Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

Central Division

Glenn Warren,

Plaintiff,

Vs.

Marie Dion;

Defendant

Case No. UC314047

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Mr. and Mrs. Glenn Warren who live in Ecuador are the owners of my rental property located at 227 27^th Street, Del Mar.

On September 25^th 2003 when I entered into a lease agreement with them, Ms. Lori Goetz of Stubbs Realty in Del Mar held herself out to be their agent and trusted expert to negotiate faithfully on their behalf with signing authority.

The statement [Exhibit A] from the Warrens’ lawyers to my lawyer in a letter dated October 15^th 2004 concerning the policies of Dave Stubbs Realty;

“The regular course of business for Dave Stubbs Real Estate is to have a prospective tenant review and sign a lease, and then to present the lease to the property owner”

is not stipulated in any documents including Stubbs’ website.

Now the Warrens are using Ms. Goetz and Stubbs Realty to shield themselves suggesting that Ms. Goetz did not have the authority one generally expects in a principal-agent relationship. This “back and forth” providing me the tenant with little or no protection.

It is not so much what has been stated in “black and white” but the timing of their fraudulent actions that speak volume.

Besides for the damage to my reputation the losers in all of this are the silent honest hard working tenants, such money grabbing actions contributing to nothing short of a real estate inflationary bidding war.

This landlord-tenant lawsuit is in my view all about money.

It might be irrelevant to the court to know that this property has increased significantly in value over the past year perhaps to the point where the owners, the Warrens, see the benefit in selling before the market implodes given the strong signs of weakness in the economy but I think it is what motivates their aggressive actions.

The question before the court is whether or not I have a valid option to renew my residential lease for one year, paragraph 40, page 5 of lease agreement dated 09/25/2003;

OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS; SUPPLEMENTS:... TENANT CAN EXTEND SAID LEASE AT THE SAME RATE FOR ANOTHER YEAR IN WRITING BY 9/1/2004

The lease documents as well as the “back and forth” email communications between myself and Ms. Lori Goetz speak for themselves and in my view doesn’t require thousands of dollars to review by lawyers who are just trying to milk this clear cut case.

Mr. Passante Esq. of Martin & Passante, breached my attorney-client privilege when he failed to forward a specific email to the Warrens regarding my position and settlement demands, my goal being to settle the matter as quickly as possible.

The Warrens and their agents have committed in my opinion not simply fraud but malicious fraud in this outrageous prosecution.

The Warrens have rented this property for many years, coming in, according to Ms. Goetz, once a year to review matters and walk through their property. Ms. Goetz made me aware that they had made such a visit in the summer prior to renting me the property.

Common sense would indicate that common questions such as options to renew a lease were covered well before I came into the picture.

Knowing therefore that the Warrens did not want an option there should have never been a case of removing the option language, the timing of the 2 contracts, the question of one containing the lease option and one without, leads to when did Ms. Goetz have this discussion with the Warrens, and if there were any questions about the lease option why wasn’t I made aware of such matters in writing to mention in passing that both contracts are dated September 25^th 2003.

Being out of the country there was no way for the Warrens to sign this contract on September 25^th 2003 and since they did in fact sign the documents on a different date Ms. Goetz should have sent me the contract with the Warrens’ dated signatures and their refusal to the renewal option in a timely manner, within 3 days of my signing; phones, E-mail and fax are available in Ecuador.

Ms. Goetz also showed further culpability back on August 4^th in asking me to fax her a copy of my lease [Exhibit B] maybe in the hopes that I would have lost such an all important document to mention little of her response on August 11^th [Exhibit C], “The lease you faxed is not the one signed by both you and the owner” leads one to believe that the owners were present when I signed the lease, moreover in the lease document [Exhibit D] sent to my attorney attached to the October 15^th letter there is no signature of the Warrens on the signature page, only the signature of their agent Ms. Goetz, and then again the lease document I signed with the one year option has my maiden name.

Stated in the lease contract, Paragraph 41, immediately following on page 5 my option to renew for 1 year at the same rate:

TIME OF ESSENCE: ENTIRE CONTRACT; CHANGES: Time is of the essence. All understandings between the parties are incorporated in the Agreement. Its terms are intended by the parties as a final, complete and exclusive expression of their Agreement with respect to its subject matter, and may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or contemporaneous oral agreement. If any provision of the Agreement is held to be ineffective or invalid, the remaining provisions will nevertheless be given full force and effect. Neither this Agreement nor any provision in it may be extended, amended, modified, altered or changed except in writing. The Agreement and any supplement, addendum or modification, including any copy, may be signed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same writing.

The Warrens were not present, there were no communications whatsoever with them, yet again in their lawyer’s letter dated October 15^th to Mr. Passante Esq.,

“the property owners Glenn and Randy Warren would not agree to sign the lease because they did not wish for any prospective tenant to have an option”.

The name used on all the original pages of my contract including page 5 containing the one year option and page 6 the final signature page is Marie “Vion” [sic] whereas on what the plaintiffs refer to as the final contract there is only Marie “Vion” [sic] on page 6 the signature page, on all the other pages it is Marie Stewart.

The suggestion that I “fraudulently” attached the page containing my one year option is an attack on my reputation and defies all logic.

The reason for the 2 contracts is that Ms. Goetz in reviewing the lease document with me realized she had forgotten the lease option I requested to make this deal fly. An honest mistake I thought at the time. She then printed out a second copy and to my request used my maiden name to replace my former married name.

I would never have signed a contract without a year option and Ms. Goetz assured me this would not be an issue. She had plenty of time between the 25^th of September and October 1^st to communicate any disagreement from the Warrens.

I have put thousands of dollars in to fixing the place which was in need of more than tender-loving-care, there was significant deferred maintenance, plumbing, electrical, paint, I could go on about what still needs to be done, but more importantly I would never have spent the money as well as displaced my kids for one year.

Such outrageous misconduct, abuse of the legal system, is again more than simply malicious prosecution.

From the beginning the house was in neglect and dealing with Ms. Goetz (Warrens) has been difficult.

I have two minor children who I am trying to raise with a value system based exclusively on the truth and for them to have been subjected to such vile acts by reckless individuals fixated on grabbing more money than what was bargained for must surely be spelled out in a manner my kids and their peers can understand.

As I told my former attorney I am prepared to tell the truth and that should be sufficient, if it is not then I am glad I didn’t invest any more money and emotion in this case and the legal system.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraudulent business practice – Plaintiffs engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrated persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on a business.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

The acts and practices of the Plaintiffs alleged herein violated the General Business Law, in that they involved the use or employment of a fraud, deception, concealment, suppression, or false pretense, engaged in to induce or promote Marie Dion to enter into a lease they had no intentions of honoring.

I am seeking unspecified damages from this court to compensate me for my out of pocket expenses of approximately $10,000 and for egregious acts of malicious fraud perpetrated by Warrens et al.

_________________ __________________

Marie Dion Date