Age 13 raising little brother Frankie; age 17 raising disabled little sister Beth with Mother

COMPLAINANTS’ MEDIATION BRIEF

CONFIDENTIAL
BERNSTEIN VS. MEADOW BROOK VILLAGE HOA - FREMONT
DFEH CASE NUMBER: 201810-03850210
HUD CASE NUMBER: 09-19-4260-8
ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. HG18897381
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CASE NO. PIU 806129

MEDIATOR: ELISE CHU

MEDIATION: JANUARY 24, 2019
TIME: 10:30 A.M.

COMPLAINANTS INCORPORATE COMPLAINTS AND ANY OTHER

DOCUMENTATION FILED INTO THIS MEDIATION BRIEF IN THESE
MATTERS – MEDICAL RECORDS, DOCTORS DECLARATIONS, NEIGHBOR
DECLARATIONS. AT THE REQUEST OF RESPONDENTS FOR ALL
CLAIMS TO BE MEDIATED JANUARY 24 2019.

0i
 I. INTRODUCTION
Prior to litigation 2016, President HOA Susan Condio Hernandez and
Massingham/Associa were made aware of my disabilities request for reasonable
accomodations pool Post litigation everybody knows about my disabilities. The only HOA
Board member I interacted with was Susan Condio of old board prior to 2018. Susan
repeatedly would not accommodate reasonable accommodations stated that I needed to join a
country club like she did if I wanted to utilize a pool yearly. Padlocks were placed on pools
and opened sporadically. Repeatedly in 2016, 2017 without notice pools would be locked
including in the summer. Winter 2016 the pool had a notice that stated that the pools
including hot tubs were closed for the winter.
Upon the appointment of a new Board in April 2018 that promised if elected to eliminate
the special/emergency assessments and accommodate the pool with heating, operable year
round, the abuse and denials only escalated going forward increasing emotional distress
towards Complainant. Instead of a Queenpin President Susan Condio Hernandez, a
figurehead was elected Amy DeJesus that deceived the voters. The plan all along was for
Amy DeJesus to poise as the new President elected and resign after a couple of months for
Kingpin Mike Durbin to be appointed by the Kingmakers. Tribute is to be paid for the
additional stress by Respondents and tenants increased harassment diligently throwing cogs in
the wheel of the due process machinery pursuing investigation and questioning monthly
assessments, reserve fund lack of funding, misappropriation, failure to allocate and breach of
fiduciary duty. At a minimum gross incompetence, breach of fiduciary duty; at maximum
and likely, criminal conduct, embezzlement.
Four matters pending including foreclosure despite Complainants never missing an assessment
payment falling into delinquency. A deceased former homeowner Oswald Paul San Miguel
and his domestic partner were targeted in 2009. A HUD complaint was filed by disabled
kidney failure Paul and his partner Jeffrey Sheanon with brain damage. No handicap
parking ever instituted in Meadow Brook, indifference to disabled. Jeffrey Sheanon despite
bearing handicap placard in vehicle, the HOA Board with then Susan Condio Hernandez
had the vehicle towed, constant violations harassment notices sent to this couple. Despite Paul
recuperating, attempting to correct arrears assessment payments, bankruptcy the unit was
auctioned. The HOA President Jerry Cosentino suffering terminal illness was undermined
when receiving treatment, loans undertaken out of state by Vice President then Susan Condio
Hernandez. Susan Condio Hernandez and Charlie West are the two longest standing
HOA Board members which are responsible based on their decisions, actions for the present
condition of the property.

1
FOUR ACTIONS:
Foreclosure Proceedings Against Bernstein Berding Weil Firm
HUD DFEH McNamara firm
Alameda County Superior Court Hartsinger Firm
Department of Justice McNamara Firm
Exactly one year ago today, January 24, 2018, a special meeting held wherein 2/3r vote
against Special/Emergency Assessment. This is one year to the day after the special election January
24 2018 wherein the HOA attorney Richard Fong said despite 2/3 vote by homeowners against
assessment, Richard Fong stated the emergency assessment is coming April 2018 to all of you even
though you voted against special assessment. In April 2018, Mary Bernstein, wife to John L.
Bernstein, III and mother to John L. Bernstein, IV, all owners and residents at 3416 Deerwood
Terrace, #113, Fremont, California 94536, began enduring quid pro quo proposals from HOA
President Mike Durbin and encountering a hostile environment in the community. Mary Bernstein
was vilified for challenging and investigating the actions leading to the current state of the property
and the need for emergency assessments when homeowners pay large sums monthy.

II. PARTIES
A. Complainants

John and Mary Bernstein married since April 1992. Mary was a paralegal. John is logistics
and livery professional. The property has been in the Bernstein family since 1986.

Defendant Meadow Brook Village Association HOA Fremont

Meadow Brook Village Association is the Homeowners Association. The HOA Boards
previously elected are responsible for pre litigation filing violations and actions. The HOA newly
elected board April 2018 is responsible for violations occurring post HG18897381 filing.

Defendant Associa Massingham Property Management Firm

Massingham/Associa is the property management firm for the parameter of time concerning
the lawsuit HG18897381. Common Interest is the property management firm responsible for post
filing litigation harassment issues.

III. FACTS
A. Background

John Bernstein was born in San Jose, California. Mary Bernstein was born in Des Moines,
Iowa. This case arises out of a breach of fiduciary duties owed to homeowners by the Meadow
Brook Village Homeowners Association and property management firm Massingham/Associa. As a

2
result of negligence and HOA abuses towards disabled plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered extreme
emotional distress.

Plaintiffs complaint alleges that: This case involves breach of contractual obligations on the
part of the Defendants. Plaintiff fulfilled and is still fulfilling monthly payment obligation has never
been delinquent. However due to mismanagement, inability to allocate funds, the property is in
shambles resulting in outrageous “emergency” assessments. These photos of the outside perimeter
depict the years of neglect even with the very basic landscaping. The Defendants were aware of dry
rot since 2002 and these things ignored to the detriment of the property. Now Defendants HOA
Meadowbrook seek to punish and assessment indefinitely innocent homeowners that did nothing
but fulfill their contractual obligations while the Defendants breached fiduciary duties. Performance
of contractual obligations was breached. A contract is breached (broken) when either one or both
parties fails to perform as promised in the contract. A breach may occur when a party ... prevents
the other party from performing its obligations under the contract. Due to Defendants failure to
maintain the property, plaintiffs cannot meet astronomical levied assessments. Due to failure to
reasonably accommodate disabled plaintiff heating pool, plaintiff cannot fulfill obligation to enjoy
the facilities she pays for monthly.

B. Denial of Reasonable Accommodations

What incidents indicate discrimination based on disability? Please provide dates for each
incident. The pool lack of accessibility providing some owners with keys others were denied keys to
the padlocks last incident April 2018. Despite repeated requests this was denied for a long time.
The truck we rented vandalized and the new Board stating that I am responsible for the conditions
the property is in all these years and that they cannot sell. Placing all of this blame on me directing
hostilities to me. I have received hate messages delivered to my door subsequently to drop my
lawsuit.

What major life activities are impaired by your disabilities? PTSD makes me triggered, personality
issues. I am prescribed medications as well as physical activities, art to manage, cope. How does
the respondent know about them?
There is an ongoing lawsuit right now in Alameda County Superior Court – Bernstein vs. Associa, et
al. HG18897381 which states my disabilities. Before that discrimination against the pool occurring
verbally made known to then President of the HOA Board and the property management Associa
for several years.

What did you request as a reasonable accommodation to your disabilities? I requested during my
lawsuit for protective order as well as prior to verbally. When? If in writing, please provide copy.
Did you support your request with medical verification from your doctor? I was not requested to
present medical information to the HOA Board or property manager. When? I suffer from many
disorders and receive social security disability. I have many health issues physical plantar facitis,
clinical depression, complex PTSD, bipolar 1, ADHD, anxiety. Please provide copy. I have doctors
verifications concerning the pool. I am under constant treatment for my disorders. My doctors will
provide verifications as requested.

