Filed 12/11/20 Cardamon v. Dominion Courtyard Villas CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TERESE CARDAMON et al., F076760 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 16CECG01918) v. DOMINION COURTYARD VILLAS et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Rosemary T. McGuire, Judge. Gilmore, Magness Janisse and Tyler H. Lester; Law Offices of Mark Schallert and Mark Schallert; Law Offices of David Douglas Doyle and David Douglas Doyle for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, Howard Alan Sagaser, Ian B. Wieland, and Allie E. Wieland for Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Plaintiffs Terese and Nicholas Cardamon appeal from the Fresno County Superior Court’s October 13, 2017 order denying their motion for class certification. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Between March 27, 2015, and March 25, 2016, plaintiffs rented an apartment at Dominion Courtyard Villas (Dominion), one of nine residential complexes in or around Fresno County operated and/or managed by defendants.1 Thereafter, defendants assessed various charges against plaintiffs’ security deposit “to restore [the] apartment unit” (boldface & capitalization omitted), such as $104.30 for “[c]leaning [m]aterial and [l]abor,” $174.52 for “[p]ainting [l]abor and [m]aterial,” and $1,782.80 for “[p]ad & [c]arpet [r]eplacement [p]et [d]amage,” inter alia. The costs were detailed in a “Resident Request Form” (boldface & some capitalization omitted), a standardized three-page document. Each charge included a 40 percent administrative fee. In the operative complaint filed on July 28, 2016, plaintiffs alleged defendants violated Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. and Civil Code section 1950.5 by imposing the 40 percent administrative fee. They sought to represent themselves “and all other individuals who have rented, or were renting, apartment units managed or owned by defendants, in which defendants applied [said] fee on costs being deducted from security deposits when these individuals vacated the units . . . , at any time during the four years preceding the filing of this action, and continuing while this action is pending . . . .” On May 15, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The class was defined as “ ‘[a]ll tenants who rented residential units through and/or from defendants 1 Defendants are Dominion; Scott Ellis Enterprises, LLC; Scott Ellis Enterprises, L.P.; Barcelona Apartments; Casa Del Rio Apartments; Dartmouth Tower Apartments; Oxford Park Apartments; Reef Apartments; Scottsmen Apartments; Scottsmen Too Apartments; Villa Faria Apartments; Cedar Shepherd, L.P.; and Scott C. Ellis, LLC. 2. from June 15, 2012, through the effective date determined by the [superior] [c]ourt, from wh[om] a 40[ percent] “administrative fee” or “markup” was charged on costs deducted from the security deposit . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals