Vagle V Archstone Communities Carpet Painting Security Deposit Cleaning Lawsuit PDF

Exhibit 2
Case 2:14-cv-03476-RGK-AJW Document 1-2 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 113 Page ID #:36
EXHIBIT 2
Page 35
ATTORNEY OR PARTY \MTHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Ear numbe, and address):
ChristopherJ. Healey, SBN 105798
Jaikaran Singh, SBN 201355
McKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101
TELEPHONE NO.: (619) 236-1414 FAX NO. (Optional): (619) 232-8311
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): chealeymckennalon g.com I jsinghmckennalong.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Archstone Communities LLC; ASN Warner Center, LLC;
and Archstone Long Beach LP
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STREET ADDRESS: 600 South Commonwealth Avenue
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITYANDZIPCODE: Los Angeles, CA 90005
BRANCH NAME: Central Civil West
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: JENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE PONCE, et al.
FOR COURT USE ONLY
CM-180
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES LLC, et al.
CASE NUMBER:
BC480931
NOTICE OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
JUDGE: Hon. William F. Highberger
DEPT.: 307
To the court and to all parties:
Declarant (name): Jaikaran Singh
a. is the party the attorney for the party who requested or caused the stay.
b.
LI
is the plaintiff or petitioner
LI
the attorney for the plaintiff or petitioner. The party who requested the stay
has not appeared in this case or is not subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
2. This case is stayed as follows:
a. With regard to all parties.
b. LI
With regard to the following parties (specify by name and party designation):
3. Reason for the stay:
a. Automatic stay caused by a filing in another court. (Attach a copy of the Notice of Commencement of Case, the
bankruptcy petition, or other document showing that the stay is in effect, and showing the court, case number;
debtor; and petitioners.)
b. Order of a federal court or of a higher California court. (Attach a copy of the court order)
c.
LI
Contractual arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. (Attach a copy of the order directing
arbitration.)
d. LI
Arbitration of attorney fees and costs under Business and Professions Code section 6201. (Attach a copy of the
clients request for arbitration showing filing and service.)
e.
LI
Other:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that thE
Date: December 6, 2013
Jaikaran_Singh
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT)
,
Pagelofi
Form Adopted for Mandatoy Use
Judicial Council of California
NOTICE OF STAY OF PROCEEINGS
CM-180 [Rev. January 1,20071
Cat. Rules of Court, rule 3.650
www.courfinfo.ca gov
American LegalNet, Inc.
www.FormsWorkflow.com
54676039
Dec092013
12:47PM
EXHIBIT 2
Page 36
1 CHRISTOPHER J. HEALEY (SBN 105798)
chealey@mckennalong.com
2 JAIKARAN SINGH (SBN 201355)
jsingh@mckennalong.com
3 McKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
4 San Diego, CA 92101-3372
Telephone: 619.236.1414
5 Facsimile: 619.232.8311
6 Attorneys for Defendants
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES LLC, ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC
7 and ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH LP
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11
JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself and Case No. BC48093 1
12 all others similarly situated,
13 Plaintiff, PROOF OF SERVICE
14 v.
Assigned for All Purposes to:
15 ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC, a Hon. William F. Highberger
Delaware limited liability corporation, ASN Dept. 307
16 WARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, and
17 ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH LP, a
Delaware limited liability corporation, and
18 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
19 Defendants.
20
21
I, Maria E. Valentino, declare under penalty of perjury that I am over the age of eighteen
years, that I am not a party to the above-referenced action, and that I am employed in the State of
22
California, County of San Diego, where the within-mentioned service occurred. My business
23
24
address is 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, California 92101; telephone number (619)
236-1414.
25
On December 9, 2013, I caused to be served the following document(s):
26
NOTICE OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
27
28
McKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGELLP
1
SAN DIEGO
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 37
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
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
SAN DIEGO
on the interested parties in this action by:
LEXISNEXIS SERVICE LIST VIEWABLE ONLINE
XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Complying with Code of Civil Procedure

1010, I caused
such document(s) to be Electronically Filed and Served through the LexisNexis System for
the above-entitled case. Upon completion of transmission of said document(s), a filing
receipt is issued to the filing party acknowledging receipt, filing and service by the
LexisNexis system. A copy of the LexisNexis filing receipt page will be maintained with
the original document(s)in our office.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at San Diego, California on December 9, 2013.
USW 80375757010
2
Maria E. Val
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 38
EXHIBIT 2
Page 39
jsingh@mckennalong:com
4 San Diego, CA 92101-3372
Telephone: 619.236.1414
5 Facsimile: 619 .232.8311
6 Attoreys for Defendants
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES LLC, ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC
7 and ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH LP
8
9
10
11
JENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE PONCE,
12 on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated;
13
14
15
Plaintiffs,
v.
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC, a
16 Delaware limited liability corporation, ASN
WARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware
17 limited liability corporatio
n
, and
ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH LP, a
18 Delaware limited liability corporation, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive;
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. BC480931
NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF
REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
Hon. William F. Highberger
Dept. 307
Trial Date: None Set
Complaint Filed: March 14, 2012
NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFFS, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT a Notice of Removal of this action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 6, 2013. A copy of
said Notice of Removal, including supporting documents attached thereto, is attached hereto for
filing with this Court and has been served on the plaintiffs to this action.
DATED: December 6, 2013
By
USW 804092131.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jallan
Singh
A),meys for Defendants
RCHSTONE COMMUNITIES LLC, ASN
WARNER CENTER, LLC and ARCHSTONE
LONG BEACH LP
1
NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 40
54621640
Nov262013
02:13PM
EXHIBIT 2
Page 41
1 R. Rx Parris sq. (SBN 96567}
Al xander R. Whee1e
E

Esq. ( : BN 239541)
2 Kitty Szeto Esq. (SB1 258lj6)
John M. Bickford Es (SBN 280929)
R. REX PARRIS LAW IRM 3
43364 10th Street West
4 Lancaster, Califria 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
5 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
6 Attoreys fr Plaintifs and the Putative Class
7
8
9
10
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL CIVIL WEST COURTHOUSE
JENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE
12
PONCE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated;
13
14
15
v.
Plaintifs,
ARCHSTONE COMUITIES, LLC, a
16
Delaware limited liability cororation, ASN
17
18
ARCHSTON LONG BEACH, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership, and DOES 1
1
9
through 100, inclusive;
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defndants.
Case No. BC480931
NOTICE OF RULINGS FROM NOVEMBER 25,
2 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
Jury Trial Date: None Set
NOTICE OF RULIGS FROMNOVEMBER25, 2013 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 42
EXHIBIT 2
Page 43
EXHIBIT 2
Page 44
EXHIBIT 2
Page 45
EXHIBIT 2
Page 46
EXHIBIT 2
Page 47
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Defndant ASN Warer Center, LLC's motion to compel should be granted for a single,
3 undeniable reason - the specifc identities of current and frmer residents who have factual
4 infrmation relevant to this case is not attorey work product. Given that defndant seeks fcts,
5 like the names of percipient witnesses, that are separate fom any observation, evaluation, legal
6 research, strategy, or thought process of plaintiffs counsel, the attorey work product privilege
7 does not apply.
8 In an effrt to side-step this critical point, plaintiff argues that because her attorneys have
9 interviewed these individuals, their identities are now somehow protected as conditional work
10 product. But the attorey work product doctrine does not apply simply because infrmation is
11 obtained by or transmitted to an attorey. Rather, the infrmation itselhas to reflect an attorney's
12 analysis. The identities of current and frmer residents with infrmation relevant to this case is
13 not "work product" created by plaintifs counsel.
14 In addition, in accordance with the Court's suggestion from the November 1, 2013 hearing,
15 defndant has served plaintif with special interrogatories that ask her to identify persons who
16 have knowledge of the facts upon which she bases her claims. Code of Civil Procedure Section
17 2017(a) expressly authorizes the use of discovery fr purposes of obtaining the identity and
18 location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter .... " Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
19 2017(a). Similarly, Califrnia case law has consistently held this infrmation to be broadly and
20 routinely discoverable. Cit of Long Beach v. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65, 74 (citing
21 numerous Califria cases).
22 Accordingly, the Court should order plaintif to provide fctual responses specifcally
23 identifying the names, current addresses and current telephone numbers of the current and frmer
24 residents who she knows has infrmation relevant to this case.
25
26
27
28
1
DEFENDANT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
EXHIBIT 2
Page 48
1 II.
2
3
DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE IDENTITIES OF WITNESSES
A. The Names, Current Addresses and Current Telephone Numbers of Current
and Former Residents with Relevant Infrmation is Not Attorney Work
Product
4 Plaintif has the initial burden to demonstrate that the information sought by defndant is
5 attorey work product. Fellows v. Superior Court (1980 ) 108 Cal.App.3 d 55, 67 ("The party
6 claiming the attorey's work-product privilege has the initial burden of establishing that the matter
7 sought to be disclosed comes within the concept of an attorey's work product.") . Plaintif argues
8 that the identities of current and frmer residents is conditional work product because plaintiffs
9 counsel devoted signifcant efort to track down potential witnesses and made a judgment as to
10 whether to take their statement. (See Pis. Opp. Brf., p. 3 , IL 3 -5.) But as Fellows instructs, "[ a]n
11 attorey's 'conditional' work product consists of material that is of a derivative or interpretative
12 nature such as diagrams, charts, audit reports of books, papers, or records, and findings,
1 3 opinions and reports of experts employed by an attorey to analyze evidentiary material." Id at
14 68 (Emphasis added ) . "Material that is considered of a nonderivative or noninterretative nature
15 and that is evidentiary in character does not constitute the attorey's work product." Id at 69.
16 (Emphasis added.) "Major categories of nonderivative evidentiary material excluded from the
17 concept of an attorey's work product include ... information about prospective or potential
18 witnesses, such as their names, phone numbers, addresses, and occupations .... " Id
19 (Emphasis added.) ; see also Cit of Long Beach 64 Cal.App.3 d at 73 ("A list of persons with
20 knowledge of the relevant fcts is quite diferent in its effect; it does not, of itself, reveal the
21 strategy of the attorey.") . It is precisely this type of witness infrmation that defendant is seeking
22 to discover here. Given that the names, current addresses and current telephone numbers of
2 3 current and frmer residents with information relevant to this case is not attorey work product,
24 plaintiffs refsal to provide this infrmation is improper.
25 Plaintiffs opposition, however, attempts to steer the Court into believing that the identities
26 of current and frmer residents are not discoverable because her counsel has interviewed these
27 individuals. Plaintif ignores the fct that the work product doctrine does not apply simply
28 because an attorey obtains or uncovers relevant fctual infrmation. Cit of Long Beach 64
2
EXHIBIT 2
Page 49
1 Cal.App.3d at 72 ("Infrmation regarding events provable at trial, or the identity and location of
2 physical evidence, cannot be brought within the work product privilege simply by transmitting it
3 to the attorey."); Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 12 ("Even if the names and
4 addresses of the witnesses were known only to the attoreys, they would have to be disclosed on a
5 proper interrogatory addressed to the party."). The mere fct that plaintiff interviewed some of the
6 current and frmer residents does not mean that their identities (as evidentiary fcts) are now
7 somehow work product, regardless of the effrt involved to identif these individuals as witnesses.
8 Instead, as Felows and other cases illustrate, there is a clear distinction between attorey
9 work product, which is derived from an attorey's impressions, thoughts, conclusions, opinions
10 and legal research (i.e. "diagrams, charts, audit reports of books, papers, or records, and fndings,
11 opinions and reports of experts employed by a attorey to analyze evidentiary material "), and
12 evidentiary fcts, like the names of percipient witnesses. Felows, 108 Cal.App.3d at 67-69; Cit
1 3 of Long Beach, 6 4 Cal.App.3d at 7 3; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 2018 (indicating that work product
1 4 privilege only protects an attorey's impressions, thoughts, conclusions, opinions or legal
15 research); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 2017(a) ("Discovery may be obtained of the identity and
16 location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. ... ").
17 Citing Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 21 4,
18 plaintiff contends that futher responses identifying current and former residents with infrmation
19 relevant to this case would violate work product protection by revealing who plaintif interviewed.
20 Plaintiffs reliance on Nacht & Lewis Architects is misplaced, as the fcts of this case are
21 distinguishable. Nacht & Lewis Architects involved a direct request for a list of individuals who
22 defndants' counsel interviewed. 47 Cal.App.4th at 216. Defendants objected on work product
2 3 grounds and plaintif filed a motion to compel. Id at 217. In sustaining defndants' work product
2 4 objection, the appellate court determined that the "[c]ompelled production of a list of potential
25 witnesses interviewed by opposing counsel would necessarily refect counsel's evaluation of the
26 case by revealing which witnesses or persons who claimed knowledge of the incident [already
27 identiied by defendants' response to form interrogatory No. 12.1] counsel deemed impo1iant
28 enough to interview." Id (Emphasis added.)
3
EXHIBIT 2
Page 50
1 Unlike the discovery requests in Nacht & Lewis Architects, defndant's Form Interrogatory
2 12 .1 does not request the names of persons " who provided plaintif with infrmation" or " who
3 plaintiff interviewed." Instead, it permissibly asks plaintif to identif percipient witnesses with
4 infrmation relevant to this case. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 2 017 (a ) (" Discovery may be obtained of
5 the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter .... " ) .
6 Plaintiffs refsal to provide this infrmation is inexplicable given that this exact same infrmation
7 was, in fct, provided in Nacht & Lewis Architects in response to the very same Form
8 Interrogatory 12 .l that plaintiff here refuses to make complete. Plaintiffs construction of Nacht
9 & Lewis Architects would lead to the absurd result that any discoverable information would
10 somehow become protected work product simply by falling into the attorey's hands. This is not
11 the law.
12 Given that defendant's Form Interrogatory 12 .1 seeks the identities of current and frmer
13 residents who plaintif understands has fcts pertinent to the claims and defenses asserted in this
14 lawsuit, this infrmation is clearly discoverable. As the case law makes abundantly clear, the
15 identities of " prospective or potential witnesses" is discoverable, factual infrmation that is
1 6 evidentiary in nature, and is not attorey work product. See e.g, Fellows, 108 Cal.App.3 d at 69 .
17 Accordingly, the Court should order plaintif to provide frther responses specifically identifying
18 the current and frmer residents who she knows has infrmation relevant to this case. 1
19 B. The Term" Incident" Covers Both Plaintiff's Individual and Class Claims
2 0 Given that defndant relied on the standard defnition of " incident," the Court has raised
2 1 the issue of whether the term " incident" in Form Interrogatory 12 .1 covers only Vagle's own
2 2 tenancy or whether it is more broad. This defnition does, in fct, cover plaintiffs entire claim
2 3 given that it is broadly defined by the Judicial Council of Califrnia as including "the
2 4 circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injur, or other occurrence or
2 5 breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding." (Emphasis added.) It would be
2 6
2 7
2 8
It is almost axiomatic that the names and addresses of witnesses is discoverable infrmation.
Gonzalez v. Superior Court (19 9 5) 33 Cal.App.4 th 1539 , 154 6; Smith v. Superior Court (19 61)
189 Cal.App.2 d 6, 11-12 .
4
DEFENDANT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM I SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
EXHIBIT 2
Page 51
1 nonsensical fr judicially approved frm interrogatories to cover only a small faction of
2 plaintiffs case.
3 Form Interrogatory 12.1 asks plaintiff to identif witnesses that she (either personally or
4 through her counsel) knows to have knowledge of fcts relevant to the case. Thus, if plaintif
5 knows the identities of witnesses with relevant information beyond the Warer Center apartment
6 community, such as current and frmer residents at other apartment communities, she has an
7 obligation to provide their names, current addresses, and current telephone numbers in response to
8 Form Interrogatory 12.1. There is no significant burden placed on plaintif to provide information
9 that she already knows.
10 In addition, despite any extremely narrow interpretation of the term "incident," plaintiff
11 still has an obligation to identify current and frmer residents within her personal experience. In
12 this manner, plaintif specifcally alleges that afer her lease expired, she "spoke to individuals
13 who also leased apartment units managed by Defndant Archstone, all of who were charged fr
14 apartment cleaning and painting and carpet cleaning/replacement at the end of their tenancies even
15 though they lef their apartment units clean and in the same condition it was at the inception of
16 their tenancies, subject to reasonable wear and tear." (Third Amended Complaint, i 22.) Yet,
17 plaintif refses to specifically identify even these current or frmer residents who are clearly
18 witnesses in the case.
19 II. FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1
20 As raised in more detail in defendant's moving brief, plaintiffs response to Form
21 Interrogaory 1 7 .1 contains insuffcient fcts as to what plaintiff did to clean her apartment and
22 how she cleaned her apartment to be able to reach the conclusion that she lef it in the same
23 condition as it was in at the inception of her residency. Plaintif has now agreed to supplement
24 her response to Form Interogatory 17.1 as it relates to Requests for Admission Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
25 8, 9, and 11. Given that plaintif has not yet served this supplemental response, defendant reserves
26 the right to seek frther responses to this discovery request pending its receipt and review of
27 plaintifs supplemental responses.
28
5
EXHIBIT 2
Page 52
1 III. CONCLUSION
2 For the fregoing reasons, plaintif should identif the current and frmer residents she
3 refrences in her responses to Form Interrogatory 12.1 by stating their names, current addresses,
4 and current telephone numbers. In addition, to the extent there are any other witnesses that
5 plaintif has conveniently lef out of her response, she should supplement her response to For
6 Interrogatory 12.1 by identifying al witnesses that she knows to have infrmation relevant to this
7 entire case. Finally, defndant reserves the right to seek a frther response to Form Interrogatory
8 17 .1 once it receives and reviews plaintiffs anticipated supplemental response.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: November 21, 2013
usw 804056126.1
6
EXHIBIT 2
Page 53
4 San Diego, Califoria 92101-3372
Telephone: 619 .236.1414
5 Facsimile: 619.232.8311
6 Attoreys fr Defndant
ASN Warer Center, LLC
7
NOV 21 2013
Shern f Carter, Lxecu\1110 O!ticer/Clerh
8
9
10
11 JENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE PONCE,
on behalf of themselves and all others
12 similarly situated;
13 Plaintiffs,
14 v.
15 ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation, ASN
16 WARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, and ASN LONG
17 BEACH HARBOR, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation, and DOES 1 through
18 100, inclusive;
19 Defndants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. BC480931
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC'S NOTICE
OF LODGMENT IN SUPPORT OF
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Date: November 25, 2013
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Dept: 307
if h: =
B , f r. .. Dept. 307 I fi
Comolaint Filed: March 14. 2012
NOTICE OF LODGMENT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 54
1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defndant ASN Warer Center, LLC hereby lodges with
2 the Court the fllowing exhibits in support of its Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities to
3 Defendants' Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses:
4
5
6
7
8
Exhibit Description
A Defndant ASN Warer Center, LLC's First Set of Requests for Admissions
to Plaintiff Jenifr Vagle
B Plaintif Jennifr Vagle's Objections and Responses to Defendant ASN
Warer Center, LLC's Requests fr Admissions
9 DATED: November 2 1, 2013
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
usw 804072575.l
1
NOTICE OF LODGMENT
EXHIBIT 2
Page 55
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT 2
Page 56
1 PAUL HASTINGS LLP
HOWARD M. PRIVETTE (SB# 137216)
2 NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS (SB# 253588)
BETH MUELLER (SB# 278283)
3 515 South Flower Street
Twenty-Fifth Floor
4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
5 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
6 Attorneys fr Defndant
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF CALIFORIA
10
11 JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself
ad all others similarly situated,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, a
15 Delawae limited liabilit corporation, ad
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Def end ants.
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
RESPONING PARTY:
SET NO.:
LEGA_US_W# 74031091.2
CASE NO. BC480931
DEFENDANT ASN WARNER CENTER,
LLC'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS TO PLAINTIFF JENNIFER
VAGLE
DEFENDANT ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC
PLAINTIFF JENIFER VAGLE
ONE
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO PLAINTIFF
EXHIBIT 2
Page 57
TO PLAINTIFF AND TO HER A TIORNEYS OF RECOR:
2 Pursuant to Califora Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, et seq.,
3 Defndant ASN Warer Center, LLC ("ASN Waer Center") requests that Plaintiff
4 Jennifer Vagle C'Plaintiff') answer these Requests fr Admissions, separately and flly, in
5 writing and under oath, and that the answers be signed and verified by Plaintiff and served
6 on ASN Warer Center within thirty (30) days afer service hereof.
7 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
9 Admit that YOU APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE WARNER CENTER
10 was profssionally cleaned prior to the inception of YOUR tenancy. (As used herein, the
11 terms "PLAINTIFF," "YOU," "YOUR" and "YOURSELF" shall mean Plaintiff Jennifr
12 Vagle and any of her agents, representatives, attoreys, investigators, and any other
13 person or entity acting fr or on herbehalf. As used herein, the term "ARCHSTONE
14 WARNER CENTER" shall mean the Archstone Warer Center apartment complex
15 located at 21200 Kittridge Street, Woodland Hills, Califria 91303, and referenced in
16 paragraph 19 of YOU COMPLAINT. As used herein "COMPLAINT" shall mean
17 YOU Second Amended Complaint fled in this action on October 25, 2012. As used
18 herein, the term "APARTMENT" shall mea the apartment unit YOU leased at
19 ARCHSTON WARNER CENTER and referenced in paragraphs 19 and 22 of YOU
20 COMPLAINT.)
22 Admit that YOU did not leave YOUR APATMNT at ARCHSTONE
23 WARNER CENTER in the same condition as itwas in at the inception of YOUR tenancy,
24 exclusive of ordinary wear and tear.
26 Admit that YOU did not retur YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE
27 WARNER CENTER to the same level of cleanliness that it was in at the inception of
28 YOUR tenancy.
LEGAL_US_W # 74031091.2
EXHIBIT 2
Page 58
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
2 Admit that YOU did not professionally clean YOUR APARTMENT at
3 ARCHSTONE WARNER CENTER at the conclusion of YOUR tenancy.
5 Admit that the deduction of $80.00 fom YOUR security deposit by ASN
6 Warer Center represented reimbursement fr costs of apartment cleaning that was
7 necessary to retur YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE WARNER CENTER to the
8 same level of cleanliness that it was in at the inception of YOUR tenancy.
1 O Admit that the carpet in YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE
11 WARNER CENTER was DIRTY or DAMAGED at the conclusion of YOU tenancy.
12 (As used herein, the term "DIRTY" shall mean that YOUR APARTMENT was not
13 retured to the same level of cleanliness that it was in at the inception of YOUR tenancy,
14 including but not limited to stains, dirt, grime, and mildew. As used herein, the term
15 "DAMAGED" shall mean that YOUR APARTMENT was subject to damages exclusive
16 of ordinary wear and tear, inc1uding but not limited to marks, nicks, rips, and holes.)
18 Admit that the deduction of $60.00 fom YOUR security deposit by ASN
19 Wainer Center represented reimbursement fr costs of carpet cleaning that was necessary
20 to retur the carpet in YOUR APARTMNT at ARCHSTONE WARNER CENTER to
21 the same level of cleanliness that it was in at the inception of YOUR tenancy.
23 Admit that the walls in YOUR APARTMENT at ARCH STONE WANER
24 CENTER were DIRTY or DAMAGED at the conclusion of YOUR tenancy.
26 Admit that the deduction of $142.27 fom
Y
OUR security deposit by ASN
27 Warner Center represented reimbursement for costs of painting that was necessary to
28
LEGAL_US_ W # 74031091.2
-3-
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO PLAJNT!FF
EXHIBIT 2
Page 59
1 retur the walls of YOUR APARTMNT at ARCHSTON WARNER CENTER to the
2 same level of cleanliness and/or condition as they were at the inception of YOUR tenancy.
4 Admit that YOU did not conduct any investigation regarding the
5 "systematic polic[ies] and procedure[s]" refrenced in paragraph 26 of YOUR
6 COMPLAINT befre fling the COMPLAINT.
7 REQUEST FOR AMISSION NO. 11:
8 Admit that YOU have no facts and/or evidence to support the allegation that
9 ASN Waer Center has a "policy and procedure of always charging fr apartment
1 O cleaning and painting and carpet cleaning or replacement at the end of every tenancy,
1 1 regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit" refrenced in paragraphs 26 and
12 27 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
14 Admit that YOU have never had any COMMUNICATIONS with "other ex-
15 tenants ... of the ARCHSTONE DOES" referenced in paagraph 24 of YOUR
16 COMLAINT CONCERNING, REFERNG OR RELATING TO the "systematic
17 polic[ies] and procedure[s]" refrenced in paragraph 26 of YOUR COMPLAINT. (As
18 used herein, "COMMUNICATIONS" shall mean and refr to all forms of infrmation
19 exchanged, either written, oral, by telephone, fcsimile, computer or any other mode of
20 transmission. As used herein, the phrases "REFER or RELATE TO" or "CONCERING" a
21 given subject matter shall mean constitutes, contais, embodies, comprises, reflects,
22 identifes, states, relates to, refrs to, deals with, comments on, responds to, describes,
23 analyzes, evidences, discusses or is in any way pertinent to that subject, directly or
24 indirectly, in whole or in part.)
26 Admit that YOU have no fcts and/or evidence to suppor the allegation that
27 "the ARCHSTONE DOES, either directly or through their corporate afiliates, have been
28 engaged in the business of owning, developing, managing, maintaining, and leasing
LEOAL_us_w # 74031091.2
4-
ASN WARER CENTER, LLC'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISS10NS TO PLAINTIFF
EXHIBIT 2
Page 60
1 approximately 70 multi-unit apartment complexes throughout the State of Califria,
2 including but not limited to the premises allegedly owned by Defendant ASN WARER
3 CENTER, LLC" referenced in paragraphs 8 and 11 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
5 Admit that YOU have no fcts and/or evidence to support the allegation that
6 "the ARCHSTONE DOES and Defendant ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC are the agents,
7 partners, successors, or employees of each other" refrenced in paagraph 9 of YOUR
8 COMPLAINT.
1 1 "the ARCHSTONE DOES and Defndant ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC . . . in doing
12 the things complained of herein, [acted] within the course and scope of such agency,
13 partership, succession, or employment" refrenced in paragraph 9 of YOUR
14 COMPLAINT.
17 there is "a unity of ownership between the ACHSTONE DOES and Defendant ASN
18 WARNER CENTER, LLC" refrenced in paragraph 10 of YOUR COMLAINT.
21 "each of the ARCHSTONE DOES' Califria apartment complexes, including Defndant
22 ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, fy under the same 'Archstone' banner and logo"
23 referenced in paragraph 12 of YOU COJLAINT.
24 REQUEST FOR ADMSSION NO. 18:
26 "the ARCHSTONE DOES have been leasing the residential units at their Califria
27 apartment complexes, including Defndant ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, pursuant to
28
LEGAL_US_ W # 74031091.2
-5-
EXHIBIT 2
Page 61
1 standardized leases and forms" referenced in paragraphs 14 and 20 of YOUR
2 COMLAINT.
5 "the ARCHSTONE DOES have been leasing the residential units ... pursuant to
6 standardized leases and frms ... [that] prohibit, and at all material times have prohibited,
7 charging for apartment cleaning and paining and carpet cleaning/replacement if, at the end
8 of the tenancy, the tenant returs the apartment unit clean and in the same condition as it
9 was at the inception of the tenancy, subject to reasonable wear and tear" referenced in
10 paragraph 14 of YOUR COMLAINT.
13 "the ARCHSTONE DOES and their Califria apartment complexes, including ASN
14 WARNER CENTER, LLC, hold themselves out as a uitary entity called 'Archstone"'
15 referenced in paragraph 15 of YOU COMLAINT.
18 "the employees at the ARCHSTONE DOES' Califria apartment complexes, including
19 the employees at ASN WARER CENTER, LLC, are unifrmly trained and employed by
20 the ARCHSTONE DOES" refrenced in paragraph 17 of YOUR COMLAINT.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL_US_W# 74031091.2 -
6-
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC' S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO PLAITJFF
EXHIBIT 2
Page 62
I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22:
3 "the ARCHSTONE DOES monitor ad regulate their employees at their Califria
4 apartment complexes, including their employees at ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, to
5 ensure that they comply with their unifrm policies and procedures" referenced in
6 paragraph 18 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: January 31, 2013
LEGAL_US_ W # 74031091.2
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
HOW A M. PRIVETTE
NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS
yL

ttoreys for Defndant
ASN WAR CENTER, LLC
-7-
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC'S FlRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO PLAINTIFF
EXHIBIT 2
Page 63
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 ST ATE OF CALIFORNJA )
) ss:
3 CITY OF LOS ANGELES AN COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES

4
5
I am employed in the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles, State
of Califria. I am over the age of 18, and not a party to the within action. My business
6 address is 515 South Flower Street, Twenty-Fifh Floor, Los Angeles, Califoria 90071.-
2228.
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On January 31, 2013, I served the fregoing document(s) described as:
DEFENDANT ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS TO PLAINTIFF JENNIFER VAGLE
on the interested parties as fllows:
R. Rex Parris, Esq. (rrparris@rrexparris.com)
Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.(awheeler@rrexparris.com)
Kitty Szeto, Esq. (kszeto@rrexparris.com)
R. Rex Parris Law Fir
Lancaster, Califoria 93534
Phone: (661) 949-2595
Fa: (661) 949-7524
V LEXIS NEXIS FILE & SERVE:
By posting directly on the LexisNexis File and Serve website at
http://fileandserve.lexisnexis.com.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califoria
that the above is true and correct.
Executed on January 31, 2013, at Los Ageles, Califria.
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 64
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT 2
Page 65
R. Rex Parris, Esq. (SBN 96567)
Alexander R. Whee
l
er, Esq. (SBN 239541)
2 Kitt Szeto, Esq. (SBN 2581
6)
Johll M. Bickford
.
Esq. (SBN 280929)
3 R. REX p ARRIS A w IRM
4 Lancaster, Califria 93534
Tele
p
hone: (661) 949-2595
5 Facsimile: (661)949-7524
6
Attorneys fr Plaintiff and the Putative Class
7
8
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CIVIL WEST COURTHOUSE
10
11 JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated;
Plaintiff,
v.
12
13
14
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, a Delaware
15 limited liabilit corporation, and Does 1
through 100 inclusive;
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defndants.
Case No.: BC480931
CLASS ACTION
PLAINTIFF JENNIFER V AGLE'S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT ASN WARNER CENTER,
LLC'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
(SET ONE)
f Assigned fr All Purposes to the
B
onorable William F. Highberger,
Department 307]
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC'S
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE)
EXHIBIT 2
Page 66
2
3
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
RESPONDIG PARTY:
SET NO.:
Defndant ASN Warer Center, LLC
Plaintiff Jennifr Vagle
One
4
Plaintiff Jennifr Vagle ("Plaintif f') hereby objects and responds to Defndant
5
ASN Warer Center, LLC ("Defndant") Requests fr Admission (Set One) as follows:
6
7
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
8 Plaintiff has not completed her fctual and legal investigation, discovery or trial
9 preparation. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to continue discovery and investigation
10 herein fr additional information that might be responsive to these Requests.
11
Accordingly, the objections and responses set forth below represent only information
12 currently known to Plaintiff following a reasonable investigation in the time allowed for
13 Plaintiff to respond to Defndant's Requests. The objections and responses set frth
I 4 below do not preclude Plaintif from later relying on documents and information
15 discovered pursuant to subsequent investigation or discovery which, if known at this
16 time, would have been included in these objections and responses.
17 The following objections and responses are made without waiving and while
18 preserving: (a) the right to raise in any subsequent proceeding or at the trial of this or any
19 other action all questions of authenticity, foundation, relevancy, materiality, privilege,
20 and evidentiary admissibility of any information or document identifed or produced in
21 response to the instant Requests; (b) the right to object on any ground to the use or
22 introduction into evidence of any information or document in any subsequent proceeding
23 or at the trial of this or any other action on any ground; and ( c) the right to object on any
24 ground at any time to additional discovery.
25 I I I I
26 I I I I
27
I I I I
28 / / / /
EXHIBIT 2
Page 67
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
2 The following General Objections are made with respect to each and every
3
Request, and are incorporated into each Specifc Objection set frth below, regardless of
4 whether they are explicitly mentioned in a given Specific Objection. Notwithstanding
5
these General Objections, without waiving them and consistent with them, Plaintiff will
6
respond to Defndant's Requests, to the extent not objected to, in accordance with
7 Califoria Civil Procedure Code sections 2033.210 et seq.
8 1. Plaintif objects to each and every Request to the extent it seeks
9 information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorey work-product
10 doctrine, the privilege for settlement discussions and offers of compromise, and any other
11 privilege or immunity recognized by this court.
12 2. Plaintif objects to each and every Request to the extent that it contains
13 terms or phrases that are undefned and are, therefore, vague, ambiguous, and capable of
14 various interpretations.
15 3. Plaintif has not completed its fctual and legal investigation. Accordingly,
16 the answers and objections set forth below relate only to information currently known
17 following a reasonable search in responding to these Requests.
18
19 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
21 Admit that YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE WARNER CENTER was
22 profssionally cleaned prior to the inception of YOUR tenancy. (As used herein, the
23 terms "PLAINTIFF," "YOU," "YOUR" and "YOURSELF" shall mean Plaintiff Jennifer
24 Vagle and any of her agents, representatives, attoreys, investigators, and any other
25 person or entity acting for or on her behalf. As used herein, the term "ARCHSTONE
26 WARNER CENTER" shall mean the Archstone Warer Center apartment complex
27 located at 2 1200 Ki
ttridge Street, Woodland Hills, Califoria 91303, and referenced in

28 paragraph 19 of YOUR COMPLAINT. As used herein "COMPLAINT" shall mean
2
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC's
EXHIBIT 2
Page 68
YOUR Second Amended Complaint fled in this action on October 25, 2012. As used
2
herein, the term "APARTMENT" shall mean the apartment unit YOU leased at
3
ARCHSTONE WARNER CENTER and referenced in paragraphs 19 and 22 of YOUR
4
COMPLAINT.)
5
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
7
In addition to the frgoing General Objections, Plaintif objects to this Request on
8 the grounds that it is compound, overly broad as to both time and scope, burdensome,
9 oppressive, not reasonably particularized, harassing, and seeks infrmation that is neither
10 relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
11 Plaintif further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as
12 to the term "profssionally cleaned." Plaintif also objects to this Request to the extent it
13 seeks infrmation which is protected from discovery by the attorey-client privilege,
14 work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege, protection, or immunity
15 recognized in case law or confrred by statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon
16 Plaintifs right to privacy. Finally, Plaintif objects to this Request as it seeks
17 infrmation already in Defndant's possession, custody, or control.
18 Subject to and notwithstanding these objections and the fregoing General
19 Objections, consistent with them, without waiving any of them, and to the extent that this
20 Request should be interpreted as requesting only relevant and non-privileged infrmation,
21 Plaintiff responds as fllows: A reasonable inquiry concering the matter in the
22 particular request has been made, and the infrmation known or readily obtainable is
23 insuficient to enable that party to admit or deny that the apartment was "professionally
24 cleaned."
25 !Ill
26 I I I I
27 I I I I
28 ////
3
EXHIBIT 2
Page 69
2
Admit that YOU did not leave YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE
3
WARNER CENTER in the same condition as it was in at the inception of YOUR
4
tenancy, exclusive of ordinary wear and tear.
5
6
7
In addition to the forgoing General Objections, Plaintif objects to this Request on
8
the grounds that it is compound, overly broad as to both time and scope, burdensome,
11
Plaintiff also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks infrmation which is protected
12 from discovery by the attorey-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
13 applicable privilege, protection, or immunity recognized in case law or confrred by
14 statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon Plaintiffs right to privacy. Plaintif
15 frther objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Plaintif has the burden of
16 proof as to the reasonableness of the amount Defendant withheld from her security
17 deposit. (See Civil Code, 1950.5, subd. (1) ["In any action under this section, the
18 landlord or the landlord's successors in interest shall have the burden of proof as to the
19 reasonableness of the amounts claimed or the authority pursuant to this section to deman
20 additional security deposits"].) Finally, Plaintiff objects to this Request as it seeks
21 infrmation already in Defendant's possession, custody, or control.
22 Subject to and notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General
25 Plaintiff responds as fllows: Deny.
26 !Ill
27
I I I I
28
I I I I
4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 70
2
Admit that YOU did not retur YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE
3
WARNER CENTER to the same level of cleanliness that it was in at the inception of
4
YOUR tenancy.
5
6
7
11
Plaintif frther objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as
12
to the term "profssionally cleaned." Plaintif also objects to this Request to the extent it
13 seeks infration which is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
15 recognized in case law or conferred by statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon
16 Plaintiffs right to privacy. Plaintif frther objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
17 implies that Plaintif has the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the amount
18 Defendant withheld from her security deposit. (See Civil Code, 1950.5, subd. (1) ["In
19 any action under this section, the landlord or the landlord's successors in interest shall
20 have the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the amounts claimed or the authority
21 pursuant to this section to demand additional security deposits"].) Finally, Plaintif
22 objects to this Request as it seeks infrmation already in Defendant's possession,
23 custody, or control.
28 ////
5
EXHIBIT 2
Page 71
2
Admit that YOU did not profssionally clean YOUR APARTMENT at
3
ARCHSTONE WARNER CENTER at the conclusion of YOUR tenancy.
4
5
6
In addition to the forgoing General Objections, Plaintif objects to this Request on
8 oppressive, not reasonably particularized, harassing, and seeks information that is neither
10
Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as
11
to the term "profssionally cleaned." Plaintiff also objects to this Request to the extent it
12
seeks information which is protected from discovery by the attorey-client privilege,
14 recognized in case law or confrred by statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon
15 Plaintiff's right to privacy. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent it
16 implies that a tenant must hire a "professional" to clean and paint his/her apartment in
17 order to receive a full refund of his/her security deposit. Plaintif further objects to this
18 Interrogatory to the extent it implies that Plaintiff has the burden of proof as to the
19 reasonableness of the amount Defndant withheld from her security deposit. (See Civil
20 Code, 1950.5, subd. (1) ["In any action under this section, the landlord or the landlord's
21 successors in interest shall have the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the
22 amounts claimed or the authority pursuant to this section to demand additional security
23 deposits"].) Finally, Plaintiff objects to this Request as it seeks information already in
24 Defndant's possession, custody, or control.
28 Plaintiff responds as follows: Admit.
6
EXHIBIT 2
Page 72
2
Admit that the deduction of $80.00 from YOUR security deposit by ASN Warer
3
Center represented reimbursement fr costs of apartment cleaning that was necessary to
4
retur YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE WARNER CENTER to the same level of
5
cleanliness that it was in at the inception of YOUR tenancy.
6
7
RESPONSE TO RQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
8 In addition to the frgoing General Objections, Plaintif objects to this Request on
10
oppressive, not reasonably particularized, harassing, and seeks infrmation that is neither
11
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
12 Plaintif also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information which is protected
I 5
statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon Plaintiffs right to privacy. Plaintif
16 further objects to this Request to the extent it implies that Plaintif has the burden of
17 proof as to the reasonableness of the amount Defndant withheld from her security
21 additional security deposits"].) Finally, Plaintif objects to this Request as it seeks
22 information already in Defndant's possession, custody, or control.
25 Request should be interpreted as requesting only relevant and non-privileged information,
26 Plaintif responds as fllows: Deny.
27 /Ill
28 ////
7
EXHIBIT 2
Page 73
2
Admit that the carpet in YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE WARNER
3
CENTER was DIRTY or DAMAGED at the conclusion of YOUR tenancy. (As used
4 herein, the term "DIRTY" shall mean that YOUR APARTMENT was not retured to the
5 same level of cleanliness that it was in at the inception of YOUR tenancy, including but
6 not limited to stains, dirt, grime, and mildew. As used herein, the term "DAMAGED"
7 shall mean that YOUR APARTMENT was subject to damages exclusive of ordinary
8 wear and tear, including but not limited to marks, nicks, rips, and holes.)
9
l 0
11 In addition to the forgoing General Objections, Plaintif objects to this Request on
15 Plaintiff also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information which is protected
18 statute, and to the extent that it infinges upon Plaintiffs right to privacy. Plaintif
28 ////
8
EXHIBIT 2
Page 74
Request should be interpreted as requesting only relevant and non-privileged information,
2
Plaintif responds as follows: Deny.
3
4
5
Admit that the deduction of $60.00 from YOUR security deposit by ASN Warer
6
Center represented reimbursement for costs of carpet cleaning that was necessary to
7
retur the carpet in YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE WARER CENTER to the
8
same level of cleanliness that it was in at the inception of YOUR tenancy.
9
10
RSPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
16 fom discovery by the attorey-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
17 applicable privilege, protection, or immunity recognized in case law or conferred by
18 statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon Plaintiffs right to privacy. Plaintif
21 deposit. (See Civil Code, 1950.5, subd. (I) ["In any action under this section, the
24 additional security deposits"].) Finally, Plaintif objects to this Request as it seeks
28 /Ill
9
EXHIBIT 2
Page 75
2
Plaintiff responds as follows: Deny.
3
4
5
Admit that the walls in YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE WARNER
6
CENTER were DIRTY or DAMAGED at the conclusion of YOUR tenancy.
7
8
9
11
oppressive, not reasonably particularized, harassing, and seeks information that is neither
12
16 statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon Plaintiffs right to privacy. Plaintiff
17 frther objects to this Request to the extent it implies that Plaintiff has the burden of
19 deposit. (See Civil Code, 1950.5, subd. (I) ["In any action under this section, the
23 information already in Defndant's possession, custody, or control.
27 Plaintiff responds as follows: Deny.
28 ////
10
EXHIBIT 2
Page 76
2
Admit that the deduction of $142.27 fom YOUR security deposit by ASN Warer
3
Center represented reimbursement for costs of painting that was necessary to retur the
4
walls of YOUR APARTMENT at ARCHSTONE WARNER CENTER to the same level
5
of cleanliness and/or condition as they were at the inception of YOUR tenancy.
6
7
8
In addition to the frgoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request on
12
13
from discovery by the attorey-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
15 statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon Plaintiffs right to privacy. Plaintiff
18 deposit. (See Civil Code, 1 950.5, subd. (I) ["In any action under this section, the
22 infrmation already in Defendant's possession, custody, or control.
27 /Ill
28
I I I I
11
RQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE)
EXHIBIT 2
Page 77
2
Admit that YOU did not conduct any investigation regarding the "systematic
3
polic[ies] and procedure[s]" referenced in paragraph 26 of YOUR COMPLAINT before
4
filing the COMPLAINT.
5
6
7
9
14 statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon Plaintiffs right to privacy. Finally,
15
Plaintiff objects to this Request as it seeks information already in Defendant's possession,
21
23 Admit that YOU have no facts and/or evidence to support the allegation that ASN
24 Warer Center has a "policy and procedure of always charging for apartment cleaning
25 and painting and carpet cleaning or replacement at the end of every tenancy, regardless of
26 the actual condition of the apartment unit" referenced in paragraphs 26 and 27 of YOUR
27 COMPLAINT.
28 ////
12
EXHIBIT 2
Page 78
2
3
4
5
6
Plaintif also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks infrmation which is protected
7
fom discovery by the attorey-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
9 statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon Plaintiff's right to privacy. Finally,
I 0 Plaintiff objects to this Request as it seeks infrmation already in Defndant's possession,
I I custody, or control.
I 2 Subject to and notwithstanding these objections and the fregoing General
I5 Plaintiff responds as fllows: Deny.
16
I 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:
I 8 Admit that YOU have never had any COMMUNICATIONS with "other ex-
I 9 tenants . . . of the ARCHSTONE DOES" refrenced in paragraph 24 of YOUR
20 COMPLAINT CONCERNIG, REFERRING OR RELATING TO the "systematic
2I polic[ies] and procedure[s]" refrenced in paragraph 26 of YOUR COMPLAINT. (As
22 used herein, "COMMUNICATIONS" shall mean and refr to all frms of infrmation
23 exchanged, either written, oral, by telephone, facsimile, computer or any other mode of
24 transmission. As used herein, the phrases "REFER or RELATE TO" or
25 "CONCERING" a given subject matter shall mean constitutes, contains, embodies,
26 comprises, refects, identifies, states, relates to, refers to, deals with, comments on,
27 responds to, describes, analyzes, evidences, discusses or is in any way pertinent to that
28 subject, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part.)
I3
EXHIBIT 2
Page 79
2
4
5
6 Plaintiff also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks infrmation which is protected
9
statute, and to the extent that it infringes upon Plaintiffs right to privacy. Finally,
10 Plaintif objects to this Request as it seeks infrmation already in Defndant's possession,
16
18 Admit that YOU have no fcts and/or evidence to support the allegation that "the
19 ARCHSTONE DOES, either directly or through their corporate afliates, have been
20 engaged in the business of owning, developing, managing, maintaining, and leasing
21 approximately 70 multi-unit apartment complexes throughout the State of Califria,
22 including but not limited to the premises allegedly owned by Defendant ASN WARNER
23 CENTER, LLC" refrenced in paragraphs 8 and 11 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
24
25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:
26 In addition to the frgoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request on
14
EXHIBIT 2
Page 80
2
Plaintif also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information which is protected
3
4
applicable privilege, protection, or immunity recognized in case law or confrred by
5
6
Plaintif objects to this Request as it seeks information already in Defndant's possession,
7
custody, or control.
9
Objections, consistent with them, without waiving any of them, and to the extent that this
10
11 Plaintiff responds as fllows: Deny
12
13
15 ARCHSTONE DOES and Defndant ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC are the agents,
16 partners, successors, or employees of each other" refrenced in paragraph 9 of YOUR
17 COMPLAINT.
18
28 / / / /
15
EXHIBIT 2
Page 81
2
3
Subject to and notwithstanding these objections and the fregoing General
4
5
Request should be interpreted as requesting only relevant and non-privileged infrmation,
6
Plaintiff responds as fllows: Deny
7
8
9
Admit that YOU have no fcts and/or evidence to support the allegation that "the
10 ARCHSTONE DOES and Defndant ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC . . . in doing the
.11
things complained of herein, [acted] within the course and scope of such agency,
12 partnership, succession, or employment" referenced in paragraph 9 of YOUR
13 COMPLAINT.
14
24 Plaintif objects to this Request as it seeks infrmation already in Defendant's possession,
28
I I I I
16
EXHIBIT 2
Page 82
2
Plaintiff responds as fllows: Deny
3
4
5 Admit that YOU have no fcts and/or evidence to support the allegation that there
6
is "a unity of ownership between the ARCHSTONE DOES and Defndant ASN
7
WARNER CENTER, LLC" referenced in paragraph 10 of YOUR COMPLAIT.
8
9
11
12
18 Plaintif objects to this Request as it seeks infrmation already in Defendant's possession,
23 Plaintif responds as follows: Deny.
24
26 Admit that YOU have no fcts and/or evidence to support the allegation that "each
27 of the ARCHSTONE DOES' Califria apartment complexes, including Defndant ASN
28 / / / /
17
EXHIBIT 2
Page 83
WARNER CENTER, LLC, fy under the same 'Archstone' banner and logo" refrenced
2
in paragraph 12 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
3
4
5
In addition to the forgoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request on
9
Plaintiff also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information which is protected
10
11
12
13
Plaintif objects to this Request as it seeks information already in Defendant's possession,
14
19
22 ARCHSTONE DOES have been leasing the residential units at their Califoria apartment
23 complexes, including Defndant ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, pursuant to
24 standardized leases and forms" refrenced in paragraphs 14 and 20 of YOUR
25 COMPLAINT.
26 /I ll
27 !I ll
28 !I ll
18
EXHIBIT 2
Page 84
RESPONSE TO RQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
applicable privilege, protection, or immunity recognized in case law or conferred by
9
, 10 Plaintif objects to this Request as it seeks infrmation already in Defendant's possession,
1 1 custody, or control.
13
14
16
17
19 ARCHSTONE DOES have been leasing the residential units .. . pursuant to standardized
20 leases and frms . . . [that] prohibit, and at all material times have prohibited, charging
2 1 for apartment cleaning and paining and carpet cleaning/replacement if, at the end of the
22 tenancy, the tenant returs the apartment unit clean and in the same condition as it was at
23 the inception of the tenancy, subject to reasonable wear and tear" refrenced in paragraph
24 14 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
25
26 RSPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
28 the grounds that it is compound, overly broad as to both time and scope, purdensome,
19
EXHIBIT 2
Page 85
2
3
Plaintiff also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information which is protected
4
from discover by the attorey-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other
5
6
7
9
Subject to and notwithstanding these objections and the foregoing General
13
15 Admit that YOU have no facts and/or evidence to support the allegation that "the
16 ARCHSTONE DOES and their Califoria apartment complexes, including ASN
17 WARNER CENTER, LLC, hold themselves out as a unitary entity called 'Archstone"
18 refrenced in paragraph 15 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
19
20
20
EXHIBIT 2
Page 86
2
3
Subject to and notwithstanding these objections and the fregoing General
4
5
6
Plaintif responds as follows: Deny.
7
9 Admit that YOU have no facts and/or evidence to support the allegation that "the
10 employees at the ARCHSTONE DOES' Califoria apartment complexes, including the
11
employees at ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, are uniformly trained and employed by
12 the ARCHSTONE DOES" referenced in paragraph 17 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
13
15 In addition to the forgoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request on
23
Plaintiff objects to this Request as it seeks information already in Defendant's possession,
21
EXHIBIT 2
Page 87
2
Admit that YOU have no fcts and/or evidence to support the allegation that "the
3
ARCHSTONE DOES monitor and regulate their employees at their Califria apartment
4
complexes, including their employees at ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, to ensure that
5
they comply with their uniform policies and procedures" refrenced in paragraph 18 of
6 YOUR COMPLAINT.
7
8
1 I
I 2 relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
I 3
Plaintiff also objects to this Request to the extent it s
e
eks information which is protected
I 5 applicable privilege, protection, or immunity recognized in case law or confrred by
17
21
22 Plaintif responds as fllows: Deny.
23
Date: March 6, 2013
24
25
26
27
28
22
R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
Joh M. Bickford
Attorneys for Plaintif and the
Putative Class
EXHIBIT 2
Page 88
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
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of Califoria, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: R. Rex Parris Law Firm 43364 10
1h
Street West,
Lancaster, CA 93534. On the below-mentioned date, I served the within document/s:
PLAINTIFF JENNIFER V AGLE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT ASN
WARNER CENTER, LLC'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION {SET ONE)
_ by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth
below on this date.
_ by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address( es)
set forth below.
_ by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at Lancaster, addressed as set frth
below.
_ by transmitting via e-mail the document(s) listed above to the e-mail address set forth
below on this date.
_ BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE
_ By electronically serving the document(s) described above via LexisNexis File &
Serve on all parties appearing on LexisNexis File & Serve service list.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
Howard M. Privette, Esq.
howardprivette@aulhastings.com
Nicholas J. Begakis, Esq.
nickbegakis@paulhastings.com
515 South Flower Street, 25
1h
Floor
Los Angeles, Califria 90071-2228
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
Executed on March 6, 2013, at Lancaster, California.
_ I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califoria that the above
is true and correct.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 89
Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. (SBN 239541)
Kity Szeto, Esq. (SBN 258136)
Johll M. Bickford