3
 C. The Emergency Assessment

I am a disabled, female owner in the common interest development located in Fremont

California known as Meadow Brook Village at the intersection of Paseo Padre and Thornton. I have
filed a lawsuit for emotional distress and breach of fiduciary duty against the HOA Board and the
property management firm Massingham & Associates Management, Inc. dba Associa Northern
California. The lawsuit proceedings jurisdiction and venue is Alameda County, Alameda County
Superior Court Case No. HG18897381, Bernstein vs. Associa, et al.

As a result of this lawsuit, the HOA Board has subjected me to constant harassment and created a
hostile environment. This hostility climaxed in vehicular vandalism as well as hate mail delivered to
my doorstep by anonymous mail demanding I drop my lawsuit. A Police report Number 180718411
has been filed and signed approved by William Gourley Badge Number 13531. By exercising my
rights to investigate the lack of funding and outrageous assessments levied against hard working
residential and investment property owners, I have endured constant harassment. Despite the HOA
Board’s knowledge of my disability status, abuse attempts at manipulation when I am at the pool or
step outside my home have escalated. The irony is that the previous board, and this new board
members had filed lawsuits as well but seem to believe that they wield power over myself and that I
must defer to them as to this lawsuit. Since complaint filed additional emotional distress:

1. Board members, residents constantly pestering me at pool or anywhere to dismiss complaint

2. Hate mail anonymous calling me names, pressuring me to dismiss complaint
3. Vehicular vandalism
4. HOA Board stating at general sessions that I am the one holding up the repairs despite the
fact that there were 10 other litigants that filed actions
5. “Accidentally” the HOA/property manager not advising the fire protection service of my
PTSD, disability condition so that they would arrive early, unannounced to trigger my conditions on
June 28

A fraud was perpetrated regarding reserves, assessments leaving us in a situation causing severe
stress. I am disabled and have received several threatening notices calling me stupid, demanding I
drop my case attacking my psychological disabilities PTSD, ADHD & Bipolar 1. This has created a
hostile environment for me as I am disabled, cannot go elsewhere. When my husband and son go
to work I am particularly anxiety ridden feeling vulnerable due to this environment. Neighbors
advised me that at the general session for board meetings the Board is directing hostility stating that
I am responsible for the lack of repairs and the conditions that are occurring rather than the
embezzlement or incompetence of the Board that created this situation.

On July 14 the rental truck that we rented was covered with smeared fecal matter and another
substance. I had taken photos and washed the vehicle. I believe that this is either the current and
former board members as they have been pressuring me, the most vocal to dismiss my lawsuit.
Again, the irony is that these current and former board members themselves filed suit. I filed the
Quid Pro Complaint online but am following up with you Secretary Ben Carson. A disabled person
is particularly vulnerable to abuses by HOA Boards and third parties. Please process this complaint
and contact me as the harassment is escalating and I am frightened. The HOA Board is creating a

4
dangerous and hostile environment for my family. I obtained PTSD during and after attending the
University of Phoenix due to traumatic encounters. The consistent, repetitious unwelcome demands
and intimidation that I drop my lawsuit constitutes harassment and abuse. I have an attorney, legal
representation and these Board members should not be attempting to manipulate a disabled citizen.
The pool use is part of my medical treatment for my conditions and I should not have to feel
trepidation, anxiety when I utilize.
We pay excessive HOA monthly fees as it is and have never been behind. Despite this issue, the
HOA board was ineffectual either embezzled the funds or did not know how to appropriate funds
which landed us in the deficiency.

D. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The below photographs illustrate the breach of fiduciary duty by Respondents. Leonard
Powell Manager City of Fremont stated this is the worst property ever seen and no
comparable nuisance, abatement order. A picture is worth 1,000 words.

5
 Susan Condio Hernandez selected this particular property management firm Common
Interest prior to a new election. Naturally, the deposed Queen would select a property
management firm to protect her interests. Likewise, the Farmers Insurance Police
purchased was “retroactive” to 2013 and also put into place right before the new election
in 2018. These measures were done to throw cogs in the wheels of investigations into
what occurred with lack of funds and stonewall litigation efforts.

It is interesting that the new Board member President Mike Durbin did not elect to put in
place their own selection of property management firm which reinforces the idea that the
new Board is/was merely a smoke screen to placate the residents for the old Board
members as nothing has changed at all. Changes were the driving force for the election
and selection of new Board members for the community of Meadow Brook.

Outside graffiti perimeter for 2 years now 1/18/2019

6
Outside of perimeter of Meadow Brook the public and potential buyers view 1 18 2019

7
HOA properties perimeter across the street Paseo Padre and Thornton maintained wall, outside
perimeter landscaping in contrast

Facilities, only amenity in Meadow Brook Village is the pools which are not maintained

8
The open pool hot tub 1/18/2019

9
Conditions as of this date in photographs

E. Emotional Distress

Mary Bernstein was hospitalized in psychiatric hospital for suicide ideation July 20-21, 2017. Mary
was not in psychotherapy but had to re-enter constant psychotherapy and medication as a result of
the stress of the housing crisis. Medical records have been provided to the Respondents. Doctors
declarations were provided concerning critical need for the pool. Despite these declarations,
Respondents elected out of spite to refuse to heat the pool and turned off heat early. The pool area
is not even maintained at all despite the claims that the hot tub is open. The above photos depict
the condition of the pool furniture, debris as of January 18, 2019.

10
Husband, John L. Bernstein, III hives from stress outside body – 2 cats outdoor/indoor died under
mysterious circumstances October 31, November 1 2018 - foul play, poisoning suspected

IV. CASES PENDING

A. Alameda County Superior Court

Motions

On calendar are four motions for me to argue concerning discovery on February 22, 2019, a second
motion for protective order I am finalizing to be put on the court calendar regarding foreclosure
proceedings initiated against us scheduled for February 19 2019, a second motion to compel
Defendants discovery responses March 2019, compel motions April 2019

Informal Discovery Conference

Meet and Confers
Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Separate Statement, Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, Declarations

Discovery

Deposition of Richard Fong

Deposition of Brian Smith
Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable Real Manage
Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable Advanced Technology Group C3
Deposition of Tanu Jagtap City of Fremont
Deposition of Leonard Powell City of Fremont
Various former and current homeowner depositions

Subpoena third party records

Depositions scheduling of former HOA Board members June 2019, depositions of new Board
members post ballot election 4/4/2018 July 2019

11
Quantum expert analysis

Pretrial

Trial is scheduled for October 15, 2019. Pretrial filings due September 25, 2019 pursuant to Local
Rule 3.35 below Pretrial filings for court appearances in Alameda Superor Court Bernstein v.
Associa 10/15/2019 trial date for 5-7 days with San Francisco Trial attorney.

