, specifically, Plaintiff’s room. 40. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, did the aforementioned acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the body of Plaintiff, or with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing such offensive contact. 41. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the conduct of the hotel employees by: (1) not terminating such employees responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries; (2) not training or retraining such employees regarding Cimex lectularius (“bedbug”) infestations; (3) turning a blind eye to previous complaints and not terminating management who has inadequately protected guests against bedbug infestations at the subject hotel; (4) allowing and tolerating a common practice and culture of extreme indifference by employees who do not change the bed -8- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 skirts regularly or who do not properly inspect and ensure that the bed skirts are free from bedbug infestations; (5) not implementing adequate policies and procedures prior to Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent Cimex lectularius infestations; and (6) not implementing any new policies and procedures after Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent any further Cimex lectularius infestations. 42. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, Plaintiff sustained serious injuries to his person, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be shown according to proof and within the jurisdiction of the Court. 43. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, Plaintiff was compelled to and did employ the services of hospitals, physicians and surgeons, nurses, and the like, to care for and treat Plaintiff’s injuries, and did incur hospital, medical, professional and incidental expenses, and Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that she will necessarily by reason of his injuries, incur additional like expenses for an indefinite period of time in the future, all to Plaintiff’s damage in a sum to be shown according to proof. 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the aforesaid conduct of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, was carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, and that an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the wrongful acts of the employees of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION By Plaintiff Against All Defendants, and Does 1-20, Inclusive (Negligence) 45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 46. At all times relevant hereto, as owners, operators, and managers of the hotel, the Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, owed Plaintiff the duty to exercise reasonable care in the -9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 operation and maintenance of the hotel. This duty includes, but is not limited to: the duty of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, to maintain the hotel in a safe and habitable condition and to keep it free from insect infestations, namely infestations of Cimex lectularius, for the entire duration of Plaintiff’s stay. 47. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, breached their above duties when they, among other things: (1) allowed an infestation of Cimex lectularius to become established in Plaintiff’s room of the hotel, and nonetheless still rented it to Plaintiff; (2) failed to eradicate a prior (or ongoing) bedbug infestation in Plaintiff’s room; (3) chose not to inspect and did not ensure that the bed in Plaintiff’s room was free from bedbugs before renting it to Plaintiff, despite knowledge of a prior infestation in the hotel and specifically, Plaintiff’s room; (4) failed to require housekeeping staff to change the bed skirts regularly or inspect and ensure that the bed skirts are free from bedbug infestations; and (5) failed to properly notify Plaintiff of the presence of Cimex lectularius upon his arrival. 48. The acts by Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, as enumerated in the paragraph above, want of even scant care represent an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct for hotels, thereby rising to the level of gross negligence. 49. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, Plaintiff suffered bedbug bites, and continues to suffer physical and psychological injury. 50. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, performed the acts enumerated in paragraph 47, for which they knew, or should have known, would be highly probable that Plaintiff would be bitten by bedbugs and harm would result. 51. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, have a statutory duty under California Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3 to ensure that in their Apartment there does not exist inadequate -10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 sanitation “that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof.” Section 17920.3(a)(12) specifically defines inadequate sanitation to include “infestation of insects, vermin, or rodents” as determined by a health officer or code enforcement officer. California Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3 states: “Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building: (a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: …(12) Infestation of insects, vermin, or rodents as determined by a health officer or, if an agreement does not exist with an agency that has a health officer, the infestation can be determined by a code enforcement officer, as defined in Section 829.5 of the Penal Code, upon successful completion of a course of study in the appropriate subject matter as determined by the local jurisdiction.” 52. Additionally, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, § 40 of California State Housing Law states, in part: “In every apartment house or hotel, every part of every bed, including the mattress, sheets, blankets, and bedding shall be kept in a clean, dry sanitary condition, free from filth, urine, or other foul matter, and from the infection of lice, bedbugs or other insects.” 53. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, violated the above laws, which were designed to protect occupants of hotels, when they: (1) allowed an infestation of Cimex lectularius to become established in Plaintiff’s room of the hotel; and (2) did not ensure that the bedding in Plaintiff’s room was free from bedbugs. Accordingly, Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, actions were negligent as a matter of law. 54. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff in this case were occurrences the nature of which the state statutes and regulations were designed to prevent and Plaintiff is within the class of persons whom such statutes and regulations are intended to protect. 55. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, owed a duty to Plaintiff to act reasonably so as not to cause Plaintiff to suffer unreasonable mental suffering. Said Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, breached this duty by causing foreseeable and -11- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 unreasonable distress to Plaintiff. 