---
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
---
CASE NO.: ________________
JOSE SEGURA, an individual; [OWNER 2]; [OWNER 3]; [OWNER 4]; [OWNER 5]; [OWNER 6]; [OWNER 7]; [OWNER 8]; [OWNER 9],
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNIAPPARTMENT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation; CALIFORNIA HOA SOLUTIONS LLC, a California limited liability company; JOSHUA OCHOA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
---
1. Breach of CC&Rs (Governing Documents) 2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 3. Negligence 4. Gross Negligence 5. Continuing Private Nuisance (Civil Code §3479) 6. Violation of Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civil Code §4775) 7. Violation of Health & Safety Code §17920.3 8. Declaratory Relief 9. Injunctive Relief
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
---
1. This action arises from the Uniappartment Homeowners Association's deliberate and prolonged refusal to repair a leaking roof — a common area under the Association's exclusive control — that has caused severe mold contamination, property damage, and health hazards in at least nine residential condominium units. The Association has known about this problem for over a year. It has received formal maintenance requests. Its own governing documents — the CC&Rs — and California law unambiguously require it to maintain the building exterior, including the roof. Yet the Association has done nothing.
2. Instead of fulfilling its legal obligations, the Association held a vote on a special assessment to fund roof repairs. Twenty owners whose units are unaffected voted against the assessment. Nine owners whose units are being destroyed by mold voted in favor. The majority chose their wallets over their neighbors' health.
3. But a vote cannot override the law. Under California Civil Code §4775, the Association's duty to maintain common areas is mandatory and non-discretionary. Under Civil Code §5610(a)(2), the Board has express authority to levy emergency assessments without any member vote when a threat to personal health or safety is discovered. The Board has chosen not to exercise this authority. Under Health & Safety Code §17920.3, visible mold growth constitutes a substandard building condition that endangers occupants.
4. As a direct result of the Association's inaction, Plaintiff Jose Segura's unit has been documented — by a certified laboratory — to contain Aspergillus/Penicillium mold spores at more than three times the outdoor baseline level. His tenant has vacated. He is paying a mortgage on a property he cannot rent or safely inhabit. The mold cannot be remediated until the roof is fixed. The roof will not be fixed until the Association acts. The Association refuses to act.
5. This is not a close call. This is a textbook breach of CC&Rs, a textbook breach of fiduciary duty, and a textbook continuing nuisance. Plaintiffs bring this action to compel the Association to fulfill its legal obligations, to recover the damages they have suffered, and to protect the health and safety of the residents of this building.
---
6. Plaintiff JOSE SEGURA is an individual and the owner of Unit 208 at 15516 Nordhoff Street, North Hills, California 91364, within the Uniappartment Homeowners Association common interest development. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Segura has been a member in good standing of the Association, current on all assessments, and a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
7. Plaintiffs [OWNERS 2-9] are individuals and owners of Units [NUMBERS] at 15516 Nordhoff Street, North Hills, California 91364, within the same common interest development. At all relevant times, these Plaintiffs have been members in good standing of the Association, current on all assessments, and residents of Los Angeles County, California. [TO BE COMPLETED UPON JOINDER OF CO-PLAINTIFFS]
8. Defendant UNIAPPARTMENT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ("the Association") is a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civil Code §4000 et seq.). The Association is responsible for the management, maintenance, repair, and replacement of all common areas of the condominium development located at 15516 Nordhoff Street, North Hills, California 91364.
9. Defendant CALIFORNIA HOA SOLUTIONS LLC ("the Management Company") is a California limited liability company that serves as the Association's professional property management agent. At all relevant times, the Management Company was responsible for the day-to-day management of the common interest development, including receiving and responding to maintenance requests, coordinating repairs, and advising the Board of Directors on maintenance obligations.
10. Defendant JOSHUA OCHOA is an individual who serves as the General Manager of California HOA Solutions LLC and the property manager for the Uniappartment Homeowners Association. At all relevant times, Ochoa was the primary point of contact for owners regarding maintenance requests and was personally aware of the roof leak and mold conditions.
11. The true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 50 are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to state their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the events and occurrences alleged herein, including but not limited to individual members of the Board of Directors who voted against emergency roof repairs while knowing about the mold contamination.
---
12. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution, Article VI, §10, and Code of Civil Procedure §§85-86, as the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Superior Court.
13. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §392 (real property actions), §395 (defendant's principal place of business), and §395.5 (corporate defendants). The common interest development is located in Los Angeles County, the injuries occurred in Los Angeles County, and the defendants reside and/or conduct business in Los Angeles County.
---
14. The Uniappartment Homeowners Association is a common interest development consisting of twenty-nine (29) condominium units located at 15516 Nordhoff Street, North Hills, California 91364.