Rule 3.35. Standing pretrial orders (a) Application of the pretrial orders With the exception of cases
assigned to the Department 511 master calendar, and unless otherwise specified in these rules or
modified by the judge to whom the case is assigned at the time of trial setting, the following standing
orders will apply to: (1) All civil jury trials; and (2) With the exception of provisions for jury
instructions and verdict forms, to all civil court trials. (3) All civil cases assigned to the Department
511 master calendar should file and serve all trial documents on the first day of trial. Local Rules of
the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda 3- 4 (b) Exhibits Each counsel, and any self-
represented party, must prepare an index of all exhibits to be offered at trial, other than those to be
used for impeachment or rebuttal, for submission with one extra copy to the courtroom clerk at the
pretrial conference or on the first day of trial if no pretrial conference is scheduled. The index must
identify as separate exhibits each discrete document or item to be offered at trial and the index must
include a brief description of each exhibit sufficient to distinguish it from the other exhibits. These
indices and copies of the exhibits must be exchanged by counsel, and any self-represented party, at
least three court days before the pretrial conference or three court days before trial if a pretrial
conference is not scheduled. The parties must meet and confer to eliminate duplicate exhibits and
stipulate whenever possible to authenticity and admissibility. Failure to disclose or exchange a copy
of any exhibit may result in its exclusion at trial. All objections to an exhibit must be in the form of a
motion in limine pursuant to paragraph (e). Failure to file and serve a motion in limine objecting to
an exhibit may waive all objections to that exhibit at trial. (c) Depositions and discovery responses
(1) Originals of all depositions to be used at trial must be lodged with the courtroom clerk at the
pretrial conference or on the first day of trial if a pretrial conference is not scheduled. Counsel, and
any selfrepresented party, must meet and confer to edit depositions as necessary and make a good
faith effort to resolve admissibility issues related to depositions. (2) If depositions, requests for
admissions, interrogatory responses, or any other discovery responses, are to be used in lieu of live
testimony at trial, the proponent must submit the excerpts to be used to opposing counsel, or any
self-represented party, at least three court days before the pretrial conference, or three court days
before trial if a pretrial conference is not scheduled. The parties must meet and confer on the
admissibility of depositions, requests for admissions, interrogatory responses, or other discovery
responses and whenever possible to authenticity and admissibility. Legal grounds for objections to
such excerpts must be raised by motion in limine pursuant to subdivision (e). Local Rules of the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda 3- 5 (d) Transcripts The parties must meet and
confer concerning the proposed use of any video or audio presentation and stipulate whenever
possible to the use of the presentation. Objections to any audio or video presentation or transcripts
must be raised in a motion in limine pursuant to subdivision (e). (e) Motions in limine (1)
Applicability This rule does not apply to motions in limine in unlawful detainer, probate, family, and
juvenile cases. (2) Form and filing of motions Unless otherwise ordered by the trial judge, all
motions in limine subject to this rule must be in writing, numbered consecutively, and filed in the
clerk’s office at least three court days before the pretrial conference or, if there is no pretrial

12
conference, three court days before trial. Motions in limine addressing separate evidence or issues
shall not be aggregated into one motion. Reservation numbers are not required for motions in limine
subject to this rule. (3) Hearing Unless otherwise ordered by the trial judge, all motions in limine
subject to this rule will be set for hearing. The trial judge shall determine the hearing date and time
and how service of the motion is to be made. The timing and service requirements of the opposition
and reply, if any, shall be at the discretion of the trial judge. (4) Courtesy copies Unless otherwise
ordered by the trial judge, courtesy copies of any moving papers filed under this rule, as well as any
opposition and reply papers, shall be delivered to the trial department on the date of filing. (f)
Witnesses A list of all witnesses, including both expert and non-expert witnesses, to be called at trial,
other than those to be called solely for impeachment or in rebuttal, must be personally served upon
opposing counsel, or any selfrepresented party, three court days before the pretrial conference or
three court days before trial if a pretrial conference is not scheduled and presented in triplicate to the
courtroom clerk at the pretrial conference or on the first day of trial if no pretrial conference is
scheduled. Local Rules of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda 3- 6 (g) Redaction of
exhibits If medical, personal, or consumer records are involved, the parties are to delete any
information that counsel, or any self-represented party, agree should not come into evidence,
including insurance information, so that such information is not received by the jury. The proponent
must then prepare clean copies of the records for submission into evidence. Any disagreements or
legal grounds for objection to the records must be set forth in a motion in limine filed pursuant to
subdivision (e). (h) Statement of the case Each counsel, and any self-represented party, must, in
advance of the pretrial conference or the first day of trial if no pretrial conference is scheduled, meet
and confer for the purpose of agreeing upon a brief nonargumentative summary of the factual
nature of the case and a brief statement regarding any alleged injuries and damages for submission to
the courtroom clerk at the pretrial conference or on the first day of trial if a pretrial conference is
not scheduled. (i) Jury instructions Each counsel, and any self-represented party, must personally
serve upon opposing counsel, or any self-represented party, three court days before the pretrial
conference or the first day of trial if no pretrial conference is scheduled and submit a set of
proposed jury instructions to the courtroom clerk at the pretrial conference or on the first day of
trial if a pretrial conference is not scheduled. The submission of a list of jury instructions, without
the proposed instructions, does not comply with this requirement. The full text of the proposed
instructions must be provided including proposed language to complete any blank portions of such
instructions and proposed formatting to include or exclude bracketed language in such instructions.
Any proposed instruction that is not taken verbatim from jury instructions approved by the Judicial
Council of California must include citations to the authorities upon which it is based. (j) Verdict
forms At least three court days before the pretrial conference or the first day of trial if a pretrial
conference is not scheduled, each counsel, and any self-- represented party, must meet and confer
for the purpose of agreeing upon a form of verdict or special verdict and submit the agreed upon or
proposed verdict form, if no agreement has been reached, to the courtroom clerk at the pretrial
conference or on the first day of trial if a pretrial conference is not scheduled. Local Rules of the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda 3- 7 (k) Jury selection Supplemental voir dire
questions and any proposed written juror questionnaire must be personally served upon opposing
counsel or any self-represented party three court days before the pretrial conference or the first day
of trial if no pretrial conference is scheduled and submitted to the courtroom clerk at the pretrial
conference if one is scheduled, or on the first day of trial if a pretrial conference is not scheduled. (l)
Glossary If the case involves technical or unusual vocabulary, the parties must meet and confer on
the contents of a glossary of terms to be included and their definitions. If the case involves technical
or unusual vocabulary a special glossary must be prepared and must be submitted, in duplicate, to

13
the courtroom clerk at the pretrial conference, or on the first day of trial if a pretrial conference is
not scheduled. (m) Electronic copies If ordered, counsel must submit to the court and all other
parties, electronic copies of proposed juror questionnaires, jury instructions, and verdict forms in
addition to printed versions required by this rule. Electronic copies must be in the format ordered
by the court. (n) Consequences of noncompliance In the discretion of the trial judge, the
consequences of noncompliance with an order made under this rule may include imposition of any
sanction or order authorized by law including, without limitation, restricting evidence, continuing
the trial, sending the case back for further case management, reopening discovery, excluding an
exhibit, precluding the testimony of a witness, striking an instruction, striking a motion in limine, or
imposing sanctions. Rule 3.35 amended effective July 1, 2018 ; adopted as rule 4.8 effective May 19,
1998; previously amended effective July 1, 1999 and January 1, 2001; previously renumbered to rule
4.4H effective July 1, 2002; previously amended to relocate and revise former rule 4.4H to revised
rule 4.6 effective January 1, 2006; subsequently amended January 1, 2007; previously amended and
renumbered to rule 3.35 effective July 1, 2007; previously amended effective July 1, 2014.

B. HUD DFEH

HUD DFEH will resume investigation of mediation unsuccessful today. HUD will take
depositions, issue subpoenas and interrogatories, compel testimony and documents. DOJ will then
commence a civil action on behalf of the aggrieved person in U.S. district court. If the court finds
that a discriminatory housing practice has or is about to occur, the court can award actual and
punitive damages as well as attorneys fees.

C. Foreclosure Proceedings Quiet Title Action

Berding Weil firm recorded lien against the property in bad faith. A cease and desist letter
was sent to the firm advising that a protective order would be sought. The second protective order
is scheduled for February 19 2019. Exhibit C. A real estate attorney will be undertaken counsel
regarding foreclosures. The Alameda County Superior Court Judge Paul Herbert advised plaintiff to
come back to court when the foreclosure matter intensified. Plaintiff did so and was provided with
a reservation number Bernstein is filing second protective order regarding foreclosure proceedings
stay during litigation. This will become a separate legal proceeding filing action with attorneys,
different judge. The second protective order motion is scheduled for 02/19/19 at 03:00 p.m. The
reservation number is R - 2025811. Plaintiff Mary Bernstein is constructing the motion and ancillary
documents. Defendants are aware that Mary Bernstein is disabled and it takes time to compose
materials.

D. California Department of Justice.

A California Department of Justice matter is underway for corporation code violations and a
complaint has been issued.