Esq. (SBN 280929)
Lancaster, Califria 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Facsnnile: 61) 949-7 524
Attorneys fr Plaintiff and the Putative Class
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CIVIL WEST COURTHOUSE
10
1 1 JENNIFER VAGLE, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated;
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASN WARER CENTER, LLC, a
15 Delaware limited liability corporation, and
Does 1 through 100 inclusive;
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defndants.
Case No.: BC480931
CLASS ACTION
VERIFICATION TO PLAINTIFF
JENNIFER VAGLE'S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
ASN WARNER CENTER LLC' S
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET
ONE) THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY
SERVED
Assigned for All PUDOSeS to the
Bonorable William F. Highberger,
Department 307]
VERIFICATION TO PLAINTIFF JENNIFER V AGLE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT ASN WARNER
CENTER LLC'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY SERVED
EXHIBIT 2
Page 90
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
I 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am fmiliar with the contents of the fregoing PLAINTIFF JENNIFER VAGLE'S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC'S REQUESTS
FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE). The infrmation supplied therein is either based upon my own
personal kowledge or infrmation that has been supplied to me by sources specifcally
identifed in the Responses or derived fom available documents.
The information contained in the fregoing document that is within my personal
knowledge is true. As to the infrmation that was provided by sources specifcally identifed in
the Responses, or derived fom available documents, including all contentions and opinions, I
am infrmed and believe that this infrmation is also true.
J"
Executed on J ', 2013, at Los Angeles, Califoria.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califria that the
fregoing is true and correct.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 91
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: R. Rex Parris Law Firm 43364 I 01
h
Street West,
VERIFICATION TO PLAINTIFF JENNIFER VAGLE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT ASN WARNER CENTER LLC's REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE)
THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY SERVED
_ by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fx number(s) set forth
below on this date.
_ by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address( es)
set frth below.
_ by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in United States mail in the State of Califoria at Lancaster, addressed as set frth
below.
13
_ by transmitting via e-mai I the document( s) I isted above to the e-mai I address set forth
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
below on this date.
_ By electronically serving the document(s) described above via LexisNexis File &
Serve on all parties appearing on LexisNexis File & Serve service list as well as via E-Mail
directly to the fllowing:
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
Christopher J. Healey, Esq.
Jaikaran Singh, Esq.
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-2960
Facsimile: (619) 744-3682
Executed on July 11, 2013, at Lancaster, California.
X I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
EXHIBIT 2
Page 92
CHRISTOPHER J. HEALEY (SBN 105798)
j singh@mckennalong.com
4 San Diego, Califria 92101-3372
Telephone: 619.236.1414
5 Facsimile: 619 .232.8311
6 Attoreys for Defndant
NOV 1 '013
st1er H. Carte:, lYG\:Uli\lf Qfticm/Clmk
fy: M<.ribql Ci!trillo, Deputv
7
8
9
10
all others similarly situated,
Case No. BC48093 l
12
13
14
V.
Plaintif, PROOF OF SERVICE
15 limited liability corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,
Dept. 307
16
17
Defendant.
18 I, Geralynn D. Vidmar, declare under penalty of pe1jury that I am over the age of eighteen
19 years, that I a not a party to the above-referenced action, and that I a employed in the State of
20 Califoria, County of San Diego, where the within-mentioned service occurred. My business
21 address is 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, Califria 92101; telephone number (619)
22 236-1414.
23 On November 21, 2013, I caused to be served the following document(s):
24
25
26
27
28
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
SAN DIEGO
1.
2.
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY
RESPONSES; and
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC'S NOTICE OF LODGMENT IN SUPPORT
OF REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES.
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 93
1 on the interested parties in this action by:
2 LEXISNEXIS SERVICE LIST VIEWABLE ONLINE
3
4 XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Complying with Code of Civil Procedure 1010, I caused
5 the above-entitled case. Upon completion of transmission of said document(s), a filing
receipt is issued to the filing party acknowledging receipt, filing and service by the
6 LexisNexis system. A copy of the LexisNexis filing receipt page will be maintained with
the original document(s)in our office.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califoria that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at San Diego, Califoria on November 21, 2013.
Geralvnn D. Viamar
usw 803757570.8
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
2
SAN DIEGO
PROOF OF SERVICE

____________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE
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
Kitty Szeto, Esq. (SBN 258136)
J ohn M. Bickford, Esq. (SBN 280929)
Lancaster, California 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Facsimile: (661) 949-7524

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class


FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL CIVIL WEST COURTHOUSE

J ENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE

Plaintiffs,

v.

limited liability corporation, and ASN
LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC, a

Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. BC480931

CLASS ACTION

PLAINTIFFS REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

Time: 2:30 p.m.
Dept.: 307

[Assigned for All Purposes to the Honorable
William F. Highberger, Department 307]