15. The development is governed by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs"), Bylaws, and Rules, which constitute the governing documents of the Association as defined by Civil Code §4150.
16. The CC&Rs expressly assign to the Association the exclusive responsibility for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the common areas of the development, including the building exterior and the roof. Individual unit owners are expressly prohibited from altering, repairing, or modifying common area components. The affected owners cannot fix the roof themselves even if they wanted to.
17. The roof of the building at 15516 Nordhoff Street is a common area as defined by Civil Code §4095 and as designated in the CC&Rs.
18. For a period of at least one year, and upon information and belief for substantially longer, the roof of the building has been leaking. Water infiltrates the building structure every time it rains, entering at least nine (9) of the twenty-nine (29) units in the building.
19. The water intrusion is not from a sudden or isolated event. It is a chronic, recurring condition caused by the deterioration of the roof — a common area component that the Association is legally obligated to maintain.
20. On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff Segura submitted a formal maintenance request to Joshua Ochoa at California HOA Solutions LLC, documenting that "ceiling leakage has gotten much worse over the year" and that "mold has built up and is becoming a health hazard." Plaintiff Segura included photographs of the visible mold growth. The property manager acknowledged receipt but no meaningful repairs were authorized or performed.
21. On April 27, 2025, Plaintiff Segura retained LA Testing, a certified environmental testing laboratory (AIHA LAP, LLC-EMLAP Accredited #102814), to conduct professional indoor air quality testing of Unit 208.
22. The test results, reported on May 1, 2025 (EMSL Order #322508477, Lab Sample Numbers 322508477-0001 and 322508477-0002), revealed:
23. The laboratory classified the indoor results as positive for mold contamination, with the indoor spore levels significantly elevated above the outdoor baseline. Aspergillus/Penicillium dominance at 82.3% of the indoor spore load indicates active indoor water damage and mold colonization, not normal environmental background levels.
24. Aspergillus and Penicillium species are recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and the California Department of Public Health as potential causes of serious health effects including respiratory infections, allergic reactions, asthma exacerbation, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and in immunocompromised individuals, invasive aspergillosis.
25. On May 1, 2025, Mold & Water Damage Specialist Inc. provided Remediation Estimate #337 for the mold cleanup of Unit 208, totaling $1,862.30.
26. The remediation company stated unequivocally that "THE ROOF MUST BE COMPLETELY REPAIRED BEFORE THE MOLD REMEDIATION CLEAN-UP STARTS." This is standard practice in the mold remediation industry: remediating mold while the water source remains active is futile, as the mold will immediately return.
27. Additionally, the remediation company noted that the HVAC closet insulation appeared contaminated and recommended testing for both mold and asbestos-containing materials before any remediation work could begin. Asbestos testing was subsequently performed in January-February 2026 at a cost of $330 to Plaintiff Segura. Results are pending.
28. The Association's failure to repair the roof has thus created an impossible situation for the affected owners: they cannot remediate the mold until the roof is fixed, they cannot fix the roof themselves (the CC&Rs prohibit it), and the Association refuses to fix the roof. The owners are trapped in a cycle of escalating damage with no recourse except legal action.
29. At a meeting of the Association's membership, a vote was held on a special assessment to fund roof repairs. The vote failed 20-9, with twenty (20) owners of unaffected units voting against the assessment and nine (9) owners of affected units voting in favor.
30. Following the failed vote, the Board of Directors took no further action to address the roof leak or the resulting mold contamination. The Board did not:
31. The Board's inaction is not the product of a deliberative process. It is abdication. The Board has multiple tools available to fund and authorize the necessary repairs without a membership vote. It has chosen to use none of them.
32. As a direct and proximate result of the Association's failure to maintain the roof, Plaintiff Segura has suffered:
33. The other Plaintiffs have suffered similar damages in varying degrees.
---
34. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 as though fully set forth herein.
35. The CC&Rs of the Uniappartment Homeowners Association constitute a binding contract between the Association and each owner, enforceable as an equitable servitude running with the land. Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361.
36. The CC&Rs expressly require the Association to maintain, repair, and replace the common areas of the development, including the building exterior and roof.
37. Plaintiffs have performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on their part, including payment of all assessments.
38. The Association has breached the CC&Rs by failing and refusing to repair the roof despite actual knowledge of the chronic leak and the resulting mold contamination.
39. As a direct and proximate result of this breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages as alleged herein.
40. Pursuant to Civil Code §5975(c), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing parties in this action to enforce the governing documents.
---
41. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 40 as though fully set forth herein.
42. The Board of Directors of the Association owes fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and good faith to all members of the Association, including Plaintiffs. California Corporations Code §7231; Civil Code §5231.