V. DAMAGES
Jury instructions at trials federal and state of California:

14
Plaintiffs Bernstein have proved their claim against defendants/respondents, you
also must decide how much money will reasonably compensate the Bernsteins for
the emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, unruh claims. This compensation is
called “damages.”

The Bernsteins do not have to prove the exact amount of these damages. However,
you must not speculate or guess in awarding damages.

The damages claimed by the Bernsteins fall into two categories called economic
damages and noneconomic damages. You will be asked to state the two categories of
damages separately on the verdict form.

The Bernsteins claim the following economic damages:

1. The costs expended for court filings, appearances, investigations, fees, postage
incurrred;

2. The loss of gifts or benefits that father and son would have expected to receive
from Mary Bernstein;

3. Increased psychiatric expenses; and

4. The amount paid, and reasonably certain to be paid in the future, to obtain
household services that Mary Bernstein would have provided.

5. Credit ramifications from lien filing, driven to debt.

Your award of any future economic damages must be reduced to present cash value.

John Bernstein also claims the following noneconomic damages:

1. The loss of Mary Bernstein’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance,

protection, affection, society, moral support; and

2. The loss of the enjoyment of sexual relations.

The Bernstein son also claim the following noneconomic damages:

1. The loss of Mary Bernstein’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance,

protection, affection, society, moral support; and

2. The loss of Mary Bernstein’s training and guidance.

Mary Bernstein claims the following noneconomic damages:

1. Denial of reasonable accommodations, discrimination Unruh Act.

2. Sustained emotional pressure, trauma, harassment for entire year.

15
 3. Increased physical ailments

4. Diagnosis of “personality disorder” manifested during the stress of the litigation ascribed
by psychiatrist.

5. Set back of psychotherapy healing due to stress; increase in medications and

psychotherapy. Decompensation constantly; dynamics regression in personality to teenager,
younger child at times.

No fixed standard exists for deciding the amount of noneconomic damages. You
must use your judgment to decide a reasonable amount based on the evidence and
your common sense. Your award for noneconomic damages should not be reduced
to present cash value.

(CACI No. 3921.)

VI. Exposure

California DOJ Investigation Case No. PIU 806129 $1,000.000

California Corporation Code Violations

Alameda County Superior Court Case No. HG18897381 $1,000.000

Emotional Distress Pre-litigation/Breach of Fiduciary Duty

HUD/DFEH Case Nos. 09-19-4260-8/201810-03850210 $1,000.000

Quid Pro Quo/Hostile Environment post-litigation

If settlement not reached during Mediation 1/24/2019, the figure enlarges to $9 Million proceeding to
trial in October of this year to compensate for the additional stress that will be endured by
Complainants emotionally, physically and financially. There are three simultaneous, costly litigations
ongoing right now which will only increase. Limited scope Sacramento attorney Kevin Horan discovery
proceedings. A separate San Francisco litigation trial attorney will be handling upcoming trial in October
2019. Trial scheduled for October 15, 2019 Alameda County Superior Court Case No. HG18897381.
Depositions of current and former HOA Board members to be conducted. Depositions of
Massingham/Associa defendants conducted previously. Multiple homeowner depositions to be
conducted and former Homeowner declarations filed. Quantum analysis to be conducted.

Complainant subpoenaed documents from the City of Fremont and met with the code enforcement
office Tanu Jagtap and Manager Leonard Powell. Complainant requested documentation of nuisance
and abatement orders that had been implemented to review the procedure. The City of Fremont
Manager Leonard Powell stated this Meadow Brook property was unique as the property is the worse

16
condition Code Enforcement has ever seen. There were no other comparable properties to that of
Meadow Brook Village condition to compare and contrast procedure. The City of Fremont birthed in
1956 annexing five villages together.

If it does not settle, moving forward in litigations to trial and investigations – settlement figure goes up
to $9,000,000. The Bernsteins have been a sustained emotional pressure for nearly two years at the
hands of Meadow Brook Homeowers Board and Associa of Northern Californi/Massingham property
management. The figures are high to pay tribute for the physical and emotional suffering complainants
have endured at the hands of respondent.

Although this HUD claim was directed only at Meadow Brook Homeowners Board members HOA Board
which was elected April 4, 2018 post Alameda County Superior Court Case No. HG18897381 harassment
Complainants endured for filing lawsuit, Respondents relayed to mediator that all claims were to be
mediated. Mediator sought demand list from Complainant Mary Bernstein prior to January 2, 2019 for
the purpose that demand list could be reviewed quickly. On January 18, 2019, less than a week before
the Mediation Complainant learned that Respondents wanted all claims to be considered. Farmers
insurance policy is covering defense for all the parties, actions. Therefore, Complainants have revised
their demands to engulf and incorporate damages for all three cases.

Tribute to be paid for all of the physical taxation, mental anguish, attorneys fees, costs, court
appearances, psychiatric treatment, financial burden, emotional distress involving three simultaneous
actions that the Bernstein family has endured for the past two years through no fault of their own. A
mentally disabled Complainant forced to conduct depositions, document reviews, investigations
coordinate with multiple agencies, multiple attorney services without rest for nearly a year to the point
of another medical, physical breakdown in her housing community. Fearful to leave her home, fearful
to stay in it as continually accessible to harassment and abuses. Remaining animals forced to remain
indoors to avoid cruelty to animals inflicted on them as retaliation.

Handicap violations

Parkview Apartments, VUE Apartments the majority of condominiums, apartments have curbs,
handicapped parking, swimming pool accessibility for handicapped. Meadow Brook Village has not
complied or made handicapped available for disabled residents. Complainant Mary Bernstein has
plantar fasciitis, sciatic which are worsening. Complainant’s mother has bipolar and has extreme sciatica
severe erosion of lumbar vertebral body, cannot walk. Intervertebral disc disorders with radiculopathy,
lumbar region sciatica due to intervertebral disc disorder. Complainant has inherited these same
genetic and predisposition to these maladies. The pool critical for Complainant to utilize as she has
sciatica as well. Complainant’s mother can no longer walk, severe symptoms started for her around age
49 as for Complainant. Complainant is in constant back pain has to utilize a walker aide if walking any
distance due to extreme back pain.

Pool Prescription

Complainant has not been provided a prescription to soak in a hot tub. Complainant’s podiatrist and
psychiatrist have prescribed the pool to release anger, stress and for self care. Complainant may enjoy
hot tub for relief but pool is prescribed for treatment of PTSD.

17
Psychiatric Disorders/Conditions Exacerbated this year due to increased stress

Complainant additionally has been diagnosed with personality disorder this year, depreciation from the
stress. Plaintiff was receiving psychotherapy medication for a period in 2015 for issues related to
trauma with University. Complainant was released from psychiatric care, medications for a parameter
of time, improving acceptance of permanent disability attempting to adjust until July 2017 breakdown
due to Meadow Brook HOA Village financial stress learning of emergency/special assessments, large
study conducted onsite daily for 3 months, noises, pool closure, work people outside placing cameras
over decks, intrusion. Complainant became suicidal from financial pressures, hospitalized psychiatric,
psychotherapy, medications resumed. Complainant decomposed to emotional level constantly to that
of a 10-14 year old 75% of the time reliving past traumas, housing crises, molestations.

Non Economic demands

1. No retaliation by residents, HOA Board during the remainder of Bernstein domicile in Meadow
Brook. The Bernstein family is private and does not want further intrusive actions, behaviors
directed towards them in their residence.
2. Reasonable accommodations pool to be honored immediately insomuch as heating pool. Year
round permits. Winter heated 90 degrees. Summer 80 degrees. Complainant has not
demanded at this time handicap modifications parking, pool.
3.
This family under extreme placed under extreme stress and sustained emotional pressures. Husband
high blood pressure, hives, glaucoma, hernia; wife post traumatic stress disorder, adhd, bipolar,
arthritis, sciatic, irritable bowel syndrome

Son finishing degree under extreme stress finals, injured as am infant head injuries in vehicular accident
has had to endure stress in his residence as a homeowner

The Bernsteins attempted to enlist the help of other neighbors to investigate origin, perform diagnostic
of what happened. During canvassing for election of new members on ballot, candidates swore they
would investigate, eliminate special/emergency assessments, pool accommodations. However when
elected they instead enforced the same agenda. Lawsuits filed by old board and new board members
have settled but the casualties are the homeowners, such as the Bernsteins. Many neighbors cheered,
encouraged the Bernsteins to pursue and promised support to assist with investigations. Mike Durbin, a
former subordinate of Mary Bernstein during census in 2010 stated that he ran for the board for the
sole purpose of investigating matter. To the contrary, the Bernsteins found that they were deceived by
Mike Durbin President and others. A perpetrated fraud had occurred.