J ury Trial Date: None Set

)
54597150
Nov212013
12:51PM
EXHIBIT 2
Page 94

1
____________________________________________________________________________
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR THE CLASS CONTACT LIST IS HIGHLY
RELEVANT AND DOES NOT SERIOUSLY IMPLICATE THE CLASS
MEMBERS PRIVACY RIGHTS.
ASN Warner Center, LLC (Defendant) claims that it should not be required to produce
the class contact list because the opposing interests in support of disclosure are outweighed by
the former residents privacy interests and potential for abuse. (Opp. at p. 2:1920.) But
nowhere does Defendant explain how the putative class members privacy rights will be
implicated or how there is a potential for abuse. This is especially concerning considering the
fact that Plaintiff attempted to minimize Defendants privacy concerns by offering to use a
Belaire-style opt-out notice to protect against the abuses Defendant claims to fear. (SeeMot. at
p. 8:415; see also Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554,
557 [describing the opt-out notice].)
Defendant also claims Plaintiff does not need testimony from individual former residents
to move for class certification because her theory is that Defendant has a systematic policy and
procedure of always making certain charges, regardless of the actual condition of the apartment
unit. (Opp. at p. 3:12.) While Defendant is certainly correct that the actual condition of each
putative class members apartment unit at the time of move out is irrelevant under Plaintiffs
theory of liability, Plaintiff is nevertheless entitled to speak to these former tenants to discover
what their experiences were like at Archstone Warner Center. After all, it is entirely possible (if
not likely) that some of these former tenants were told by the employees at Archstone Warner
Center that Archstone apartment complexes always charge for cleaning and painting at the end of
every tenancy. It is also possible that some of these tenants complained about automatically
being charged and were offered a refund as a result. Indeed, there are countless other unknown
facts that could assist Plaintiff in prosecuting this case that she would only ever discover by
speaking with these former tenants.
In reality, Defendants objection to Plaintiffs request for the class contact information is
nothing more than an attempt to prevent her from learn[ing] the names of the other persons who
EXHIBIT 2
Page 95

2
____________________________________________________________________________
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
might assist in prosecuting the case, (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007)
40 Cal.4th 360, 373, and communicat[ing] with persons for whose benefit their action was
ostensibly filed, (Koo v. Rubios Restaurants, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 719, 736, quoting
Atari, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 867, 869.) This is not a valid reason for
failing to produce the contact list, and therefore Plaintiffs motion to compel should be granted.
II. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE ITS PROMISED
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES.
Plaintiff originally moved to compel numerous responses to its written discovery. After
the motion was filed, however, the parties met-and-conferred and Defendant agreed to provide
supplemental responses to many of these disputed items. To date, Plaintiff has not received these
supplemental responses. Therefore, if Defendant does not provide these responses by November
25, 2013, Plaintiff requests that the court grant her motions to compel the following discovery
items, in accordance with the parties joint status report dated November 1, 2013:
Special Interrogatories Nos. 1821, 24, 26, 2830, 3134, 3640, 54,
57, 60, 63, 6572, 76;
Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1, 15.1, 17.1;
Requests for Admission Nos. 110; and
Request for Production of Documents Now. 25.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court grant Plaintiffs
four motions to compel further discovery responses.

Date: November 21, 2013 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM

By: _____________________________
John M. Bickford
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
the Putative Class
EXHIBIT 2
Page 96

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
PROOF OF SERVICE

th
Street West,

PLAINTIFFS REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth
below on this date.

by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es)
set forth below.

X by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at Lancaster, to Archstone Communities,
LLC and ASN Long Beach Harbor, LLC addressed as set forth below.

by transmitting via e-mail the document(s) listed above to the e-mail address set forth
below on this date.

X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE

X By electronically serving the document(s) described above via LexisNexis File &
Serve on all parties appearing on LexisNexis File & Serve service list:

Christopher J . Healey, Esq.
J aikaran Singh, Esq.
Telephone: (619) 233-2960
Facsimile: (619) 744-3682

Archstone Communities, LLC
ASN Long Beach Harbor, LLC
c/o CT Corporation Systems
Agent for Service of Process
818 West 7
th
Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Executed on November 21, 2013 at Lancaster, California.


EXHIBIT 2
Page 97
54584290
Nov192013
01:40PM
EXHIBIT 2
Page 98
Case 2:14-cv-03476-RGK-AJW Document 1-2 Filed 05/06/14 Page 65 of 113 Page ID
#:100
1 R. Rex Parris, Esq. SBN 96567)
Alexander R. Wheeler, Es
q
. (SBN 239541)
2 Kitty Szeto, Esq. (SBN 258136)
Johll M. Bickford, Esq. (SBN 280929)
R. REX PARRIS LAW IRM 3
4 Lancaster, Califoria 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
5 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
6 Attoreys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
7 Christopher J. Healey, Esq. (SBN 105798)
J aikaran Singh, Es
q
(SBN 2013 5 5)
8 MCKENNA LONG ALDRIDGE LLP
600 West Broadwax, Suite 2600
9 San Diego, CA 92101-3372
Telephone: (619) 236-1414
10 Facsimile: (619) 645-5321
11 Attorneys for Defendants
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CIVIL WEST COURTHOUSE
14
JENER VAGLE and GEORGE
15 PONCE, on behalf of themselves and all
Case No. BC48093 l
CLASS ACTION
16
17
18
v.
Plaintifs, STIPULATION RE NAMING PLAITIFF GEORGE
PONCE'S TITULAR LANDLORD AND PROPOSED
ORDER
ARCHSTONE COMMUITIES, LLC, a f Assigned for All Purposes to the Honorable
19 Delaware limited liability coq
oration, ASN William F. Highberger, Department 307]

20
limited liabilit
y
cor
p
oration, and ASN Jury Trial Date: None Set
LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC, a Complaint Filed: March 14, 2012
21
DOES I through 100, inclusive;
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE NAMING PLAINTIFF GEORGE PONCE'S TITULAR LANDLORD
EXHIBIT 2
Page 99
#:101
RECITALS
2 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was fled on October 24, 2013,
3 naming ASN LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC a a defendant on the belief that it was
4
Plaintiff PONCE's titular landlord;
5 WHEREAS, on frther investigation it was discovered that Plaintiff PONCE's
6
titular landlord is ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH LP.
7
8
STIPULATION
The parties hereto, by and through their undersigned counsel of record
9
hereby stipulate as fllows, all subject to Court approval:
10
11
12
(1) Defendant ASN LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC be dismissed, without
prejudice, from the case.
(2) The attached Fourth Amended Complaint (attached as Exhibit "A"),
13
which removes ASN LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC from the complaint and replaces it
14
with ARCH STON LONG BEACH LP, be entered as fled.
15
(3) Service of the summons and amended complaint on ARCHSTONE
16
LONG BEACH LP can be accomplished through serice on McKenna Long & Aldridge
1
7 LLP.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
J 26
27
28
Date
:
November 19, 2013
R. REX PARRIS LAW FIM
By:
John
_
. -- -
Attoreys fr Plaintiff and
the Putative Class
EXHIBIT 2
Page 100
#:102
ORDER
2
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation and good cause appearing, I1!SSOORDLLD
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
usw 804064566.1
The Honorable William F. cc
1UDOEOFJHESUPEIOR OU
2
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT 2
Page 101
#:103
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
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR J URY TRIAL
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Plaintiffs,
v.
ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH LP, a
Delaware limited partnership, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive;
Defendants.
Case No. BC480931
CLASS ACTION
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
(1) Violations of Civil Code section
1950.5
(2) Unjust Enrichment
(3) Violation of Business and
Professions Code sections
17200 et seq.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EXHIBIT 2
Page 102
#:104
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
1
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR J URY TRIAL
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 410.10 and Article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution.
2. This court has jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants have
sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avail themselves
of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over them by the
California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
3. Venue is proper in this court because Defendants maintain offices, have
agents, and transact business in Los Angeles County. At all material times mentioned
herein, Plaintiffs resided in Los Angeles County.
4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the
amount in controversy with respect to Plaintiffs individual claims is less than $75,000.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff J ENNIFER VAGLE (Plaintiff VAGLE) is, and at all times
mentioned herein was, an individual residing in Los Angeles County, in the State of
California. Plaintiff VAGLE brings this action on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public.
6. Plaintiff GEORGE PONCE (Plaintiff PONCE) is, and at all times
mentioned herein was, an individual residing in Los Angeles County, in the State of
California. Plaintiff PONCE brings this action on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public.
7. Defendant ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC (Defendant ASN WARNER
CENTER) is a limited liability corporation formed under the laws of the State of
Delaware, having its principle place of business at 9200 E Panorama Circle, Suite 400,
Englewood, Colorado, 80112.
8. Defendant Archstone Long Beach LP (Defendant ARCHSTONE LONG
BEACH) is a limited partnership formed under the laws of the State of Delaware,
having its principle place of business at 9200 E Panorama Circle, Suite 400,
EXHIBIT 2
Page 103
#:105
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
2
THIRDAMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR J URY TRIAL
9. Defendant ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC (Defendant
ARCHSTONE) is a limited liability corporation formed under the laws of the State of
Delaware, having its principle place of business at 9200 E Panorama Circle, Suite 400,
10. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued
herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sued said Defendants by such
fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Third Amended Complaint to allege the true
names and capacities of DOES 1 through 100 when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed
and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of these fictitiously named defendants,
participated or acted in concert with Defendant ASN WARNER CENTER, Defendant
ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH, and Defendant ARCHSTONE and are therefore
responsible in some manner for the acts, occurrences, and/or omissions alleged herein,
and have thereby proximately caused damages to Plaintiffs, and are liable to Plaintiffs
by reason of the facts alleged herein.
11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all
times herein mentioned, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100 are the agents, partners,
successors, or employees of each other, and, in doing the things complained of herein,
are acting within the course and scope of such agency, partnership, succession, or
employment. All acts and omissions alleged to have been done by Defendants were
done with the consent, knowledge and ratification of all other Defendants.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that there
exists, and at all times herein mentioned there existed, a unity of ownership between the
Defendants such that any individuality or separateness between them has ceased and
each of them is the alter ego of the others. Defendants share essentially identical
ownership and officers, share the same corporate headquarters, and utilize the services
of the same employees. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of
Defendants, and each of them, would, under the circumstances, sanction fraud and/or
EXHIBIT 2
Page 104
#:106
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
3
promote injustice.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Defendant ARCHSTONE
13. Defendant ARCHSTONE manages and operates approximately 70 multi-
unit apartment complexes throughout the State of California. These apartment
complexes operate under the collective name Archstone.
14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
Defendant ARCHSTONE markets its California apartment complexes through, among
other things, its websitearchstoneapartments.com. The website claims that Archstone
is a recognized leader in apartment operations with a portfolio concentrated in many of
the most desirable neighborhoods in the nation. [Archstones] communities reside in
Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Seattle and
Boston metropolitan areas, to name a few. Backed by industry-leading customer
service guarantees, Archstone strives to provide great apartments and great service to
[its] customers. The website also has a feature that allows prospective tenants to
[l]ease apartments online, anytime. To rent an apartment, all a tenant need[s] is an
Internet connection and about 15 minutes.
Defendant ARCHSTONE maintains another residents website called
myarchstone.com, which allows any of the tenants residing at its California apartment
complexes to, among other things, pay their rent online, submit and track service
requests, and find community forms and policies.
employees at Defendant ARCHSTONEs California apartment complexes are
uniformly trained and employed by Defendant ARCHSTONE. Defendant
ARCHSTONE claims that [j]obs at Archstone run the gamut from corporate positions
at [their] Denver headquarters to positions throughout the United States at [their]
apartment communities and regional offices. It also claims to provide formal and
EXHIBIT 2
Page 105
#:107
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
4
informal training. This includes on-boarding training, which is a multi-week
program that combines classroom, online and structured on-the-job activities to build
the skills and confidence needed to interact with customers and deliver outstanding
service. With regards to its property managers, Defendant ARCHSTONE has created
a unique leadership development series to help [their] managers improve their existing
leadership skills and build new ones. The program begins with a multi-day highly
interactive session focused on driving performance and building teams. Managers from
across the country have the opportunity to interact with peers while learning from
executive sponsors. Collaborative opportunities continue in both face-to-face and
online environments.
17. Defendant ARCHSTONE monitors and regulates its employees to ensure
that they comply with its uniform policies and procedures. For example, [e]very
quarter, [Archstone] selects [its] Circle of Excellence winners, which are [its] top
performing associates at [its] apartment properties. Every year, each region holds a
celebration to recognize these winners and many of [Archstones] local associates
attend.
Plaintiff VAGLEs Experience at Archstone Warner Center
18. On or about August 16, 2009 to about August 15, 2010, Plaintiff VAGLE
leased an apartment unit at Archstone Warner Center, located at 21200 Kittridge Street,
Woodland Hills, California, 91303. Archstone Warner Center was legally owned by
Defendant ASN WARNER CENTER, but was managed by Defendant ARCHSTONE.
19. Defendant ARCHSTONE required Plaintiff VAGLE to pay a $399.00
standard security deposit, a $400.00 pet deposit and, and $50.00 deposit for a second set
of keys, for a total security deposit of $849.00.
20. On or about August 15, 2010, Plaintiff VAGLE vacated her apartment
unit, leaving it clean and in the same condition it was at the inception of her tenancy,
subject to reasonable wear and tear.
21. On or about August 25, 2010, Defendant ARCHSTONE provided
EXHIBIT 2
Page 106
#:108
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
5
Plaintiff VAGLE with a Statement of Deposit, withholding $362.13 of her $849.00
deposit. Of the $362.13 withholding, the following deductions, totaling $282.27, that
are the subject of this lawsuit:
a. $80.00 for apartment cleaning;
b. $60.00 for carpet cleaning; and
c. $142.27 for painting.
22. After Plaintiff VAGLEs lease expired, Plaintiff VAGLE spoke to
individuals who also leased apartment units managed by Defendant ARCHSTONE, all
of whom were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and carpet
cleaning/replacement at the end of their tenancies even though they left their apartment
units clean and in the same condition it was at the inception of their tenancies, subject
to reasonable wear and tear.
Plaintiff PONCEs Experience at Archstone Long Beach
23. On or about November 28, 2010 to about November 27, 2011, Plaintiff
PONCE leased an apartment unit at Archstone Long Beach, located at 1609 Ximeno
Ave, #154, Long Beach, CA 90804. Archstone Long Beach was legally owned by
Defendant ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH, but was managed by Defendant
ARCHSTONE.
24. Defendant ARCHSTONE required Plaintiff PONCE to pay a $99.00
security deposit.
25. On or about November 27, 2011, Plaintiff PONCE vacated his apartment
unit leaving it clean and in the same condition it was at the inception of his tenancy,
subject to reasonable wear and tear.
26. On or about December 4, 2011, Defendant ARCHSTONE provided
Plaintiff PONCE with a Statement of Deposit, withholding the entirety of his $99.00
deposit and charging him an additional $273.74, totaling $372.74. Of the $372.74
charge, the following deductions, totaling $300.00, are the subject of this lawsuit:
a. $80.00 for apartment cleaning;
EXHIBIT 2
Page 107
#:109
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
6
b. $60.00 for carpet cleaning; and
c. $160.00 for painting.
27. On or about December 31, 2011, Plaintiff PONCE complained about these
charges to Defendant ARCHSTONE in writing and attached pictures of his apartment
unit the day he moved out showing that he left his apartment clean and in the same
condition it was at the inception of his tenancy, subject to reasonable wear and tear. He
requested that the charges be dropped and that Defendant ARCHSTONE return his
$99.00 deposit.
28. On or about J anuary 9, 2012, Defendant ARCHSTONE responded to
Plaintiff PONCEs complaint, agreeing, as a courtesy, to waive the $80.00 apartment
cleaning fee. The other charges remained.
29. Plaintiff PONCE refused to pay these other charges. Consequently,
Defendant ARCHSTONE sent his bill to collections sometime in early to mid-2012.
Putative Class Members Experiences
30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that their
experiences mirror those of the other ex-tenants of apartment communities managed
and operated by Defendant ARCHSTONE. Plaintiffs have searched the internet and
discovered that mostif not allof the apartment communities managed and operated
by Defendant ARCHSTONE have negative reviews left by ex-tenants alleging that they
were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement
at the end of their lease, even though they left their apartment clean and in the same
condition it was at the inception of their tenancy, subject to reasonable wear and tear.
For example:
1
(a) Archstone Aurora HillsAgoura Hills, CA:
1
These reviews represent only a small sample of the negative reviews found by
Plaintiffs. The number of negative reviews Plaintiffs have found number in the hundreds.
Plaintiffs make these allegations as support for their good faith belief that Defendant
ARCHSTONE has a systematic policy and procedure of always charging for apartment
cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement at the end of every tenancy,
regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 108
#:110
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
7
Upon moving out, I had the carpets cleaned, walls painted and
patched, and the entire apartment was spotless. Archstone charged
me for paint, carpets cleaned and shampooed, carpet patched when
no stains were there, and a total clean of the apartment totaling
over $500 when the deposit is only $299..this place is a rip-of.
They do not care about you they only care about how much money
they make off each individual.
Posted 4/12/2012 by Denese P.
(b) Archstone Aliso ViejoAliso Viejo, CA:
Archstone apparently has a policy of charging cleaning, painting
and carpet cleaning on move out no matter the actual condition of
the property. Upon move out, I cleaned the rugs with a
professional machine, cleaned the kitchen and bath completely,
and cleaned and repainted as needed. The apartment was seen by
Carolyn who commented that it was cleaner than when I moved
in. Despite this, I was charged for full cleaning, carpet cleaning
and repainting. This was ridiculous. It strikes me as dishonest.
Posted 6/16/2008 by lindaandpeter
(c) Archstone CalabasasCalabasas, CA:
They charge you $180 for painting no matter what, no prorated
fee based on wear-and-tear, nothing. On top of that my mom and
I spent the better part of a weekend completely cleaning the place
out. I mean spotless, and they still charged me $100 for cleaning,
saying that if it wasnt done Professionally they charge you.
Woulda been nice to know this before I cleaned my fingers to the
bone.
Posted 2/24/2006 by Anonymous
(d) Archstone City PlaceLong Beach, CA:
I traveled during the week and was gone a lot of the weekend, so
the place was basically untouched and spotless, and at the end of
my rent they charged me cleaning and carpet clean (i was
supposed to get a free one), took the rest of the $500 deposit.
Posted 10/4/2011 by Casey J.
(e) Archstone CupertinoCupertino, CA:
EXHIBIT 2
Page 109
#:111
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
8
Wait till you move out they try to charge you for painting,
cleaning, and rug cleaning at a cost of over $500.
Posted 7/29/2009 by Diane U.
(f) Archstone Del Mar HeightsSan Diego, CA
Lets not forget the amount of money I had to pay to move out. I
was told by the inspector that my apartment was in absolutely
PERFECT condition upon final inspection. Yet, they still forced
me to pay their ridiculous fees to 1) professionally clean the
apartment 2) professional carpet clean the apartment and 3)
professionally repaint the apartment.
Posted 4/16/2012 by Jackie K.
(g) Archstone Del Mar StationPasadena, CA
The day after I moved everything out of my apartment I hired my
loyal cleaning lady to do a deep and thorough cleanse of the
apartment. The place didnt have a speck in it. I received a bill 3
weeks later for $1,100.00 in move out costs. $80 for a
professional cleaning, which would be impossible to fathoms
what was cleaned and $900 for new carpet.
Posted 4/27/2012 by YANYARKER
(h) Archstone Emerald ParkDublin, CA:
They made illegal deductions to my security deposit. Its nice
that they paint the unit for new tenants, but the security deposit
isnt a fund for the landlord to return a unit to brand-new
condition. They also apparently try to charge a set $100 cleaning
fee to each departing tenant. Talk to your lawyer about Cal. Civ.
Code 1950.5 (online at http//legalinfo.ca.gov) and he or she is
likely to tell you that in your circumstances charging for painting
is illegal when only ordinary wear and tear is present, and
charging a set cleaning fee without accounting for actual tasks
and time spent cleaning is also illegal. The law was passed in
2003, apparently Archstones standard screw-the-tenant
procedures havent caught up with the law.
Posted 9/9/2012 by Tim M.
(i) Archstone EmeryvilleEmeryville, CA:
My only real complaint is that when I moved out they tacked on
EXHIBIT 2
Page 110
#:112
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
9
a bunch of random fees and I ended up paying $350. I am a very
careful, neat person who takes care of her things, so to be
charged 100 for professional cleaning-well ok, but not a random
100 for a paint job and then another 150 that I was never told
about. Moving out I felt ripped off.
Posted 7/11/2012 by Nicole S.
(j) Archstone EscondidoEscondido, CA:
We spent hours cleaning the apartment up to get it looking
spotless. The place looked better than when we moved in. When
they came to look at it the guy said it was one of the best cleaned
apartments that hed seen. He charged us $95 general clean, $50
carpet clean, and $85 for touch up paint. More than half our
deposit to do almost no cleaning. If you move in here, dont
expect to get your deposit back.
Posted on 3/16/2012 by Anonymous
(k) Archstone Fox PlazaSan Francisco, CA:
Upon moving out I was charged a $120 cleaning fee and $220 to
paint my unit. My unit was kept in perfect condition, I am a
clean freak. My $199 move in deposit turned into a bill.
Everyone be prepared to pony up money when you leave because
they charge everyone to clean and repaint, no matter what
Posted on 4/27/2009 by Anonymous
(l) Archstone Freemont CenterFreemont, CA:
Expect to pay for a moveout clean and professional carpet care.
Posted 9/21/2008 by Tom G.
(m) Archstone GlendaleGlendale, CA:
Before I moved out, I had to sign a notice to vacate within 30
days of the move-out date, in person. This was a little annoying
for someone who travels a lot. After that, they sent me a whole
page of cleaning instructions. . . . So Archstone expects you to
follow most or all of these instructions, but they charge you at
least $80.00 for apartment cleaning always, on top of at least $60
for carpet cleaning. What was the point of me cleaning the
EXHIBIT 2
Page 111
#:113
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
10
apartment then?
Posted 11/25/2011 by Lori Y.
(n) Archstone HaciendaPleasanton, CA:
I only paid a 99 dollar deposit, but when I moved out, I was
really disappointed. I thought I was going to get it all back. I
lived there for a year and there was typical wear and tear on the
carpet and walls, but no major stains, no major holes in the walls,
etc. The day I turned in my keys, I had cleaned out the
microwave/fridge/oven/stove so that they looked brand new. I
not only vacuumed, but also steam cleaned the carpets, and filled
the 3 nail holes that were in the wall with putty. When you move
into a big apartment like this where it not a privately owned, but
an actual national corporation, you expect that the walls will have
a fresh coat of paint, the carpets will be clean, etc. This is
because when you move out, they run a fresh coat of paint on the
walls and they clean the carpets. I already cleaned the carpets,
but still expected them to do it again. Literally, when I moved
out, the apartment (aside from some wall scuffs) looked exactly
how it did when I moved in. So why did I get a bill from them?
Apparently, you arent supposed to even vacuum when you move
out because they charge you an arm and leg to move out. On my
itemized bill, I had a carpet cleaning package that I had to pay
for, they said that the paint should last for X numbers of years so
they charged me for the excess years. So, if I would have stayed
for 2 years, I would have had to pay less even though there
would be more wear on the walls. Whatever.
Posted 4/20/2012 by Michelle M.
(o) Archstone La JollaLa Jolla:
When we were about to move out, the manager told us that we
were responsible for hundreds of dollars to paint the walls, clean
the carpets, and clean the entire apartment for the next tenant,
regardless of the fact that we left the apartment clean and without
damages. Had there been damages, they would have charged us
more. Even though the rental lease clearly stated that the deposit
was supposed to be returned unless there were damages, with the
exception of regular wear and tear, the manager insisted that
regular wear and tear wasnt allowed. He said that all tenants
had to pay to prepare the apartment for the next tenant.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 112
#:114
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
11
(p) Archstone La MesaLa Mesa, CA
When I moved out I left the place in outstanding conditions;
However, they are charging me for a new carpet, cleaning and
painting. At the end I owe them money.
(q) Archstone Las FloresRancho Santa Margarita, CA:
Our apartment was cleaned from top to bottom before we moved
out and somehow we got slapped with a bill for over $300 for
supposed repairs.
(r) Archstone Marina del ReyMarina del Ray, CA:
We just moved out, and we though our whole $800.00 security
deposit was coming back to us we left our apartment in
PERFECT condition. We received $48.00 back. Why do you
ask? They told us they had to air out the carpet and repaint the
walls to refresh them.
Posted 11/11/2010 by Ryan S.
(s) Archstone Placentia PlacePlacentia, CA:
They dont tell you but no matter what EVERYONE has to pay
$300.00 when you move out to cover painting and cleaning. No
Choice! Only one worker told us this. They dont tell you when
you move it. So dont count on your deposit back, ITS
AUTOMATIC.
Posted 1/13/2012 by Lisa P.
(t) Archstone RiversideRiverside, CA:
Our company rented an apartment here for one year. It was only
occupied three to four nights a week -- never during the day and
never on weekends. When we gave up the lease, they tried to
charge us for full unit painting ($150) and carpet cleaning ($40).
Under California law, this falls under normal wear and tear.
When we complained, the manager, knowing the apartment was in
virtually the same condition as when we moved in, decided he
could let us off the hook for the carpet cleaning, but he would still
have to charge us $50 for hanging drapes in the bedroom and
dining room. Thats $12.50 per drilled hole.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 113
#:115
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
12
Posted 10/13/2011 by Krusticle
(u) Archstone Sierra Del OroCorona, CA:
Very expensive upon moveout! My son lived here with his dog
that caused some damage. WE TOOK FULL
RESPONSIBILITY! Upon moveout we HIRED A
PROFESSIONAL contractor to repaint interior of apartment (not
damaged!) and to fix a piece of wood (4 in x 1 ft) on the patio that
had been damaged. THEY CHARGED US FOR PAINT and
repair after we had already fixed. In addition, we had carpets
professionally cleaned. THEY CHARGED US FOR AN ENTIRE
ROOM OF NEW CARPET! The carpet did NOT need to be
replaced! I received a bill for 600.00! I WOULD NEVER
RECOMMEND! Unprofessional, expensive.
Posted 9 months ago by Google User
(v) Archstone TerracinaOntario, CA:
My final bill had the following charges (in addition to the
expensive utilities):
DMG Complete Apt Clean..$95.00
DMG Full Paint Clean.$90.00
I was charged a full paint clean, even though my apartment and
the paint were spotless. The unit had just been painted one year
prior to me renting it. I made no blemishes or marks on the walls,
either. The property manager told me I would get my deposit
back, provided the unit was left as it was when she inspected it.
This was a total LIE!
Posted 5/14/2012 by David S.
(w) Archstone Ventura ColonyVentura, CA:
[T]hey charge you move out costs no matter how well you take
care of the apartment they charge you to clean paint and shampoo
the carpets.
(x) Archstone Walnut CreekWalnut Creek, CA:
My wife & I lived there for only 2.5 months and left it
immaculately clean (better than when we moved in actually).
She spent 8 hours cleaning EVERY detail in our 600sf apartment
EXHIBIT 2
Page 114
#:116
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
13
to ensure we would get out cleaning deposit back. Later we
talked to one of the receptionists who said we shouldnt have
bothered because they always charge $100 for a professional
cleaning service, NO MATTER how well you cleaned. Sure
enough, we were charged the $100. Also, we asked different
office personnel three times what paint we could use to dab over
the 10-15 small spackle holes where we hung pictures. They
refused to give us a paint color and said it would have to be
professionally painteddespite the fact that on the check-out
sheet it says to paint any spots needing it. We received our bill
today and they charged us $250 for a FULL repainting of the one
bedroom apartment (of which I guarantee you didnt
happenthe place was immaculate).
Posted 3 months ago by Google User
(y) Archstone Willow GlenSan Jose, CA:
When we moved out we had the apt professionally cleaned, and
the carpets professionally cleaned They tried to charge us over
$500 for cleaning and painting, and we had to submit our
pictures and receipts to have them take the money off and change
the amount owed.
Posted 6/24/2008 by blu232118
(z) The Lofts at Albert ParkSan Rafael, CA:
Deposityou will never see it again. In addition, additional
$375 is charged to you after cleaning the apartment repainting
the walls white even though I lived there for four years.
Posted 11/11/2011 by BEWARE B.
Defendant ARCHSTONEs Uniform Systematic Policies and Procedures
31. Based on their personal experiences and the experiences of other class
members, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants
has a systematic policy and procedure of: (1) charging its tenants for apartment cleaning
and painting and carpet cleaning or replacement at the end of every tenancy regardless
of the actual condition of the apartment unit; and (2) making such charges in order to
prepare the rental unit for the next tenancy and labeling them as turn-over costs.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 115
#:117
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
14
32. Defendant ARCHSTONEs unlawful policy and procedure of always
charging for apartment cleaning and painting and carpet cleaning or replacement at the
end of every tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit, is done in
bad faith and without cause and subjects Defendants to statutory damages in addition to
actual damages under Civil Code section 1950.5.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
33. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and thus, seeks class certification under Code of Civil Procedure
section 382.
34. The proposed class is defined as follows:
All persons, except those who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code
section 1161, who leased an apartment in California managed by
Defendant ARCHSTONE and were charged for apartment cleaning
and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement in violation of
Civil Code section 1950.5 within four years prior to the filing of
Plaintiff VAGLEs original Complaint up to final judgment.
35. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek to certify the following two subclasses:
a. All persons, except those who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code
section 1161, who leased an apartment at Archstone Warner Center
and were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5
within four years prior to the filing of Plaintiff VAGLEs original
Complaint up to final judgment.
b. All persons, except those who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code
section 1161, who leased an apartment at Archstone Long Beach
and were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5
within four years prior to the filing of Plaintiff VAGLEs original
EXHIBIT 2
Page 116
#:118
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
15
Complaint up to final judgment.
36. In addition, or in the alternative, to the above-defined Class, Plaintiffs
reserve the right to establish subclasses as appropriate to facilitate the effective
management of the Class; however, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based
thereon allege, that the Class as defined above is both objectively and easily identifiable
through Defendant ARCHSTONEs and its California apartment complexes business
records.
Class is ascertainable and there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation:
a) Plaintiffs are unable to state the exact number of Class Members
without discovery of Defendant ARCHSTONEs and its California
apartment complexes business records; however, Plaintiffs are
informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Class
Members are so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is
impracticable;
b) Plaintiffs are members of the Class, and subclasses, they seek to
represent, and Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the
other Class Members. The leases and other documents used by
Defendant ARCHSTONE at its California apartment complexes are
all standardized and Defendant ARCHSTONE has the same
obligations to Plaintiffs and the other Class Members with respect
to when charges can be made for apartment cleaning and painting
and/or carpet cleaning or replacement. Plaintiffs claim against
Defendant ARCHSTONE for unfair competition are also typical of
the Class Members. Plaintiffs have suffered actual injury and have
lost money as a result of Defendant ARCHSTONEs unfair
competition. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and
based thereon allege, that the nature of the damages and their
EXHIBIT 2
Page 117
#:119
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
16
causation will be the same for Plaintiffs and the other Class
Members;
c) Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
interests of the class because: (1) Plaintiffs have retained
experienced litigation counsel with significant experience in class
action litigation and counsel will adequately represent the interests
of the class; (2) Plaintiffs and their counsel are aware of no
conflicts of interests between Plaintiffs and absent Class Members;
and (3) Plaintiffs are knowledgeable concerning the subject matter
of this action and will assist counsel in the prosecution of this
action; and
d) Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that a
class action provides a fair and efficient method of adjudicating
this controversy and is superior to other available methods of
adjudication in that (1) neither the size of the class, nor any other
factor, make it likely that difficulties will be encountered in the
management of this action as a class action; (2) the prosecution of
separate actions by individual Class Members or the individual
joinders of all Class Members in this action is impracticable, and
would create a massive and unnecessary burden on the resources of
the courts, and could result in inconsistent adjurations, while a
single class action can determine, with judicial economy, the rights
of each member of the Class; (3) because of the disparity of
resources available to Defendants verses those available to
individual Class Members, prosecution of separate actions would
work a financial hardship on many Class Members; (4) there is no
plain, speedy, or adequate remedy available to Class Members
other than by maintenance of this class action because the damages
EXHIBIT 2
Page 118
#:120
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
17
to each Class Member is relatively modest compared to the costs of
litigating the issues in this action, making it economically
unfeasible to pursue remedies other than in a class action; and (5)
the conduct of this action as a class action conserves the resources
of the parties and the Court system and protects the rights of each
members of the class and meets all due process requirements as to
fairness to all parties. A class action is also superior to the
maintenance of these claims on a claim by claim basis because all
of the claims arise out of the same circumstances and course of
conduct.
38. There are common questions of law and fact as to the class members that
predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The following common
questions of law or fact, among others, exists as to the members of the class:
a. Whether Defendants have a systematic policy and procedure of
always charging for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement at the end of a tenants tenancy regardless
of the actual condition of the apartment unit;
b. Whether always charging for apartment cleaning and painting
and/or carpet cleaning or replacement at the end of a tenants
tenancy regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit
violates Civil Code section 1950.5;
c. Whether Defendants have a systematic policy and procedure of
reducing these charges when a tenant complains about being
charged;
d. Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class Members are entitled to
statutory damages of up to twice the amount of their Security
Deposits, in addition to actual damages pursuant to Civil Code
section 1950.5; and
EXHIBIT 2
Page 119
#:121
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
18
e. Whether Defendants systematic policy and procedure of charging
for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or
replacement at the end of a tenants tenancy regardless of the actual
condition of the apartment unit constitutes an unfair and unlawful
business practice under Business and Professions Code sections
17200 et seq.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Civil Code section 1950.5)
(Against Defendants and DOES 1100)
39. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members, repeat and
incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 38, and
each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth
herein.
40. Given the standardized and unitary methods by which Defendant
ARCHSTONE manages and operates its California apartment complexes, Defendant
ARCHSTONE was Plaintiffs and the other Class Members landlord within the
meaning of Civil Code section 1950.5.
Defendants at all relevant times herein, have been violating Civil Code section 1950.5
through its systematic uniform policies and procedures.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants systematic policies and
procedures that violate Civil Code section 1950.5, Plaintiffs and the Class Members
have been damaged in an amount equal to the unlawful charges made for apartment
cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement. Plaintiffs and the Class
Members are entitled to restitution of this amount.
Defendants assess these charges in bad-faith, and therefore Plaintiffs and the Class
Members are entitled to statutory damages of up to twice the amount of their Security
Deposits, in additional to actual damages, as provided for by Civil Code section 1950.5.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 120
#:122
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
19
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
herein.
45. Defendants have unjustly enriched themselves by automatically charging
Plaintiffs and the Class Members for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement, regardless of the actual condition of their apartment units, in
violation of Civil Code section 1950.5. Under the circumstances it would be unjust for
Defendants to retain this money.
46. These sums in equity and good conscience should be returned to Plaintiffs
and the Class Members. As such, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to the
imposition of a constructive trust on all sums that rightfully belong to them.
47. Plaintiffs and the Class Members are therefore entitled to restitution of
this money unlawfully retained.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.)
herein.
49. The acts and practices engaged in byDefendants and described herein
constitute unlawful and unfair business practices, in that said conduct is immoral,
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to Plaintiffs, the Class
Members, and the general public. Accordingly, such conduct violates Business and
Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.
EXHIBIT 2
Page 121
#:123
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
20
50. Defendants conduct as described herein is unlawful in that it
automatically charges for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or
replacement at the end of a tenants tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of the
apartment unit in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5.
51. Defendants conduct is also unfair under this section in that it
automatically charges for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or
replacement at the end of a tenants tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of the
apartment unit in violation of both its standardized leases and Civil Code section
1950.5.
52. Defendants conduct also constitutes unfair and deceptive business
practices by intentionally misleading tenants into believing they will not be charged for
apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement if, at the end of
their tenancy, their apartment units are returned in the same condition as existed at the
beginning of the tenancy, subject to reasonable wear and tear.
53. Plaintiffs and the putative class members are therefore entitled to
restitutionary disgorgement from Defendants of the unlawfully withheld portions of
their Security Deposits.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other members of the
public similarly situated, pray for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and
severally, as follows:
1. For an order certifying the proposed class under Code of Civil Procedure
section 382;
2. That Plaintiffs be appointed as the representative of the Class;
3. That counsel for Plaintiffs be appointed as Class Counsel;
4. The Defendants provide to Class Counsel, immediately upon its
appointment, the names and most current contact information (addresses
and telephone numbers) of all the putative Class Members;
EXHIBIT 2
Page 122
#:124
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
21
5. For prejudgment interest on the unlawful charges;
6. For actual damages caused by Defendants violation of Civil Code section
1950.5;
7. For statutory damages of twice the amount of the security deposits
pursuant to Civil Code section 1950.5;
8. For restitutionary disgorgement of the unlawful charges and prejudgment
interest;
9. For attorneys fees and costs of suit herein;
10. For the imposition of a constructive trust of all sums rightfully belonging
to Plaintiffs and the Class Members
11. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Dated: November 19, 2013 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
By:
Alexander R. Wheeler
annnnnnnnndddddddddddeeeeeer RRRRRRRRR Wheeler
EXHIBIT 2
Page 123
#:125
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
22
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the members of the public similarly
situated, hereby demand a trial by a jury.
Dated: November 19, 2013 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
By:
Alexander R. Wheeler
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class
xxxxxxxxaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnndeeeeeeer R. Wheeler
EXHIBIT 2
Page 124
#:126