43. The Board breached its fiduciary duties by:
44. The Board's conduct was not the product of reasonable investigation or good faith deliberation. It was inaction. Under Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande HOA (2025) and Affan v. Portofino Cove HOA (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 930, the business judgment rule does not shield boards that fail to investigate, fail to act, or act in bad faith.
45. As a direct and proximate result of this breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages as alleged herein.
---
46. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 as though fully set forth herein.
47. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs to maintain the common areas of the development in a safe and habitable condition. This duty arises from the CC&Rs, the Davis-Stirling Act (Civil Code §4775), and the general duty of care under California law.
48. Defendants breached this duty by failing to repair the roof despite actual knowledge that the roof was leaking, that the leaks were causing mold growth, and that the mold constituted a health hazard.
49. Defendants' breach was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' damages, including property damage, lost rental income, health effects, and emotional distress.
50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered damages as alleged herein.
---
51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 50 as though fully set forth herein.
52. The conduct of Defendants constitutes gross negligence — "the want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct." City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 754.
53. Defendants' conduct demonstrates conscious indifference to the consequences of their inaction:
54. Under Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande HOA (2025), an HOA's prolonged failure to investigate and remediate water intrusion and mold, despite expert warnings and owner complaints, constitutes gross negligence sufficient to support punitive damages and to defeat exculpation clauses in the CC&Rs.
55. Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages under Civil Code §3294 for Defendants' oppression and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights and safety.
---
56. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 55 as though fully set forth herein.
57. Civil Code §3479 defines a nuisance as "anything which is injurious to health...or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property."
58. The mold contamination in Plaintiffs' units, caused by the Association's failure to maintain the common area roof, constitutes a private nuisance. It is injurious to health, offensive to the senses, obstructs the free use of Plaintiffs' property, and interferes with Plaintiffs' comfortable enjoyment of their homes.
59. This nuisance is continuing rather than permanent, because:
60. As a continuing nuisance, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for each period the nuisance persists, and the statute of limitations does not bar claims for recent or ongoing damage. CACI 2030; Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985) 39 Cal.3d 862.
61. Plaintiffs are further entitled to injunctive relief ordering abatement of the nuisance.
---
62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 61 as though fully set forth herein.
63. Civil Code §4775(a)(1) imposes a mandatory duty on the Association to "repair, replace, and maintain the common area." The roof is a common area. The Association has failed to repair, replace, or maintain the roof. This constitutes a violation of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act.
64. Pursuant to Civil Code §5975, Plaintiffs are entitled to enforce the governing documents and the provisions of the Davis-Stirling Act through this action, and to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing parties.
---
65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 64 as though fully set forth herein.
66. Health & Safety Code §17920.3 provides that visible mold growth that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants constitutes a substandard building condition.
67. The laboratory-confirmed mold growth in Plaintiffs' units — Aspergillus/Penicillium at three times baseline — constitutes visible mold growth endangering the health and safety of occupants.
68. The Association and its management company have allowed this substandard condition to persist despite actual knowledge.
69. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, injunctive relief, and any other remedies available under the Health and Safety Code.
---
70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 as though fully set forth herein.
71. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and the Association regarding:
72. Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that:
---
73. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 72 as though fully set forth herein.
74. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Monetary damages alone cannot compensate Plaintiffs because the mold contamination is ongoing and will continue to worsen until the roof is repaired. Each day of delay causes additional property damage, health exposure, and financial loss.
75. Plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction ordering:
---
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. Compensatory damages for property damage, lost rental income, mortgage payments, testing costs, remediation costs, diminished property value, medical expenses, and other economic losses, in an amount to be proven at trial;
2. General damages for emotional distress, loss of use and enjoyment of property, and other non-economic losses, in an amount to be proven at trial;
3. Punitive damages under Civil Code §3294 for Defendants' oppression, fraud, and/or conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights and safety, in an amount sufficient to punish and deter;
4. Mandatory injunctive relief ordering the Association to immediately repair the roof, remediate all mold, and test for and abate any asbestos;
5. Declaratory relief establishing the Association's mandatory maintenance obligations;
6. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code §5975(c), the CC&Rs, and any other applicable provision;
7. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
8. Costs of suit incurred herein; and
9. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
---
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
---
Dated: _______________
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________ JOSE SEGURA, Pro Se or [ATTORNEY NAME, SBN] Plaintiff 15516 Nordhoff St, #208 North Hills, CA 91364 segura.jose5@yahoo.com
---
Note: This complaint is a template prepared for consulting purposes. It should be reviewed, customized, and filed by a licensed California attorney. Additional causes of action (constructive fraud, intentional interference with economic advantage, violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act) may be appropriate depending on further investigation. Co-plaintiff information to be added upon joinder.