Mary Bernstein high traumatic background school homelife homelessness disability abandonment
molestations personality disorder mental and physical breakdown in 2008

18
Mary Rebekah Home uniform

Rebekah Home for Girls 1981-1982 in Corpus Christi, Texas. Peers, witnesses that were also sent to
religious institution suffered trauma, molestations testifying at trial. A film maker working on
documentary of the home, survivor stories and accountant survivor former Rebekah home. A
documentary in the works by the Virginia survivor, Complainant story to be featured in the
documentary. The housing crisis Meadow Brook has caused Mary to ruminate on past traumas at the
hands of those in authority.

Disabled fully since 2012 not able to rehabilitate from issues due to HOA violations. Yellow caution tape
all over premises, the property further depreciation. Photos of property attached 1/18/2019.
Complainant husband suffering hives, depression for a year due to stress, death of beloved animals.

19
20
21
22
23
 VII. DEMAND
Complainants have remained with the $3 million dollar settlement figure since the litigations
began in 2018. Amy DeJesus, then President in April 2018 telephoned John Bernstein and asked
what the figure would be for settlement. John Bernstein replied $3 million during this phone call.
Despite increased harassment, immense economic expenditures, heightened stress during
depositions, court appearances, the has remained the same. The Bernstein family graciously has
doubled, raised the figure to $6,000,000 for the additional heartache endured this past year in
multiple litigations. A lien has been recorded against the Bernstein property by the Berding Weil
firm despite request for delay in writing to the Berding Weil firm and notice that a second protective
order would be sought. In bad faith, Respondents have went ahead and recorded lien. The second
protective order motion is scheduled for 02/19/19 at 03:00 p.m. The reservation number is R -
2025811. The “Total Exposure” figure is a conservative estimate of the dollar amount to which
Respondents are exposed should this case proceed to trial given the fact that Complainants have
expended much resources for nearly a year conducing discovery and investigations. Plaintiffs are
willing, at this time, to accept the total and original $3,000,000 as complete resolution of this matter.
Initially there was one civil matter Alameda County Superior Court No. HG18897381 whereas now
there are multiple matters due to increased violations on behalf of Respondent’s actions.

A Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer reflecting this demand has been served on
Respondents this date and copies will be provided at the mediation attached as Exhibit A. Despite
a cease and desist letter in December 2018 to Respondents and advisement of HUD matter, multiple
matters plaintiff Mary Bernstein handling a lien was recorded January 14, 2019 causing
Complainants even more stress. Exhibits B-C. Respondents are aware that Mary Bernstein is
disabled, not a law firm, has a limited scope attorney and requires reasonable accommodations, time
to complete matters. Upon expiration of the 998 offer, the insurance policy limits will be viewed as
a floor, not a ceiling, for any subsequent attempts to resolve this matter before trial. The offer to
settle for policy limits will not be renewed once the time to accept it has passed. The Respondents
elected to have all claims presented and argued at this mediation. This settlement package is
provided so that Respondents’ insurance carriers will have ample time and adequate information to
evaluate Respondent’s exposure within the time period in which the Offer to Compromise is until
January 24, 2019 at p.m.

Can a pretrial California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to settle above an
insurer’s policy limits result in opening up a policy’s liability limits. California Court of Appeal has
said “yes” to this question under certain limited circumstances if the offer is reasonable and made in
good faith. In Aguilar v. Gostischef, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 816, 2013 WL
5592976 (Oct. 11, 2013) (“Aguilar”), the California Court of Appeal held that where an injured party
rationally believed an insurer may be liable for excess judgment, and the insurer refuses to provide
this third-party with the amount of policy limits when requested prior to litigation, a section 998
offer above policy limits may open up the policy to an excess judgment.

The Aguilar case arose out a personal injury suit following an automobile accident involving
Aguilar and Gostischef. Aguilar suffered extensive injuries, including $507,718 in medical expenses,
and sought to recover against Farmers Insurance Exchange, Gostischef’s insurer. Farmers issued
Gostischef a policy containing a $100,000 limit for each person injured. Aguilar’s attorney contacted
Farmers three times requesting discovery of the policy limit so as to negotiate a policy demand, but

24
Farmers did not respond. Subsequently, Aguilar brought a personal injury action against Gostischef.
A few months later, Farmers offered to pay Aguilar its $100,000 limit, and advised Aguilar that
Gostischef had no real property assets and lived on Social Security. Gostischef presented Aguilar a
section 998 offer to compromise for $100,000. Aguilar argued that because Farmers ignored three
attempts to settle within policy limits, it would be responsible for an excess judgment. Aguilar then
made a section 998 offer for $700,000, and Farmers countered by renewing its $100,000 offer.

The case went to trial, and a jury ultimately awarded Aguilar $2,339,657 after a reduction for
contributory negligence. Farmers obtained a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the Court
of Appeals reversed on appeal. The trial court reinstated the judgment for Aguilar. Aguilar also
sought $1,639,451.14 in costs, which included prejudgment interest beginning from the date of his
section 998 offer. The trial court held that Aguilar’s section 998 offer was “realistically reasonable
under the circumstances” and in good faith, explaining that:

The purpose of section 998 is to encourage the settlement of litigation without trial. To
effectuate the purpose of the statute, a section 998 offer must be made in good faith to be valid.
Good faith requires that the pretrial offer of settlement be “realistically reasonable under the
circumstances of the particular case. . . .

The trial court awarded costs, and Farmers appealed the award. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals determined Aguilar’s section 988 offer was made in good faith and awarded costs. Farmers
argued Aguilar’s section 988 offer of $700,000 was not made in good faith because there was no
reasonable anticipation of acceptance of the offer by Gostischef who lacked the financial means to
pay and no reasonable expectation Farmers could be liable for the amount of the section 998 offer
in light of the $100,000 policy limit.

The Court of Appeals explained that a good faith 998 offer must have had a “reasonable
prospect of acceptance” in light of the information available to the parties at the time of the offer.
Reasonableness depends on a two-prong determination. First, an offer is reasonable if it represents
a reasonable prediction of what the defendant would have to pay the plaintiff following a trial,
discounted by money received by the plaintiff before trial, and premised on the information known
to the defendant at the time. Secondly, the offeree must have reason to know the offer is a
reasonable.

Under this analysis, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in holding the section 998 offer was made in good faith. First, by refusing the disclose its
policy limits, Farmers exposed itself to liability in excess of policy limits. Next, the court found that
Aguilar’s expectation that Farmers may be liable for damages in excess of policy limits was
reasonable. Aguilar suffered demonstrable injuries beyond $100,000 and sought several times to
discover Farmer’s policy limits prior to litigation so he could attempt to negotiate a settlement.

The court relied on Boicourt v. Amex Assurance Company, 78 Cal. App. 4th 1380 (2000),
which authorized an excess judgment against an insurer where the insurer refused to disclose policy
limits, which closed the door on reasonable settlement negotiations. In Boicourt, the court held that
an insurer’s blanket policy of refusing to disclose policy limits in advance of litigation may give rise
to a bad faith claim. Id. at 1392. As relevant here, the Boicourt court reasoned that “a liability

25
insurer ‘”is playing with fire”‘ when it refuses to disclose policy limits. Such a refusal ‘”cuts off the
possibility of receiving an offer within the policy limits”‘ by the company’s ‘”refusal to open the
door to reasonable negotiations.”‘ Id.