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
PROOF OF SERVICE

th
Street West,

STIPULATION RE NAMING PLAINTIFF GEORGE PONCES
TITULAR LANDLORD AND PROPOSED ORDER

below on this date.

set forth below.

X by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at Lancaster, to Archstone Communities,
LLC and ASN Long Beach Harbor, LLC addressed as set forth below.

below on this date.


Serve on all parties appearing on LexisNexis File & Serve service list:

Telephone: (619) 233-2960
Facsimile: (619) 744-3682

Archstone Communities, LLC
ASN Long Beach Harbor, LLC
c/o CT Corporation Systems
Agent for Service of Process
818 West 7
th
Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017



EXHIBIT 2
Page 125
#:127
EXHIBIT 2
Page 126
#:128
Telephone: 619.236.1414
5 Facsimile: 619.232.8311
6 Attoreys for Defendant
7
cON
FOR
MEJ
COPY
ORIG
INAL
HLbO
Suprriur Court
OfC:ilifoinin
Counly Of L1,s Aul\rles
NOV
13
2013
,john A. Clarke, Executive Oficer/Cler!{_
By: Robin Sanchez, Oeputv
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA
11 JENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE PONCE,
on behalf of themselves and all others
12 similarly situated;
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs,
v.
limited liability corporation, and ASN LONG
BEACH HARBOR, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive;
Defendants.
Case No. BC48093 l
MEMORNDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET
ONE)
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Dept: 307
Dept. 307
'f''/
t
Complaint Filed: March 14. 2012
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
EXHIBIT 2
Page 127
#:129
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintif Jennifer Vagle moves to compel defendant ASN Warer Center, LLC to provide
3 precertification discovery of the identity and contact information fr former residents that leased at
4 the Warer Center apartment community. But plaintiff's request is simply overreaching and
5 should be denied for two primary reasons. First, the request seeks infrmation that is not relevant
6 to the claims being litigated in this case. Second, the request implicates the constitutionally
7 protected privacy rights of frmer residents and potential fr abuse. When the legitimate privacy
8 rights of frmer residents and potential fr abuse are balanced against the relatively low value of
9 this discovery in light of plaintiffs' theory of the case, plaintiff's motion should be denied.
10 II.
11
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRECERTIFICATION CLASS CONTACT
INFORMATION IS IMPROPER AND UNSUPPORTED GIVEN HER ALLEGED
THEORY FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
12 "Precertifcation class discovery is not a matter of right. Class actions rest on
13 considerations of equity and justice." Starbucks Corporation v. Superior Court (2011) 194
14 Cal.App.4th 820, 825. Califria recognizes an individual's right to privacy. Cal. Const. art. I,
15 1. Protecting disclosure of an individual's name and other identifying infrmation is a matter
16 embraced within the state Constitution's privacy provision. See Planned Parenthood Golden Gate
17 v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 347, 357-359 (disclosure of names, addresses, and
18 telephone numbers of association members for contact purposes implicates privacy interest in
19 sanctity of home.)
20 Assuming that an invasion of privacy interest exists (which it does here), that interest must
21 be measured against other competing or countervailing interests in a "balancing test." Pioneer
22 Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 371. Although parties are fee to
23 communicate with potential class members before class certification, when they seek to enlist the
24 aid of the court in doing so, it is appropriate for the court to consider "the possibility of abuses in
25 class-action litigation." Parris v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 285, 300. "[I]n addition
26 to applying the normal rules govering discovery motions, the trial court must also expressly
27 identify any potential abuses of the class action procedure that may be created if the discovery is
28 permitted, and weigh the danger of such abuses against the rights of the parties under the
EXHIBIT 2
Page 128
#:130
1 circumstances. Id at 301.
2 In this case, plaintiffs Special Interrogatory No. 1 requests ASN Warer Center, LLC to
3 provide the identity and contact information fr frmer residents that leased at the Warer Center
4 apartment community during the class period and either (1) did not receive a full refund of their
5 security deposit, or (2) were charged for costs normally retained from a security deposit. In its
6 response, ASN Warer Center, LLC objected to this request on numerous grounds, including that
7 the interrogatory sought information that is not relevant to the case and not reasonably calculated
8 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that it invaded the former residents' privacy
9 rights. ASN Warner Center, LLC, as custodian of the sought afer information, has standing to
10 assert the privacy interests of its frmer residents in the requested identifying and contact
11 information previously given to it as the landlord. See Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc., 40 Cal.4th
12 at 368 (citing Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 658).
13 Unlike the consumers in Pioneer Electronics, who had a reduced expectation of privacy
14 because they voluntarily disclosed their identifying infrmation to the company in complaints
15 seeking some relief, the former residents here have a ful expectation of privacy given that there is
16 no showing that they previously complained to ASN Warer Center, LLC. See id at 372.
17 In addition, even though arguably no serious invasion of privacy exists if the disclosure is
18 limited to plaintifs in this case (afer each frmer resident is given written notice and affrded an
19 opportunity to object to the disclosure) (see ibid., the opposing interests in support of disclosure
20 are outweighed by the former resident's privacy interests and potential fr abuse.
21 In particular, the crux of plaintiffs case is that defndants violated Civil Code section
22 1950.5 by "always" deducting amounts from resident security deposits for apartment cleaning,
23 painting and carpet cleaning regardless of the actual condition of the unit at the time of move out.
24 Plaintiff alleges that "Defndants has [sic] a systematic policy and procedure of (1) charging its
25 tenants fr apartment cleaning and painting and caret cleaning or replacement at the end of every
26 tenancy regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit; and (2) making such charges in
27 order to prepare the rental unit for the next tenancy and labeling them as "tum-over" costs. (See
28 Third Amended Complaint, if 31.)
2
EXHIBIT 2
Page 129
#:131
1 Given these allegations of a "systematic policy and procedure," plaintiff does not need
2 testimony from individual frmer residents to move for class certification. Washington Mutual
3 Bank v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 913 (plaintif must demonstrate that common
4 questions predominate); Block v. Major League Baseball (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 538, 544-45.
5 The central issue of whether or not defendants always make deductions from security deposits
6 without regard to the actual condition of any particular unit at time of move-out would have to be
7 evidenced by uniform company policy, not based on the law-witness opinion of former residents.
8 This has to be the common proof ofered up by plaintiffs. So there is no need fr former resident
9 witness testimony regarding the circumstances of individual move-outs if plaintiff is claiming a
10 systematic charge. In fct, such evidence actually undercuts the propriety of the class action
11 mechanism in this case.
12 III. CONCLUSION
13 For these reasons, plaintiff's motion should be denied in its entirety. To the extent that the
14 Court is inclined to grant plaintiff's motion, defendant respectfully requests that a proper Belaire
15 type opt out notice be sent to all former residents fr whom identification and contact infrmation
16 is sought and that the cost of providing such notice be split in half between defendant and plaintif
17 DATED: November 13, 2013 ALDRIDGE LLP
18
19
By
20
21
22
23
usw 804056126.1
24
25
26
27
28
3
EXHIBIT 2
Page 130
#:132
Telephone: 619.236.1414
5 Facsimile: 619 .232.8311
COi "ORMED COlY
ORIGINAL FILED
SuperiorC()r! OfCalifomin
(,mr(} "\fl,oA11rcle
N|Y !lU!J
.;01111 A. Clarke, Exaolitive Oficer/Clerk
By: Robin Snnch., Deputy
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF CALIFORNIA
10
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
16
17
Defendant.
Case No. BC480931
PROOF OF SERVICE
Assigned fr All Purposes to:
Dept. 307
BI
N l' J\
18 I, Geralynu D. Vidmar, declare under penalty of perjury that I am over the age of eighteen
19 years, that I am not a party to the above-referenced action, and that I am employed in the State of
21 address is 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, California 92101; telephone number (619)
22 236-1414.
24
25
1. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORTIES IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORlES
(SET ONE)
27
28
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
SAN DIICO
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 131
#:133
1
3 the above-entitled case. Upon completion of transmission of said document(s), a fling
receipt is issued to the filing party acknowledging receipt, fling and service by the
the original document(s)in our ofice.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
usw 803757570.6
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
2
SAN DIEGO
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 132
#:134
Telephone: 619.236.1414
5 Facsimile: 619 .232.8311
COi "ORMED COlY
ORIGINAL FILED
SuperiorC()r! OfCalifomin
(,mr(} "\fl,oA11rcle
N|Y !lU!J
.;01111 A. Clarke, Exaolitive Oficer/Clerk
By: Robin Snnch., Deputy
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF CALIFORNIA
10
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
16
17
Defendant.
Case No. BC480931
PROOF OF SERVICE
Assigned fr All Purposes to:
Dept. 307
BI
N l' J\
18 I, Geralynu D. Vidmar, declare under penalty of perjury that I am over the age of eighteen
19 years, that I am not a party to the above-referenced action, and that I am employed in the State of
21 address is 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600, San Diego, California 92101; telephone number (619)
22 236-1414.
24
25
1. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORTIES IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORlES
(SET ONE)
27
28
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
SAN DIICO
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 133
#:135
1
3 the above-entitled case. Upon completion of transmission of said document(s), a fling
receipt is issued to the filing party acknowledging receipt, fling and service by the
the original document(s)in our ofice.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
usw 803757570.6
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
2
SAN DIEGO
PROOF OF SERVICE