56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, herein alleged conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer extreme and severe embarrassment, annoyance, discomfort, pain, apprehension, tension, anxiety, and emotional distress. 57. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the conduct of the hotel employees by: (1) not terminating such employees responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries; (2) not training or retraining such employees regarding Cimex lectularius (“bedbug”) infestations; (3) turning a blind eye to previous complaints and not terminating management who has inadequately protected guests against bedbug infestations at the subject hotel; (4) allowing and tolerating a common practice and culture of extreme indifference by employees who do not change the bed skirts regularly or who do not properly inspect and ensure that the bed skirts are free from bedbug infestations; (5) not implementing adequate policies and procedures prior to Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent Cimex lectularius infestations; and (6) not implementing any new policies and procedures after Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent any further Cimex lectularius infestations. 58. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, Plaintiff continues to suffer physical and psychological injury, and suffered medical expenses for his physical and psychological injuries specifically alleged above, loss of and damage to personal property, and other expenses, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be shown according to proof and within the jurisdiction of the Court. 59. As a direct, legal and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, Plaintiff was compelled to and did employ the services of hospitals, physicians and surgeons, nurses, and the like, to care for and treat Plaintiff’s injuries, and did incur hospital, medical, professional and incidental expenses, and Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that she will necessarily by reason of his injuries, incur additional like expenses for an indefinite period of time in the future, all to Plaintiff’s damage in a sum to be shown according to proof. 60. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the aforesaid conduct of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, was carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of -12- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Plaintiff’s right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, and that an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the wrongful acts of the employees of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION By Plaintiff Against All Defendants, and Does 1-20, Inclusive (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 62. The actions of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, were intentional, extreme, and outrageous-namely, because of the following egregious and reckless conduct: (1) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, willful disregard of a Cimex lectularius infestation that was either known or should have been known from prior infestations in the hotel and Plaintiff’s room; (2) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, deliberate and reckless choice to abstain from notifying Plaintiff of a known presence of Cimex lectularius in Plaintiff’s room, prior to Plaintiff’s arrival; (3) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, deliberate choice not to eradicate a bedbug infestation in Plaintiff’s room, which was already known to Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20; (4) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, deliberate and reckless choice not to require housekeeping staff to change the bed skirts regularly or not to inspect and ensure that the bed skirts are free from a Cimex lectularius infestation immediately prior to Plaintiff’s stay; (5) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, deliberate and reckless choice not to inspect or ensure that Plaintiff’s room was free of Cimex lectularius immediately prior to Plaintiff’s stay, willfully disregarding knowledge of the prior bedbug infestation in Plaintiff’s room; (6) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, routine practice of showing extreme indifference to the danger of bedbug infestations; (7) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, failure to have adequate policies and procedures to properly train employees of the hotel to inspect rooms for bedbug infestations and to adequately protect hotel guests from an exposure to bedbug infestations; and (8) Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, -13- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 failure to implement any new policies and procedures after Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent any further Cimex lectularius infestations in the hotel, which again exemplifies their extreme indifference to the rights of their guests and the value of the human life. 63. Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, actions were done with the intent to cause serious emotional distress or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff serious emotional distress. 64. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the conduct of the hotel employees by: (1) not terminating such employees responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries; (2) not training or retraining such employees regarding Cimex lectularius (“bedbug”) infestations; (3) turning a blind eye to previous complaints and not terminating management who has inadequately protected guests against bedbug infestations at the subject hotel; (4) allowing and tolerating a common practice and culture of extreme indifference by employees who do not change the bed skirts regularly or who do not properly inspect and ensure that the bed skirts are free from bedbug infestations; (5) not implementing adequate policies and procedures prior to Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent Cimex lectularius infestations; and (6) not implementing any new policies and procedures after Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent any further Cimex lectularius infestations. 65. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress that has caused Plaintiff to sustain severe, serious and permanent injuries to his person, all to Plaintiff’s damage in a sum to be shown according to proof and within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. 66. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the aforesaid actions of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, Plaintiff was compelled to and did employ the services of hospitals, physicians and surgeons, nurses, and the like, to care for and treat his injuries, and did incur hospital, medical, professional and incidental expenses, and Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief allege, that she will necessarily by reason of his injuries, incur additional like expenses for an indefinite period of time in the future, all to Plaintiff’s damage in a sum to be shown according to proof. 67. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the aforesaid conduct of -14- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, was carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, and that an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the wrongful acts of the employees of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION By Plaintiff Against All Defendants, and Does 1-20, Inclusive (Fraudulent Concealment) 68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 69. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, through their employees and agents, were aware of substandard health conditions in the hotel with the existence of insects, specifically a Cimex lectularius infestation present in the room Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, assigned to Plaintiff, and which therefore posed a danger to Plaintiff’s physical health and well-being. 70. Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, knowledge of the hotel’s infestation problem, which was specifically in Plaintiff’s room, is reflective of the pattern and culture of extreme indifference and reckless disregard for the value of human life and prevention of such infestations at the hotel. 71. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff placed his trust and confidence in the Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, that she would not be assigned a room that posed a danger to his physical health and well-being. In fact, Plaintiff thought she would be placed in a safe and clean room as reasonable persons would expect that rooms in a hotel are clean and comfortable. This placed Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, in a position of influence over Plaintiff. 72. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, and their employees and agents intentionally failed to disclose the material fact of the Cimex lectularius infestation, a fact known to the Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, and which Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, knew -15- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Plaintiff would not discover on his own prior to renting the hotel room. 73. Plaintiff did not know, and did not have any way of knowing, of the concealed fact of the bedbug infestation prior to renting the hotel room. 74. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, intended to deceive Plaintiff and take advantage of Plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the infestation in order to turn a profit on a night’s stay at the hotel, and intended to deceive Plaintiff by concealing the fact of the Cimex lectularius infestation. 75. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, deception. 76. Plaintiff was harmed in the form of severe physical and emotional injuries. 77. Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, concealment was a substantial factor in causing such harm. 78. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the conduct of the hotel employees by: (1) not terminating such employees responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries; (2) not training or retraining such employees regarding Cimex lectularius (“bedbug”) infestations; (3) turning a blind eye to previous complaints and not terminating management who has inadequately protected guests against bedbug infestations at the subject hotel; (4) allowing and tolerating a common practice and culture of extreme indifference by employees who do not change the bed skirts regularly or who do not properly inspect and ensure that the bed skirts are free from bedbug infestations; (5) not implementing adequate policies and procedures prior to Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent Cimex lectularius infestations; and (6) not implementing any new policies and procedures after Plaintiff’s injuries to prevent any further Cimex lectularius infestations. 79. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendants’, and DOES 1 through 20, Plaintiff continues to suffer physical and psychological injury, and suffered medical expenses for his physical and psychological injuries specifically alleged above, loss of and damage to personal property, and other expenses, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be shown according to proof and within the jurisdiction of the Court. 80. As a direct, legal and proximate result of these breaches of duty by Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, Plaintiff was compelled to and did employ the services of hospitals, -16- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 physicians and surgeons, nurses, and the like, to care for and treat Plaintiff’s injuries, and did incur hospital, medical, professional and incidental expenses, and Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that she will necessarily by reason of his injuries, incur additional like expenses for an indefinite period of time in the future, all to Plaintiff’s damage in a sum to be shown according to proof. 81. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the aforesaid conduct of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, was carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, and that an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the wrongful acts of the employees of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants, and Does 1-20, Inclusive (Public Nuisance) 82. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 83. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 3501, Plaintiff brings this civil action for public nuisance. 84. The Cimex lectularius infestation that Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, negligently and intentionally caused to exist in the hotel constitutes a nuisance within, but not limited to the meaning of Civil Code Section 3479 and California Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3, in that said infestation was injurious to the health and safety of Plaintiff, indecent and offensive to the senses of Plaintiff, and interfered substantially with Plaintiff’s comfortable enjoyment of the hotel premises. 85. Such nuisance has caused, and will continue to cause in the future, Plaintiff to suffer general and special damages. 86. Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, failed to adequately abate the nuisance as -17- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 required by law. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiff has sustained general damages, special damages, and property damage in amounts to be determined at trial. VI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, and each of them, on all causes of action as follows: 1. For general and specific damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 2. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 3. For costs of this action, including attorneys’ fees; 4. For prejudgment interest at the legal rate according to proof; 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: June 23, 2021 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF ILAN N. ROSEN JANFAZA, A.P.C. By: _________________________________ Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff JASON RUBOTTOM