The Aguilar court explained:

Here, no evidence indicated Farmers had a blanket policy of refusing to disclose a policy
limit, but there was evidence Farmers delayed, perhaps unreasonably in disclosing Gostischef’s
policy limit, and that delay may support bad faith liability. (See Boicourt v. Amex Assurance Co.,
supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1394.) Aguilar’s letter stating that he would settle for policy limits
reasonably can be understood as a settlement opportunity (regardless of whether it is ultimately
determined to be such). In the current appeal, Farmers has not shown Aguilar could have no
reasonable expectation of acceptance of his $700,000 offer such that the trial court abused its
discretion in finding Aguilar acted in good faith.

Finally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision that Aguilar’s offer to settle in
excess of policy limits was reasonable, and awarded costs.

Landlord Tenant Relationship – Property Maintenance.

The 1986 Meadow Brook Village Homeowners Manual provided to homeowners Meadow
Brook Village passed on to property owners states under the Your Association” tab states that there
are three major entities concerning Meadow Brook: Developer, Association and the Property
Manager. It states “ The managing agent with his bookkeepers, handymen, gardners, pool men,
pavement contractors …it takes all three to make Meadow Brook Village be what it is and what you
want it.”

The property manager is parallel to the landlord of a renter. The homeowners pay
assessments equivalent to rent for use of the premises. Tenants may withhold rent, move out
without notice, sue the landlord, call state or local health inspectors, or exercise the right to “repair
and deduct” if a landlord fails to take care of important repairs, such as a broken heater. For
specifics, see California Tenant Rights to Withhold Rent or “Repair and Deduct”.

California tenants are legally entitled to rental property that meets basic structural, health,
and safety standards and is in good repair. If a landlord fails to take care of important maintenance
(such as a leaky roof or a broken heater), tenants may have the legal rights to:

withhold rent

pay for repairs themselves and deduct the cost from their rent (“repair and deduct”)

call state or local building health inspectors

sue the landlord, or

move out without notice.

26
 It is illegal for landlords in California to retaliate against tenants who exercise their statutory
rights, such as the right to repair and deduct.

Basic rules and procedures for two key rights available to California tenants: rent
withholding and repair and deduct.

California Tenant Rights to Livable Premises

All landlords are legally required to offer livable or habitable premises when they originally
rent a unit in California, and to maintain it in that condition throughout the rental term. According
to state laws (Civil Code § 1941.1 and § 1941.3), at minimum every rental must have:

effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls, including
unbroken windows and doors

functioning plumbing, heating, and electrical facilities, including hot and cold running water
and a working toilet and kitchen sink

clean and sanitary building and grounds (that is, free of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage,
rodents, and vermin), with adequate trash receptacles

well-maintained floors, stairways, and railings

deadbolt locks on certain doors and windows

no lead paint hazards, and

no nuisances, a catchall provision referring to something that is dangerous to human life,

detrimental to health, or morally offensive and obnoxious, such as allowing drug dealing on the
premises.

Other laws that cover a California tenant’s right to a fit and habitable dwelling include H&S
§17920.3 (also known the State Housing Law) and the Uniform Housing Code, an industry code
that is adopted by the state legislature and counties and cities. In addition, local governments have
their own city or county building and housing codes (different from industry codes) that regulate
structural aspects of buildings and establish minimum requirements for light, ventilation, heating,
and the like. In most urban areas of California, local codes are more thorough than the state’s
general housing law.

To find the exact requirements your landlord must meet, contact your local building or
housing authority. To find yours, call your mayor of city manager’s office or check your city or
county website.

27
 VIII. CONCLUSION

The homeowners, plaintiffs have suffered a catastrophic and life-altering loss due to the
negligence of defendants Meadow Brook Village Association – Fremont . Although it is remotely
possible that defendants could obtain a defense verdict in this matter, it is more probable that
judgment will be rendered against defendants for the final exposure figure, or more.

January 22 2019 John & Mary Bernstein

28
 EXHIBIT A
ctv-o90
ATTORNEY QR PAR'IY WTHOUT ATTORNEY {Name State Bar number, and address): FORCOURT I.EE ONI.Y

* Mary Bernstein
3416 Deer-rn'ood Terrace#l 13
Fremont, CA 94536

TELEPHoNEUo 5 109386280 FAxNO. {Optional):

E.MAiL ADDRESS \Opttona\.

ATTORNEY FOR (Natre):

suPERtoR couRT oF CALIFORHIA, COUNTY OF Alameda

STREETADDRESS:

MAILINGADDRESS. 1225 FAIION StTCCt

crwANozrPcoDe' Oakland CA 94612
BRANCH T{AME:

PLATNTTFF: Mary Bernstein

DEFENDANT: Associa Northem California, et al.

I 7l orren
To coMPRoMrsE AND
CASE NUMBER]

l-_l accepreNcE UNDER coDE oF crvrL pRocEDuRE sEcloN 998 HG18897381

Note: This fornr is designed to be used only in civil actions involving a single plaintiff and a single defendant where the
offer and acceptance involves a money judgment. The court will file this offer to compromise and the acceptance only if
accompanied by a judgment prepared for the courfs signature and entry of judgment

OFFER TO COMPROMISE
1. Plaintiff (name): Mary Bernstein offers to have judgment entered under Code
of Civil Prcedure section 998 in favor of the plaintiff and against (name af the detendant):
Meadow Brook Village Association - Fremonf Massingham & Associates/Associa Northern California
2. The judgrnent is to be {check and comptete a or b)
a. [--lin the amount of $ 3,000,000
(1) [7]Each parg shallbear its own coste and ftes.
(2) f*l lncluding costs under Code of Civil Proedure section 1O32 and attomey's fees.
(3) T*l Plus costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032.
(4) l--l Plus costs under Oode of Civil Procedure section 1032 and attorney's fees in the amount of $
(5) [-_l Ptus costs underCode of Civil Procedure sec-tion 1032 and attomey's fees allowed by law * determined by the
court
b. f-fl as follors {&scribe the terms and conditions of the judgmed);
by 5:00 pm January 242019
l-71 Continued in attachment 2b.
Date: January 222019
Mary Bernstein
(NAME OF PARry OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY MAKING OFFER) OF PARW OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY MAKING OFFER}

ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER
Defendant (name): hereby accepts the offer for the
judgment stated in items I and 2 above.

Date:

)
(NAME OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARry ACCEPTING OFFER) {SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY ACCEPTING OFFER)

Page I of I
Ftrm Apprcved fs Optional U6e Procdure,
Judicial Council ol Califomia OFFER TO COMPROMISE AND ACCEPTANCE Code of Civil
w.couftinto
S 998
ca.gav
CIV-090 fl'tew January 1, 20081 UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 998
 -a-rrncuarrur 2e
RTwsTo DEMAND LIIT INCaP.PaR.ATING ALL ACnaNs
BgRrusrrtru vs, MrADow BnoorV*mge Hon - FREMaNT
DFEH CA5E [tluua*: 201810-03850210
[tUD Casr NuusrR; 09-19-rt260-8
ALAMEDA Counw Suprmon CouRr Cnsr ffo. HG1889738tr
CAUFORNIA DEPAETMENToF}UficE cAsE No. PIU 806129

Eqanomic demands

53,000,000

L. No retaliation by residents, HOA Board during the remainder of Bernstein domicile in Meadow
Brook. The Bernstein family is private and does not want further intrusive actions, behaviors
directed towards them in their residence.
2. Reasonable accornmodations poolto be honored immediately insomuch as heating pool. Year
round permits. Winter heated 90 degrees. Sumrner 80 degrees.
 t
t r&gar oF sEevrcE EY M
2 On Januar,v 22"2t)19, tr served the following document(s) :