____________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ASN WARNER CENTER, LLCS MOTION TO COMPEL
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
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Facsimile: (661) 949-7524



FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL CIVIL WEST COURTHOUSE


Plaintiffs,

v.

limited liability corporation, and ASN
LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC, a

Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. BC480931

CLASS ACTION

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLCS MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Time: 2:30 p.m.
Dept.: 307

[Assigned for All Purposes to the Honorable
William F. Highberger, Department 307]

J ury Trial Date: None Set

)
54556550
Nov132013
05:11PM
EXHIBIT 2
Page 134
#:136

1
____________________________________________________________________________
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 1, 2013, the court held a joint discovery conference to discuss the parties
relative positions on Plaintiff Vagles and Defendant ASN Warner Center, LLCs (Defendant)
motions to compel further responses to discovery. Although progress was made, several items
remain disputed between the parties. The court therefore lifted the stay on the briefing for these
motions, and scheduled a hearing for November 25, 2013.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Form Interrogatory 12.1.
During the conference, the court interpreted the word incident in Defendants Form
Interrogatories to just include Plaintiff Vagles personal experience at Archstone Warner Center.
Therefore, the court held that Plaintiff Vagle had adequately responded to Form Interrogatory
12.1. However, to the extent Defendant sought the identification of percipient witnesses known
to Plaintiff Vagle beyond her personal experience at Archstone Warner Center (i.e., witnesses
related to the class as a whole), the court gave Defendant permission to serve Plaintiff Vagle with
special interrogatives on the subject and ordered her to respond to any such interrogatories within
10 days.
1. To Date, Plaintiff Has Not Been Served With Additional Special
Interrogatories.
To date, Plaintiff has not been served with additional special interrogatories by Defendant.
Therefore, to the extent Defendant seeks the information it originally moved to compel, the issue
is not yet ripe for adjudication, and Plaintiff Vagle has not been given the opportunity to object
and/or respond to these yet-to-be served interrogatories.
2. In Any Event, the Specific Identities of Tenants, Employees, or
Third-Party Vendors That Plaintiff Vagle and Her Counsel
Tracked Down Is Privileged.
In any event, even under Defendants interpretation, Plaintiff Vagle adequately
responded to Form Interrogatory 12.1. She identified herself, the Archstone employees she
EXHIBIT 2
Page 135
#:137

2
____________________________________________________________________________
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
personally dealt with, and the third-party vendors identified on her invoices. Also, since she
always intended this class action to encompass all Archstone apartment complexes in
California, she took an expansive reading of the term incident and further identified as
percipient witnesses [a]ny tenant, employee, or third-party vendor at any of these other
apartment complexes. Plaintiff Vagle cannot be expected to identify these potential witnesses
with any more specificity. Unlike Defendants, she does not have access to Defendants
business records, which is presumably is where this identifying information is located. (See
Cal. Code Civ. P., 2030.22, subd. (c) [a party has no duty to obtain information that is
equally available to the propounding party].) Since she doesnt have this information, she
can only identify these potential witnesses generally.
Plaintiff Vagle is also not required to identify the tenants, employees, or third-party
vendors that her attorneys tracked down and located for purposes of this litigation. The
California Supreme Court in Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480 (Coito) explained
that, although attorney communications are not per se work product, such communications are
protected when they reveal the attorneys tactics, impressions or evaluation of the case. (Id.
at pp. 486, 502.) For example, if a party performs only a limited number of possible
interviews, disclosure of [these interviews] may well indicate the attorneys evaluation or
conclusion as to [the value of those interviewed individuals]. (Id. at 501.) Moreover, if a
party devoted significant effort to track[ ] down individuals, revealing their identities would
allow the other party to gain valuable information by free-riding on the attorneys
identification of the most salient witnesses. (Ibid.) In fact, the only situation in which Coito
stated that this information might not be protected is when an attorney has sought to take
recorded statements from all or almost all the known witnesses. (Id. at p. 502, italics added;
see also Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214, 217
[Compelled production of a list of potential witnesses interviewed by opposing counsel would
necessarily reflect counsels evaluation of the case by revealing which witnesses or persons
who claimed knowledge of the incident . . . counsel deemed important enough to interview].)
EXHIBIT 2
Page 136
#:138

3
____________________________________________________________________________
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
This case is identical to the hypotheticals described by Coito. Despite being requested to
do so, Defendant has not provided Plaintiff Vagle with the class contact list. Therefore,
Plaintiffs counsel has had to [devote] significant effort to [track] down potential witnesses
and make an independent judgment as to whether to take their statements. (Coito, supra, 54
Cal.4th at 501.) Due to the size of the class, Plaintiff Vagles attorneys have almost certainly
not spoken to all of the putative class members. To make matters worse, Defendants
presumably have the contact information of its ex-tenants, employees, and third-party
vendorsand could easily contact these percipient witnesses themselves. Accordingly, Plaintiff
Vagle should not be compelled to disclose the specific identities of percipient witnesses that her
and her attorneys tracked down.
B. Form Interrogatory 17.1
Additionally, Plaintiff Vagle is not required to provide any more detail to its responses
to Form Interrogatory 17.1. Plaintiff Vagle specifically stated that she completed all the
necessary items on Defendants move-out checklist (attached hereto as Exhibit A), which
Defendant stated would entitle her to receive a full refund of her security deposit. Defendants
move-out checklist is a comprehensive detailed list of cleaning activities that Defendant
expected Plaintiff Vagle to perform. This is not a legal conclusion, it is a fact.
Nevertheless, in an effort to avoid this courts intervention, Plaintiff Vagle will provide
supplemental responses that provide a reasonable amount of additional information. To the
extent Defendant still considers that response to be insufficient, Plaintiff Vagle suggests that
Defendant should either serve a specific interrogatory and/or notice her deposition.
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
EXHIBIT 2
Page 137
#:139

4
____________________________________________________________________________
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
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court deny Defendants
motion to compel further discovery responses.

Date: November 13, 2013 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM

By: _____________________________
John M. Bickford
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
the Putative Class

EXHIBIT 2
Page 138
#:140
EXHIBIT 2
Page 139
#:141
EXHIBIT 2
Page 140
#:142

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
PROOF OF SERVICE

th
Street West,

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ASN WARNER CENTER, LLCS
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

below on this date.

set forth below.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at Lancaster, addressed as set forth
below.

below on this date.


Serve on all parties appearing on LexisNexis File & Serve service list as well as via E-Mail
directly to the following:

Telephone: (619) 233-2960
Facsimile: (619) 744-3682



EXHIBIT 2
Page 141
#:143
EXHIBIT 2
Page 142
#:144
1 CHRISTOPHERJ. HEALEY (SBN 105798)
jsingh@mckemmlong.com
Telephone: 619.236.1414
5 Facsimile: 619 .232.8311
6 Attorneys for Defendant
7
CONFORMED COPY
ORl<il_NAL FILED
Supl'rn1 Court Of Cntifrnia
County Of l.os Aoillcs
NOV 0 8 2013
.John A. Clarke, Executive Oficer/Clerk
By: Robin
Sanchez, Deputy
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE
Plaintifs,
v.
Delaware limited liability corporation,
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, a
ASN LONG BEACH HARBOR, LLC, a
DOES I through 100, inclusive;
Defendants.
Case No. BC480931
NOTICE OF RULINGS FROM JOINT
STATUS CONFERENCE
Dept. 307
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
SAN DIEGO
NOTICE OF RULINGS FROM JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 143
#:145
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on November 1, 2013, at the joint status confrence,
3 the Court heard the
p
ositions of the
p
arties on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses
4 to Requests fr Admission (Set One), Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Requests fr
5 Production of Documents (Set One), Motion to Compel Further Responses to Fonn
6 Interrogatories (Set One), and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special
7 Interrogatories (Set One), and Defndant's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Reponses.
8 Afer hearing the positions of the parties, the Court made the following rulings:
9 (1) On Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
10 (Set One) the Court set the fllowing briefng schedule on Special Interrogatory No. 1:
11 Defendant's opposition brief is due by November 13, 2013, Plaintiffs reply brief is due by
12 November 21, 2013; with the hearing set fr November 25, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. Subject to the
13 fll briefng of the parties, the Court stated that it is inclined to allow discovery under
14
Special Interrogatory No. 1 with the use of a Belaire type opt-out notice where the parties
15 split the cost in half of providing this notice.
16 As to Special Interrogatories Nos. 2-17 and 22, the Court ruled that this discovery
17 dispute item was resolved based on Defndant's production of MRI data.
18 As to Special Interrogatories Nos. 73-75, the Court acknowledged that Plaintif has
19 agreed to withdraw these discovery items.
20 As to Special Interrogatories Nos. 18-12, 24, 26, 28-30, 31-34, 36-40, 54, 57, 60, 63,
21 65, 66-72, 7 6, the Court acknowledged the discovery agreements reached by the parties as
22 set forth in the Joint Status Report, dated October 28, 2013, attached as Exhibit A.
23 (2) As to Form Interogatories Nos. 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1, the Court acknowledged the
24 discovery agreements reached by the parties as set frth in the Joint Status Report, dated
25 October 28, 2013.
26 (3) As to Requests fr Admission Nos. 1-10, the Court acknowledged the discovery
27 agreements reached by the parties as set forth in the Joint Status Report, dated October 28,
28 2013.
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
SAN DIEGO
1
NOTICE OF RULINGS FROM STATUS CONFERENCE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 144
#:146
1 (4) As to Requests fr Production Nos. 2-5, the Court acknowledged the discovery
2 agreements reached by the parties as set frth in the Joint Status Report, dated October 28,
3
2013.
4
(5) On Defndant's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Reponses the Court ruled
5 as fllows:
6 (a) As to For Interogatory No. 12.1, the Court stated that it is inclined to
7
allow this discovery but in the fonn of special interogatories that do not use the term
8 "incident." The Court ordered Plaintif to serve Defndant with written responses to such
9
special interrogatories within 10 days of service.
10 (b) As to Form Interogatory No. 17.1 as it relates to Requests for Admission
11
Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, the Court stated that it is inclined to allow this discovery and
12 requested that Plaintif supplement her response with additional fcts. To the extent that
13 Plaintif refses to supplement her discovery responses, the Court set this item for hearing
14
on November 25, 2013 at 2:30 p.m., with the same briefng schedule for opposition and
15
reply briefs as set forth above.
16 In addition, on Plaintiffs Motion to File Confdential Documents Under Seal, the
1 7
Court denied the motion without prejudice. The Court also set a frther status conference
18 for November 25, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
19
20 DATED: November 8, 2013
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
SAN DIEGO
usw 804043743.l
2
NOTICE OF RULINGS FROM STATUS CONFERENCE
EXHIBIT 2
Page 145
#:147
EXHIBIT 2
Page 146
#:148

Vagle V Archstone Communities Carpet Painting Security Deposit Cleaning Lawsuit PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Vagle V Archstone Communities Carpet Painting Security Deposit Cleaning Lawsuit PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Exhibit 2

ttridge Street, Woodland Hills, Califoria 91303, and referenced in

oration, ASN William F. Highberger, Department 307]

Anda mungkin juga menyukai