3
MEDIATION BR,IEF; 998 OFFER TO COII{PROMISE
4
On January 24,2A1q via cmail and Ll.S. Mail,
5

Robert Mark Maltz #143078

6
License Statr.ls: Active
7 Address: Stratman, Patterson & I{unter, 505 14th St. Ste 400. Oakiand, CA 94612-1913
County: Alameda County
I Fhcne Number: {5lA} 457-3157
t'ax Nurnher: (5tr0] 238-8968
I Email : robert"rnaltz@farmersinsuranee. oom
10
Luanne Rutherford # 1 53 335
11 License Status: Active
Address: McNamam, Ney, Beatty, et al. 31180 Ruskirk Ave" Ste ?50, Pleasant Hill. CA
t2 94523-731tj
County: Contra Costa County
r3
Phone Nurnber: (925) 939-533t)
t4 F'ax Number: (925) 939-0203
Ernail : I uanne. rutherfo rd (@mcnarnaral aw-. com
15
r\ndrea Leah 0'Toole #232653
16
License Status: Active
T7 Address: Berding & Weil LLP"Zl75 N Clalitirrnia Blvd Ste 500, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Count,v: Contra Costa County
18 Phone Number: tq25) 838-2t190
Fax Nurnber: Not Al,ailable
i9 Ernail : aotoole(i)berding-weil.com
20 by placing a sop_y in a sealed envelope and serving the docurnen(s) to the above address.

2l I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is correct"

22 Executed on January 22"2*19, at Fremont, California.

t"I
23

24 ---,*:-
MARY I}ERNSTEIN

25

26

27

28
 EXHIBIT B

Mary Bernstein
3416 Deerwood Terrace,
#113, Fremont, CA 94536
Telephone 510.938.6280
Email [email protected]

December 1, 2018

Via Priority Mail/Certified Mail

Steven S. Weil
Andrea L. O’Toole
Berding & Weil LLP
2175 N California Blvd #500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Re: Bernstein v. Associa, et al. Alameda County Superior Court Case No. HG18897381
Motion for Protective Order, Preliminary Injunction - Berding Weil, Meadow Brook
Sanctions 02/19/19 at 03:00 p.m.

Pre Lien notices

HUD Housing Inquiry ITS No. 562804

FHA DFEH# 201810-03850210

Attorney General Case No. Notice of Complaint PIU 806129

Alameda County District Attorney Real Estate Fraud investigation

Cease and Desist

Dear Steven Weil and Andrea L. O’Toole:

Cease and Desist

Your firm and the Meadow Brook Village Association – Fremont HOA Board is aware
that I have several legal actions concerning our property located at 3416 Deerwood
Terrace, #113, Fremont, California 94536. Therefore, since you have knowledge and yet
you are generating more legal notices to me, I have reserved a motion for protective
order, preliminary injunction regarding your harassing onslaught of lien, foreclosure
materials.

This will serve as your legal notice under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), to cease all communication with me in regard to the debt referenced above.
Do not contact me, or any third parties regarding this debt.

Furthermore, I formally dispute the validity of this debt. We have never missed an
assessment payment and are not delinquent on our account. There is a $33,000
emergency assessment in connection with missing reserve funds that has been levied
against the homeowners in the condominium development of Meadow Brook Village
Association – Fremont by the HOA Board which we are disputing and believe to be
invalid. This perpetrated fraud is being investigated by several authorities.

You are also notified that should any adverse information be placed against my credit
reports, appropriate actions will be taken under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).

In April 2018 Judge Paul Herbert advised me that if any further harassment occurred I
could schedule a hearing for a preliminary injunction protective order in the event I
began receiving harassing paperwork. The motion for protective order is scheduled for
February 19 2019 against Berding Weil and Meadow Brook HOA. This is additional
harassment and will be incorporated into the current legal action. Discovery is ongoing
and we have learned that reserve funds were mismanaged placed into the stock market
amongst other revelations. I, myself, as a homeowner have done my part to honor the
contract in paying monthly assessments without delinquency.

FHA HUD

An investigation is ongoing as I am disabled, and numerous violations occurring. 1.

Vandalism. 2. Hostile Environment. 3. Quid Pro Quo propositioning by the President
Mike Durbin that the HOA Board could “direct” who would receive liens, threats and
who would not – that he could make it difficult for me. 4. Garbage thrown over my
patio. 5. Notes taped to my door. 6. Constant intimidation of myself and other

Page 2
neighbors by subcommittee members congregating gossiping, pointing nightly right
outside our door within earshot by the mailbox creating a negative atmosphere. 7. A
divisive, harassing environment of neighbors pitted against each other. 8. Pool not
heated year round despite doctors/physicians declarations stating that this is vital and
the accommodation to be made for me as a disabled homeowner.

Reasonable Accommodations

Under the state and federal law, it is considered discrimination for a condominium
association to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, practices, policies,
or services when such accommodations are necessary to afford a disabled person equal
opportunity to use and enjoy the premises, including private units and public and
common use areas. Whether such an accommodation is reasonable, requires highly
fact-specific inquiry and a case-by-case determination, but cost alone is typically not
sufficient to render an accommodation unreasonable.

Reasonable Modifications

State and federal law also prohibit refusing reasonable modifications of existing
premises occupied or to be occupied by such person, if the modifications are necessary
to afford the individual full enjoyment of the premises.

California Law Requiring Accommodation

California Government Code Sections 12955.3 and 12926 define physical and mental
disabilities. The persons so defined are entitled to accommodations in the enforcement
of housing policies and practices such as the use restrictions in the CC&Rs and the
association rules.

Section 12926 (i)–(k) provides:

(i) "Mental disability" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(1) Having any mental or psychological disorder or condition, such as mental

retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, or specific learning
disabilities, that limits a major life activity. For purposes of this section:

Page 3
–"Limits" shall be determined without regard to mitigating measures, such as
medications, assistive devices, or reasonable accommodations, unless the mitigating
measure itself limits a major life activity.

–A mental or psychological disorder or condition limits a major life activity if it makes

the achievement of the major life activity difficult.

–"Major life activities" shall be broadly construed and shall include physical, mental, and
social activities and working.

(2) Any other mental or psychological disorder or condition not described in paragraph
(1) that requires special education or related services.

(3) Having a record or history of a mental or psychological disorder or condition

described in paragraph (1) or (2), which is known to the employer or other entity
covered by this part.

(4) Being regarded or treated by the employer or other entity covered by this part as
having, or having had, any mental condition that makes achievement of a major life
activity difficult.

(5) Being regarded or treated by the employer or other entity covered by this part as
having, or having had, a mental or psychological disorder or condition that has no
present disabling effect, but that may become a mental disability as described in
paragraph (1) or (2). "Mental disability" does not include sexual behavior disorders,
compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders
resulting from the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs.

(k) "Physical disability" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(1) Having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or

anatomical loss that does both of the following:

(A) Affects one or more of the following body systems:

neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory,

including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic
and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.

Page 4
(B) Limits a major life activity. For purposes of this section:

(i) "Limits" shall be determined without regard to mitigating measures such as

medications, assistive devices, prosthetics, or reasonable accommodations, unless the
mitigating measure itself limits a major life activity.

(ii) A physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical

loss limits a major life activity if it makes the achievement of the major life activity
difficult.

(iii) "Major life activities" shall be broadly construed and includes physical, mental, and
social activities and working.

(2) Any other health impairment not described in paragraph (1) that requires special
education or related services.

(3) Having a record or history of a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement,

anatomical loss, or health impairment described in paragraph (1) or (2), which is known
to the employer or other entity covered by this part.

(4) Being regarded or treated by the employer or other entity covered by this part as
having, or having had, any physical condition that makes achievement of a major life
activity difficult.

(5) Being regarded or treated by the employer or other entity covered by this part as
having, or having had, a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement,
anatomical loss, or health impairment that has no present disabling effect but may
become a physical disability as described in paragraph (1) or (2).

(6) "Physical disability" does not include sexual behavior disorders, compulsive
gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting
from the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs.

(l) Notwithstanding subdivisions (i) and (k), if the definition of "disability" used in the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) would result in broader
protection of the civil rights of individuals with a mental disability or physical disability,
as defined in subdivision (i) or (k), or would include any medical condition not included
within those definitions, then that broader protection or coverage shall be deemed

Page 5
incorporated by reference into, and shall prevail over conflicting provisions of, the
definitions in subdivisions (i) and (k).

California Government Code Section 12927 (c) (1) defines "discrimination" as including
the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services
when these accommodations may be necessary to afford a disabled person equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwellin

The new HOA Board when running for office, candidates made promises to make the
emergency assessment go away and to heat the pool year round. This was the whole
reasoning for a new HOA Board elected. The new HOA Board has done nothing but
escalate tensions, inflict emotional distress on the community. The HOA Board
President Amy DeJesus ran a deceitful campaign wherein homeowners thought that
should would be the President but in reality she was a placeholder for two months for
another to hold that office. This information was learned through discovery about the
false left right paradigm of HOA Board members and different elements of defrauding.

Meadow Brook HOA is in violation of several disability violations including directing a

hostile environment towards me at general session meetings, directing vandalism of a
vehicle and numerous other issues. Individual HOA Board members and subcommittee
members can be fined personally as well through FHA HUD action as well as the HOA.

The Act makes it a crime to interfere with housing rights available to persons with
handicaps. Condominium, cooperative and other shared housing is specifically identified
in the implementing regulations as subject to the Fair Housing Amendments Act.

The Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988 protects (1) individuals with a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of a person's major life
activities; (2) an individual with a record of such an impairment; or (3) an individual who
is regarded as having such an impairment; or (3) an individual who is regarded as having
such an impairment, whether or not the individual is in fact so impaired. The Act,
therefore, protects persons with physiological disorders or conditions, cosmetic
disfigurement, anatomical loss affecting a major body system, and mental or
psychological disorders, such as retardation or emotional or mental illness. The Act
applies where any of these conditions substantially limits "any major life activity" such
as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking,
breathing, learning or working.

Page 6
The Act creates affirmative duties of housing providers to persons with disabilities,
including the obligation to allow certain modifications of existing premises, and the duty
to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices and services to
accommodate the needs of the disabled. As under California law, the failure to perform
these affirmative duties is an act of discrimination. This means that the board has an
affirmative duty to not enforce the rules where necessary to accommodate mentally or
physically disabled individuals.

Enforcement of California Accommodation Right

Enforcement of the California Fair Housing Act may be by administrative action by the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing or by the California Attorney
General. Relief may include access to housing through injunctive or equitable relief, a
civil penalty up to $10,000 for a first violation, $25,000 for a second violation and
$50,000 for a third violation, and actual damages. Alternatively, an injured party can file
a civil lawsuit within two years of the occurrence of the discriminatory housing practice.
In a private civil action, the court may award injunctive relief, monetary damages, and
civil penalties of $50,000 for a first violation and $100,000 for any subsequent violation
and may award the reasonable attorney fees and costs of the prevailing party.

Enforcement of Fair Housing Amendments Act

The Fair Housing Amendments Act can be enforced in a number of ways. The Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may investigate housing practices to
determine whether an administrative complaint should be brought. An aggrieved
individual or the Secretary of HUD may file a complaint within one year after an alleged
discriminatory housing practice has occurred. The complaint must then be answered
within ten days of service and must be signed under penalty of perjury. The complaint
may be prosecuted by HUD or referred to a state or local public agency certified by
HUD. An attempt to conciliate the complaint is generally required, which can lead to an
agreement between the respondent and the complainant. The conciliation agreement
can include damages caused by humiliation or embarrassment, attorney's fees, and
other equitable and injunctive relief.

HUD also may issue a "charge" on behalf of the aggrieved person to commence formal
administrative legal proceedings, or refer the matter to the Attorney General for
appropriate action, including criminal penalties. If a charge is issued, the complainant or

Page 7
respondent may elect to have the claims decided in a civil action, in lieu of an
administrative proceeding, in which case the matter is litigated in the federal court.

Relief available for violations of the Act includes temporary or permanent injunctions or
restraining orders, monetary damages, and civil penalties in an amount not exceeding
$50,000 for a first violation, and not exceeding $100,000 for any subsequent violation.
In addition, the court has the discretion to allow a prevailing private litigant reasonable
attorney fees and costs. In a civil action brought by an aggrieved person for a
discriminatory housing practice, the court may award the plaintiff punitive damages,
notwithstanding the absence of actual loss to the plaintiff.

Because homeowner associations have an affirmative duty to make accommodations in

their policies and practices to provide physically and mentally disable residents full
enjoyment of their property, boards must properly address requests for special
treatment. Legal counsel is appropriate to evaluate the request, determine if it is
properly documented and supported and to advise concerning possible conditions for
the protection of the association and its members.

Sincerely,

Mary Bernstein

cc: Xavier Becerra, Marvin Scott California Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
HUD
DFEH

Page 8
 I Complete items '1, 2, and 3. ,d Signature A
I Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
x(',',/n,..\ /1.'f + !Y"
I Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if
1. Article Addressed to: D. ls delivery address different from item 1? E Yes
ftrr,o,"-. 5 . lN.zl\ lf YES, enter delivery address below: El No
:

Et',r(rt L9,c)l-&f,n'u 'tn t) i

2. i'l { ,'$ Lt'l

rLvufLf4u)( (t
I
,1,
* <00 lr
' til]]]ilillllilffi il ilil ililililililIilil
3. Service Type
D Adult Signaturo
trAdult Slgnaturg Restricted Delivery
Mail@
tr
tr
tr
Priority Mail Express@
Begistered MailrM
Registered Mail R€
Dplivery
9590 9402 4561 B27B 4809 91 Mail Bestricted Delivery ReceiOt for
!,,fretm
tr Collect on Delivery Morchandise
2. Article Number flransfer from service label) D Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery fl Signature ConfirmationrM
lnsured Mail E Signature Conrirmation
7816 eeqn EEou etl,3 EsI1 Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery

; PS Form 381 1, .luty zo1 5 psN 7530-02-000-so5g Domestic Return Receipt

 EXHIBIT C

B=RDTNG lw=rL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BERDING & WEIL LLP

WALNUT CREE(
.

2175 N. California Blvd.

Suite 5O0
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.838.2090
c2s.424.5592 t
January 14,2019
COSTA MESA
575 Anton Boulevard
Suite 1080 Metro Center
Costa Mesa, CA92626
714.429.0600
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL. RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. AND U.S, MAIL 714.429.0699 I

SAN DIEGO
'1660 Hotel Ckcle No.th
John L. Bernstein, lll Suite 701
San Dbgo, CA 92'103
Mary H. Hernstein
858.625.3900
John L. Bernstein lV 8s8.62s.3901 f
3416 Deenarood Terrace #1 13 WWW. BERDINaiWF lL C Orlri
Fremont, CA 94536

Re: Meadow Brook Village Association-Fremont

Notice of Delinquent Assessment
3416 Deerwood Terrace #113
APN No. 501-1816-269

Dear Owner(s):

Please find enclosed a copy of the Notice of Delinquent Assessment (lien) recorded against
your property in the Meadow Brook Village Association-Fremont. This lien was recorded by your
Association, in accordance with state law, because assessments and related expenses are delinquent.
State law requires that you be provide with a copy of the lien. The total of delinquent assessments and
expenses you owed as of the date of the lien was $33625.77 as noted on the face of the lien. This
amount does not include any assessments, costs, fees, or interest which may accrue after the lien was
recorded.

lf you have any questions concerning this matter, please direct them to the Meadow Brook
Village Association-Fremont Board of Directors.

Very truly yours,

BERDING & WEIL LLP

Andrea L. O'Toole

ALO:drs
Enclosure
cc: Board of Directors, Meadow Brook Village Association-Fremont
4044-151975982

Please note that we are attempting to collect a debt and any information obtained will be
used for that purpose. We will assume the debt to be valid unless, within thirty (30) days after

PLEASE REPLY TO OUR WALNUT CREEK OFFICE